Compulsive Com. George Zinkhan

7312019 Compulsive Com George Zinkhan

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullcompulsive-com-george-zinkhan 117

Compulsive comorbidityand its psychologicalantecedents a

cross-culturalcomparison between theUS and South Korea

Hyokjin Kwak

George M Zinkhan and

Elizabeth P Lester Roushanzamir

The authors

Hyokjin Kwak is based in the Department of Marketing LeBow

College of Business Drexel University Philadelphia USAGeorge M Zinkhan is Coca-Cola Company Professor of Marketing Department of Marketing Terry College of Business

University of Georgia Georgia USAElizabeth P Lester Roushanzamir is based in the Department

of Advertising Grady College of Journalism and MassCommunication The University of Georgia Georgia USA

Keywords

Consumer behaviour Personalities United States of AmericaSouth Korea

AbstractCompulsion to buy is an important but neglected aspect of

consumer behavior This research uses cross-cultural data fromthe USA and South Korea to study compulsive consumption

behavior by focusing on individual factors Three compulsiveconsumption behaviors (ie compulsive buying compulsive

substance abuse and compulsive gamblinglottery play) areanalyzed via structural equation modeling The findings reveal

that comorbidity (ie coexistence of more than two relatedcompulsive consumption behaviors) is found in both countriesWith one exception the predicted personality traits (ie

obsessive thoughts risk-taking tendencies) are significantlyrelated to compulsive consumption behaviors in both countries

Electronic accessThe Emerald Research Register for this journal is

available atwwwemeraldinsightcomresearchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal isavailable at

wwwemeraldinsightcom0736-3761htm

An executive summary for managers and

executive readers can be found at the end of

this article

Introduction

Once a compulsive gambler and now a

counselor for those suffering the compulsionWexler first bet at age 7 He flipped baseball cards

with his buddies In time gambling came to own

him he made love to his wife while listening for

scores from a radio under the bed Before he could

quit he owed three yearsrsquo salary $30000 He

thought of suicide One night when his wife

feared a miscarriage he put her in the

car for an emergency run to the hospital

ldquoI was praying to God let her dierdquo

(Sporting News 1995)

Since the late 1980s social scientists have become

increasingly interested in studying compulsive

buying The ldquoBaby Busterrdquo category of

consumers which represents 44 million American

consumers (the 17 percent of the US population

born between 1965 and 1976) suffers

disproportionately from compulsive buying

(Hunt 1996) Consumer researchers attentive to

compulsive buying behavior have refined related

concepts explained the origins and causes of these

negative behaviors and assessed the personal and

social effects (drsquoAstous 1990 Faber and

OrsquoGuinn 1989 1992 Faber et al 1987 Hanley

and Wilhelm 1992 Hassay and Smith 1996

Kwak et al 2002a Lyi et al 1997a Scherhorn

et al 1990 Valence et al 1988)

Results from previous studies suggest that manycompulsive buyers simultaneously exhibit other

compulsive behaviors a phenomenon which has

been labeled ldquocomorbidityrdquo in psychiatry (Faber

et al 1995 McElroy et al 1991 Valence et al

1988) Several authors have articulated the need

for broader investigations to account for multiple

forms of compulsive or addictive consumption

(Faber et al 1995 Hirschman 1992) The

present study examines commonalities among

compulsive buying behavior compulsive alcohol

drug use and compulsive gamblinglottery play

In conjunction with the possibility of a form of

compulsive comorbidity we also investigate twopsychological traits as possible antecedents to

predict those compulsive consumption behaviors

obsessive thoughts and risk-taking tendency

These two variables may prove fruitful in terms of

understanding several compulsive consumption

behaviors For example obsessive thoughts have

become recognized as a popular component of

general compulsion (ie obsessive-compulsive

disorder (OCD)) in psychiatry literature

However this trait has been rarely introduced in

the marketing literature

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 21 middot Number 6 middot 2004 middot pp 418ndash434

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited middot ISSN 0736-3761

DOI 10110807363760410558681

418





Compulsive gamblinglottery playing

Late 20th century society is a materialistic one in

which dreams of achieving sudden opulence are

encouraged by many factors Gambling is touted

as one easy way to make the dreams come true

Concomitantly there has been a remarkable

change in social attitudes toward gambling which

had formerly carried the stigma of violence

greed and corruption (Kaplan 1989) Now

state-sponsored lotteries abound Gambling tips

advice and skillful gamblersrsquo debates are delivered

through mass media Occasionally a big win of several million dollars occupies the headlines of

national and even international news

Furthermore in the name of the public good

state governments advertise their lotteries through

television commercials (including during prime

time) and other media to encourage audience

participation According to International Gaming

Wagering Business the 38 states with lotteries

budgeted approximately $200 million for

state-lottery advertising in 1998 private casino

advertising enjoys a protected status in some states

(Teinowitz 1999) Most states have legalized

gambling in order to generate revenues(Christiansen 1987 Kaplan 1989) Increased

legalization (supply) causes greater accessibility

(demand) and consequently increasing numbers

of pathological gamblers who are stimulated by the

aggressive marketing (Rosenthal 1993)

Recently it has been estimated that 5 to 10

million people in the US (approximately 2 percent

of the population) are compulsive gamblers

Further an additional 3 percent of the population

are identified as problem gamblers ( Jacobs 1989

Volberg and Steadman 1989)

Why do people gamble Social gambling has long

been a source of entertainment The origins of

gambling can be dated to 3000 BC when Egyptian

astragals the early bone precursors of dice were

used to predict the future (Dickerson 1984) For

most people gambling is one-time fun a socially

acceptable recreational act However for others

gambling becomes all-consuming and may result

in personal and even family destruction The many

forms of gambling from flipping a coin to more

involved games such as lotteries casinos

off-course betting poker machines bingo sports

pools etc have changed the way people gambleand think about gambling

Recently the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) refers to

compulsive gambling as ldquochronic and progressive

failure to resist impulses to gamble and gambling

behavior that compromises disrupts or damages

personal family or vocational pursuits

Characteristic problems include extensive

indebtedness and consequent default on debts and

other financial responsibilities disrupted family

relationships inattention to work and financially

motivated illegal activities to pay for gamblingrdquo

(American Psychiatric Association 1994pp 615-8) Researchers examining gamblers who

bet habitually and lose heavily have variously

labeled problem gamblers as pathological (Abbott

et al 1995 Moran 1970 Skinner 1953)

compulsive (Bergler 1957 Johnson et al 1992

Peck 1986) and addicts ( Jacobs 1986 Koller

1972)

Compulsive drugalcohol use

According to results based on the epidemiological

study of the National Institute of Mental Health

Figure 1 Overall conceptual model

Compulsive comorbidity and its psychological antecedents

Hyokjin Kwak George M Zinkhan and Elizabeth P Lester Roushanzamir


Volume 21 middot Number 6 middot 2004 middot 418ndash434

420



nearly 20 percent (about 48 million people) of the

general US population were identified as having

problems of psychoactive substance use at some

point during their life time (Regier et al 1990)

Teenagers are a major demographic group who

exhibit drug abuse According to the National

Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (1990)

alcohol is the number one drug of choice amongAmerican teens

Based on findings derived from studying

patients admitted to alcoholism facilities Wallace

(1996) notes that chronic consumers of large

quantities of alcohol suffer from depression

anxiety anger low frustration tolerance serious

deficiencies in self-esteem and identity problems

The uncomfortable status pertaining to these

psychological problems increases the likelihood of

more advanced drug-seeking behavior and

consumption which in turn leads to personal

destruction in extreme cases (eg suicidal thinking

and suicide attempts) (Hirschman 1992Nowinski 1996 Wallace 1996) Researchers note

that impaired controls such as poor impulse

control and weakly controlled anger are common

characteristics among drug and alcohol abusers

(Wallace 1996)

Both classical and operant conditioning theories

have been widely used to explain why people abuse

drugs (Winger et al 1992) Classical conditioning

theory focuses on changes in the autonomic

nervous system eg bodily functions that respond

beyond our direct control to a stimulus Based on

this perspective Pearlman (1988) notes that

people may abuse drugs and alcohol to orientthemselves to a group that includes drug abusers

or drug and alcohol abuse may function to

maintain the group Consequently it is not

surprising to note that marketing efforts related to

addictive products such as beer and cigarettes have

been aimed at specific social and cultural groups

According to Heath (1988) alcoholism can be

explained from an anthropological perspective

A populationrsquos beliefs attitudes and values

regarding the political economic social and

psychological outcomes of alcohol consumption

are determinants related to alcohol-consumption

behavior In other words drug-related problems

occur when a person does not follow the

populationrsquos norms of drug use and the personrsquos

abnormal behavior may be caused by the amount

of depression produced by the populationrsquos

requirement for conformity to the norms

( Winger et al 1992)

Comorbidity

Consumers who demonstrate one of the negative

behaviors described here may be more likely to

engage in other compulsive consumption

behaviors at the same time Compulsive buyers are

frequently caught up in an irresistible pursuit of

buying things in order to release themselves from

an internally unstable status to alleviate their

discomfort and feelings of self-loathing They may

also turn to binge eating drugs alcohol or

gambling in search of similar reinforcement These

behaviors feel like ideal companions for

compulsive buyers However the short-term

gratifications derived from compulsive buying

never satisfy the internal emptiness therefore

compulsive buyers increasingly search for more

powerful reinforcers

Psychiatrists have found that approximately

30-50 percent of individuals receiving inpatient

treatment for compulsive gambling meet

diagnostic criteria for alcohol or drug abuse

(Ramirez et al 1983) Also heavier lottery playing

has been linked with compulsive buying behavior

(Burns et al 1990) The recognition of the

dually-addicted or cross-addicted phenomenonhas led researchers in psychiatry psychology and

marketing to investigate comorbidity Comorbidity

research has identified intractable psychological

and behavioral problems in compulsive subjects

For example those who habitually use drugs may

participate in another substance use

simultaneously These carryover effects are

frequently noted for instance most alcoholics

smoke and heroin users are also likely to use a

wide variety of drugs including alcohol (Winger

et al 1992) Regier et al (1990) report that those

who suffer from a psychiatric disorder incur twice

the risk of developing a drinking problem and fourtimes the risk of a drug problem compared to the

general population

Another sociological factor triggering

compulsive consumption behaviors is family

structure Past decades have witnessed dramatic

increases of emotionally distressed and

economically undermined conditions in family

structures divorce remarriage cohabitation and

single-parent families (Abbott et al 1995

Cherlin 1992) Typically there has been parental

absence or neglect in the childhood family

surrounding of compulsive buyers gamblers and

drug users (Abbott et al 1995 drsquoAstous 1990drsquoAstous et al 1990 Franklin and Thomas 1989

Rindfleisch et al 1997) Franklin and Thomas

(1989) also argue that many children of

pathological gamblers start smoking drinking or

experimenting with drugs at an early age Parentsrsquo

compulsive buying tendency and alcoholism were

also found to be related to their offspringrsquos

compulsive buying tendency (drsquoAstous et al

1990) Thus consumers raised in such an

environment may be at risk for developing

compulsive consumption behaviors





421







behaviors buying drug use and gambling

(Figure 1)

[MODEL 2]

H2 Consumers who have obsessive thoughts

(about fears of perfectionism

contamination causing harm to others or

socially unacceptable behavior) are likely to

engage in compulsive buying tendenciescompulsive gamblinglottery behaviors and

compulsive drugalcohol use simultaneously

in both the US and Korea (see pictorial

representation in Figure 3)

Risk-taking propensity

The concept of risk is important for understanding

how consumers make choices Reflecting the

importance of risk in a variety of contexts there are

a number of different and competing definitions

and operationalizations of the concept Sitkin and

Pablo (1992) suggest that risk is a concept that can

be applied to two different kinds of ldquounitsrdquo First

situations or problems can be rated as less or more

risky (Dowling 1986) Second persons can be

distinguished by their preferences or attitudes

toward risk (Bromiley and Curley 1992 Zinkhan

and Karande 1991)

Individuals face risk when a decision action or

behavior leads to different possible outcomes

(Bem 1980) In other words when an individualrsquos

action produces social and economic

consequences that cannot be estimated with

certainty risk is encountered (Zinkhan and

Karande 1991) Risk-taking personality has been

extensively investigated in the area of compulsive

behavior research Campbell (1976) conducted an

assessment of general attitude toward gamblers

with the Strong Vocational Interest Blank

The author asked a sample of the general

population to answer the question ldquoWho wants tobe a professional gamblerrdquo Vocations that highly

and positively correlated with ldquobe a professional

gamblerrdquo were an auto racer a jet pilot bandits in a sheriffrsquos office poker player a professional athlete and a secret service agent

Just as men are more likely to gamble the

respondents perceived gambling as a masculine

active It is important to note that both gamblers

and other types of employments associated with

gamblers can be positioned as high-risk jobs

West (1989) argues that the most common view

of motivation is that people do things because they

assume the ldquodoingrdquo is better than not doing

people anticipate the usefulness of future courses

of action In this respect the perceived

consequences of a behavior are among the

motivational factors in decision-making processes

This approach has been labeled as subjective

expected utility model (SEU) The SEU model

Figure 3 Findings for psychological antecedents for compulsive consumptions ndash Model 2 (H2 H3 )





424



assumes that people make decisions by first

imagining the outcome ldquoas ifrdquo they had already

made the decision Using that model Kogan and

Wallach (1967) showed a 50-70 percent success

rate in laboratory studies examining the prediction

of choice between two outcomes Furthermore

the authors maintain that choices might be better

explained when it is understood that ldquoriskrdquo differs

from person to person

Another important aspect of risk is uncertainty

or ambiguity Uncertainty is generally related to

variability in the distribution of potential

outcomes The greater the variance the more

different possible outcomes exist and the less

probable each outcome becomes With many

outcomes it is difficult to predict which outcome

will actually occur The probability of occurrence

of extreme outcomes (eg death in the loss domain

or winning the major lottery prize in the gains

domain) affects the assessed risk of a situation

Elsberg (1961) however provided critical

evidence against the SEU through the so-called

ldquoEllsberg Paradoxrdquo He found that people when

asked to bet on the event that a red or black ball

will be drawn from an urn containing both red and

black balls prefer an urn with 50 red balls and

50 black balls to one with an unknown proportion

of red and black balls One interpretation of this

result is that individualsrsquo psychological (in)

tolerance of ambiguity will affect their inclination

to prefer a gamble with known probabilities to an

ambiguous gamble (Sherman 1974)

A common phenomenon for compulsiveconsumers is their unusually low arousal to an

optimum level Zuckerman (1983) reports that

sensation seekers appraise risk to be less and they

anticipate arousal as more positive than a control

group Sensation seekers are likely to experience or

engage in drug abuse risky sports anxiety

impulsiveness compulsive buying tendency and

gambling (Coventry and Brown 1993 Lyi et al

1997b Rook and Fisher 1995 Zuckerman

1983) Further using the Choice Dilemma

Questionnaire which measures risk-taking

inclinations Kogan and Wallach (1964) studied

the effects of motivational determinants on anumber of psychological constructs including risk

taking Their underlying motivational model

included two moderator variables defensiveness

and test anxiety (both high and low) They found

that subjects high on both defensiveness and

anxiety tended to show greater regularity on risk

taking across situations Thus based on the

literature review we hypothesize that compulsive

consumption behaviors are enhanced by an

individualrsquos risk-taking personality in order to

release anxiety and depression (Figure 1)

[MODEL 2]

H3 Consumers with risk-taking personalities

are likely to engage in compulsive buying

behavior compulsive gamblinglottery

behavior and compulsive drugalcohol use

simultaneously in both the US and Korea

(see pictorial representation in Figure 3)

Method

Sample

Questionnaires were simultaneously administered

in the US and Korea Questions regarding

consumersrsquo compulsive consumption behaviors

compulsive buying intention and related

normative beliefs and risk-taking personality were

included with demographic variables in the

questionnaire A convenience sample of 252

individuals was gathered using undergraduate

business students at an American university in the

southeast In Seoul Korea 232 journalism and

business undergraduate students formed the

convenience sample The questionnaires were

administered to both student samples during their

normal class times After eliminating incomplete

surveys there were 242 respondents in the US

(96 percent 242252) and 201 respondents in

Korea (87 percent 201232) We believe that

students are acceptable in our study for several

reasons First college students have general

purchase knowledge and shopping experience

(Cole and Sherrell 1995) and sometimes engage

in excessive shopping behaviors (eg in terms of

credit card use) (drsquoAstous et al 1990) Secondcompulsive buying phenomena for college

students seem to be roughly equivalent to general

consumers For example Roberts and Jones

(2001) concluded that 9 percent of their student

sample were compulsive buyers about the same as

the ldquoless than ten percentrdquo of the general consumer

sample that have been reported elsewhere (Faber

and OrsquoGuinn 1992) Thirdly many studies have

utilized student samples in investigating

compulsive buying behavior (Cole and Sherrell

1995 drsquoAstous et al 1990 Roberts 1998

Roberts and Jones 2001 Roberts and Sepulveda

1999)

Measures

The hypotheses are tested using structural

equation modeling (SEM) Reliable instruments

are highly recommended in pursuing SEM Thus

several steps of item purification are conducted

before testing the main conceptual models

The scales used in the present study were initially

translated into Korean by the researcher Using

back-translation the precision of the translation

was reviewed and revised two times by three other





425



Korean bilingual scholars of advertising

psychology and marketing who are also familiar

with English-language survey instruments

Construct correlations means standard

deviations and reliabilities throughout our

measures are reported in Table I

Compulsive buying behavior For the assessment of compulsive buying behavior

Faber and OrsquoGuinn (1992) seven-item Diagnostic

Screener for Compulsive Buying which is a Likert-

type scale with 5 points (strongly disagreestrongly

agree and neververy often) was adopted The scale

was selected for the present study since the

instrument has often been used in the field of

compulsive consumer research and has showed

good reliability (Faber and Christenson 1996

Faber and OrsquoGuinn 1992 Faber et al 1995

Kwak et al 2002b Lyi et al 1997b Rindfleisch

et al 1997) The items showed acceptable

reliability coefficients of 075 for the US and 074for Korea High scores on the scales show higher

consumer tendencies on compulsive buying

Risk-taking personality

Kogan and Wallach (1964) scale was included to

measure consumersrsquo risk taking as a personality

variable via a projective technique and a

twelve-item 6-point scale (the Choice Dilemma

Questionnaire) This scale has been widely used in

marketing and psychology (Brockhaus 1980

Hensley 1977 Kogan and Wallach 1964

Schaninger 1976 Wallach and Kogan 1959

1961 Zinkhan and Karande 1991) An updated

version of the scale was adopted This version has

been designed

(1) to update the scale to the 1990s and

(2) to make it appropriate for cross-cultural

research (Zinkhan and Karande 1991)

An example of one of the items is presented in

Appendix Acceptable reliability coefficients were

obtained 068 for the US and 088 for Korea

Higher scores on the measurement indicate

stronger risk-taking propensities

Pilot study

A pilot study was conducted for the following

scales in order to purify the items obsessive

thoughts compulsive gambling and compulsive

drug abuse In order to measure consumersrsquo

obsessive thoughts a 4-item scale was formulated

based on the extant literature (Appendix)

The items represented four facets of obsessions

(1) fear of contamination

(2) fear of causing harm to another

(3) fear of making a mistake and

(4) fear for behaving in a socially unacceptable

manner

It was constructed with a five-point Likert-type

scale (NeverVery Often)

As for compulsive gambling and drug abuse

scales adopted in the study they have not been

frequently used in the marketing literature

Gamblers Anonymous offers a 20-item self-

diagnosis scale for identifying compulsive gambling(Gamblers Anoymous 1999) Here we modified

the instrument to create a 5-point Likert-type scale

(neververy often) Because of the nature of the

subjects (members of academic communities) and

their relative inaccessibility to gambling facilities

coupled with the current dramatic increase in

lottery play ldquolotteryrdquo was added as one of the

gambling behaviors (eg ldquoHave you ever felt

remorse after gambling or playing the lotteryrdquo)

Johns Hopkins Hospitalrsquos 19-item Alcohol

Drug Addiction scale for self-diagnosis was

adopted to assess subjectsrsquo compulsive drug use

tendency ( Johns Hopkins Hospital 1999) It hasbeen developed to identify an individualrsquos

substance abuse A ldquoyesrdquo to three or more

questions indicates that abuse or addiction is

present and corrective steps need to be taken The

scale was modified by creating 5-point Likert-type

items (neververy often)

A convenience sample of 73 individuals was

gathered using both university students and

residents in a southern area in the US The sample

included 21 undergraduate psychology students

Table I Construct correlations means standard deviations and reliabilities

The US1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD Alpha

Korea 1 Obsessive thoughts 100 003 016 023 016 204 062 067

2 Risk-taking propensity 059 100 016 014 008 417 109 068

3 Compulsive buying 054 057 100 030 010 207 063 075

4 Compulsive drug abuse 046 055 049 100 032 126 032 088

5 Compulsive gambling 029 032 026 048 100 126 041 087

Mean 196 381 189 150 130

SD 068 160 065 041 040

Alpha 072 088 074 086 083

Note Descriptions for the US sample are above the diagonal whereas descriptions for the Korean sample are below the diagonal





426



16 undergraduate journalism students 20

graduate journalism and business students and 16

area residents Following the analysis all four

items of Obsessive thoughts were maintained

owing to their item-total correlation range from

039 to 061 with adequate reliability (coefficient

a frac14 067) However two items for Compulsive

AlcoholDrug and eight items for CompulsiveGambling were deleted since item-total

correlations of the items eliminated were below

035 These two measures demonstrate strong

internal consistency with a coefficienta of 090 for

CAD and 091 for CGA Thus 4-item Obsessive

Thoughts 12-item Compulsive Gambling and

17-item Compulsive AlcoholDrug were retained

for our main questionnaire survey

Obsessive thoughts After the pilot study all four

items for both countries generated a

unidimensional construct Cronbachrsquos a was 067

for the US version and 072 for the Korean

version Higher scores on the scale indicate higherdegree of obsessive thoughts

Compulsive gambling behavior All 12 items

produced by the pilot study were subjected to a

reliability test with the main data Acceptable

reliability coefficient was achieved in the US (087)

and Korea (083) Higher scores on the measure

mean higher tendency to engage in compulsive

gambling

Compulsive alcoholdrug use As a result of the

pilot study 17 items were retained for the scale

Reliability of the scale was acceptable with a of

086 for Korea and 088 for the US Higher scores

on the scale indicate higher degree of compulsiveconsumption in drug and alcohol

Analysis and results

All SEM analyses in the present study are

performed using covariance matrices In evaluating

model fit the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the

comparative fit index (CFI) with the traditional

measure of model fit chi-square fit index are

considered Given the fact that chi-square test

statistic is very sensitive to multivariate normality

and sufficiently large sample size and producesinstable results with the violation of such a basic

assumption researchers have been generally

advised to use another fit indices (Gerbing and

Anderson 1993 Jaccard and Wan 1996) In

addition to statistical evaluation of fit using chi-

square value GFI and CFI over 090 will be

considered as criterion for the good fit and these

indices have been found to be well-behaved

criterion even in small sample situation (Bentler

1990 Jaccard and Wan 1996) In constructing

measurement models the partial disaggregation

approach (Bagozzi and Heatherton 1994) was

adopted In other words each construct was

reorganized to possess three indicators in the same

way across the two countries (see Figures 2 and 3)

For example the latent variable of risk-taking

propensity has three indicators X 4 X 5 and X 6

which are the sums of 4 items each randomly

coming from the 12 items originally designated tomeasure the construct Same items were used to

generate new summated items for the entire latent

variables in the two countries

Evaluating cross-cultural measurement

invariance

Research findings show that a cross-cultural

measurement invariance test is needed to support

outcomes when cross-national data are used (Hui

and Triandis 1985 Joreskog and Sorbom 1996

Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998) As clearly

stated by Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998)

ldquoIf evidence supporting a measurersquos invariance is

lacking conclusions based on that scale are at best

ambiguous and at worst erroneousrdquo Steenkamp

and Baumgartner (1998) indicate that full or

partial metric invariance should be obtained for a

cross-cultural comparison We basically

investigated two issues

(1) if the number of designated factors is

invariant and

(2) if the pattern of factor loadings is invariant

Thus we first conducted a series of full-metric

equivalence tests throughout our 5 scales That is

two nested models (ie baseline model versus

constrained model) were evaluated for each

construct separately using Chi-square differences

Baseline model allowed all error and factor loading

estimates to be free and construct variance (f )

was constrained to be equal across the two samples

since all our construct have three indicators and

one of them was used as a reference indicators

across the two groups In the constrained model

parameter estimates for the remaining factor

loadings were constrained to be equal across the

two samples

First as provided in Table II all baseline models

show acceptable model fit indices (eg over 090 in

both GFI and CFI) and three of the scales (ie

obsessive thoughts compulsive buying

compulsive drug abuse) suggesting that all

constructs are most appropriately explained by a

unidimensional model for both countries Second

a series of comparison of baseline models with

constrained models (full metric invariance tests)

reveal that all constructs except Risk-Taking

Propensity operate in the same way for both

countries Partial metric invariance was conducted

for risk-taking tendency by sequentially releasing

equality constraints on lambda estimates After all





427



we find significant Chi-square difference

(Dx 2 frac14 421 with 1 degree of freedom p 005)

However we suggest that the construct of

risk-taking tendency is marginally operating in the

same way through the two countries based on GFI

(0967) and CFI (0946) Overall a series of full

and partial metric invariance tests suggest that all

the five scales have the same metric properties and

that future findings based on these scales between

these two countries are valid and reliable

Evaluating hypothesized relationships

Before testing structural models we investigated

psychometric properties of measurement models

in Model 1 and Model 1 First as discussed earlier

our measures are unidimensional across the two

countries (ie evidences from cross-cultural metric

invariance) and acceptable reliability scores

Convergent validity was obtained by all lambda

coefficients being large enough (0

60) andsignificant ( p 005) through the two cultures

Correlations among the latent constructs were

significantly less than one in the two countries

supporting discriminant validity of our

measurement models

Comorbidity in compulsive consumption

behavior (Model 1)

H1 specifies that the three types of compulsive

behavior are linked compulsive buying behavior

compulsive gambling and compulsive drug use

Using hierarchical factor analysis a higher order

factor was generated to represent generalcompulsive consumption behavior (Figure 2)

Overall goodness-of-fit indices indicatedthat the

hypothesized second-order factor model fitted the

data well across the countries suggesting that the

comorbidity construct is most appropriately

explained by such a higher order model For the

Korean model the chi-square value was 4447 (24

p 005) and GFI and CFI were 0953 and 0970

respectively For the US the model could not be

rejected x 2eth24THORN frac14 6423 p 005 GFI frac14 0944

CFI frac14 0956 The ratio of the contribution to

compulsive comorbidity among compulsive

buying compulsive drug use and compulsive

gambling was 321031 for the US model and 48

1044 indicating thatcompulsive drug and alcohol

consumption shares the largest amount to account

for general compulsive consumption behavior for

both countries and all gammas are significant

eth p 005THORN Thus H1 is supported in both

countries (Figure 2)

In order to make the results of H1 more

concrete a cross validation of the second-order

factor model was performed In doing so the

model was re-specified as a two-group (the US and

Korea) model and no equality constraints were

imposed (baseline model) Overall goodness-of-fit

indices for this multigrain model generated an

acceptable fit to the data x 2eth48THORN frac14 108698

p 005 GFI frac14 0944 CFI frac14 0962 This result

suggests that our hierarchical model (Model 1) is

operating in both countries and provides a good

summary of the data As a second test a nestedmodel (within Model 1) was generated to see if

there is a structural invariance between the two

cultures In other words all factor loadings and

structural coefficients were constrained to be equal

through the two countries The Dx 2 (9 12892)

between the baseline model and the constrained

model was not significant eth p 005THORN Thus we are

confident that our findings for H1 are

generalizable between the two samples

The summary of the cross-cultural structural

invariance tests is provided in Table III

Psychological antecedents to compulsive

consumptions (Model 2)

As specified in H2 and H3 consumersrsquo compulsive

consumption behaviors are influenced by

personality traits such as obsessive thoughts and

risk-taking tendencies These hypotheses and

findings are represented graphically in Figure 3

The model fit was acceptable and all lambdas

are significant and large for both countries for the

US x 2eth84THORN frac14 14562 p 005 GFI frac14 0925

CFI frac14 0942 and for Korea x 2eth84THORN frac14 21088

p 005 GFI frac14 0877 CFI frac14 0889 Regarding

Table II Cross-cultural metric invariance tests

Baseline Model Constrained Modela

x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Obsessive thoughts 1929 1 0997 0995 2907 3 0996 1000 0978 2

Risk-taking propensity 22837 1 0960 0955 39112 3 0938 0921 16275 2

27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1

Compulsive buying 0548 1 0999 1000 2003 3 0998 1000 1455 2Compulsive drug abuse 0867 1 0999 1000 5605 3 0994 0995 4738 2

Compulsive gambling 4873 1 0994 0994 7301 3 0992 0993 2428 2

Notessignificant at p 005 GFI (goodness of fit index) CFI (comparative fit index) aFull matrix tests are conducted except thesecond constrained model for ldquorisk-taking propensity (partial metric test)rdquo





428



the impact of consumersrsquo obsessive thoughts (H2)

all hypothesized relationships were statistically

supported for both nations eth p 005THORN Finally the

results indicate that the impact of consumersrsquo risk-

taking personalities (H3) was all positively and

significantly linked to those three types of

compulsive consumptions for both countries with

the exception of the influence on compulsive drug

abuse for US respondents (g 32 frac14 016 t frac14 193)

(Figure 3) Thus the overall results support the

hypothesis that consumersrsquo obsessive thoughts and

risk-taking tendencies have an impact on


Again we performed some additional tests to

cross validate Model 2 (Table III) Our baseline

model (no constrained model) fit the data well

x 2eth168THORN frac14 356504 p 005 GFI frac14 0925

CFI frac14 0916 In generating a constrained model

we put equal constraints in all factor loadings and

structural coefficients except the path coefficient

between risk-taking propensity and compulsive

gambling since the relationship was significant in

Korea whereas it was nonsignificant in the US

As a result we obtained nonsignificant Dx 2

(15 21527) These outcomes from a series of

cross-national structural invariance tests suggest

that our Model 2 and H2H3 are tested in the same

structural environments across the two countries

Summary results of our hypothesis testing are

shown in Table IV

Discussion

Using cross-cultural data from the US and Koreathe topic of compulsive consumers was explored

As hypothesized the comorbidity of some

compulsive consumption behaviors was found

among college students in both cultures

Consumers who exhibit one compulsive

consumption behavior tend to develop others

conterminously One noteworthy outcome of the

present study compared to previous research

testing comorbidity is the investigation of the

behavioral commonalities between compulsive

buying compulsive substance abuse and

compulsive gambling The results suggest that

compulsive consumers might commonly

experience at least two other dysfunctional

behaviors simultaneously

The findings show that people may even

experience a wide variety of compulsions

simultaneously For instance most purchased

products even clearly unnecessary ones can serve

as positive rewards or reinforcers for compulsive

buyers and thus strengthen a long (or

never-ending) spiral of compulsive behavior

However abnormal buying behaviors also provoke

feelings of guilt These abnormal behaviors which

initially serve as tranquilizers or even as solutions

for social unease lead to potentially worse

pathologies The findings of this study support the

contention that the psychological origins of

compulsive buying and gambling behaviors and

the physiological origins of compulsive substance

abuse may coexist as indicated by the afflicted

personrsquos association of destructive behavior

outcomes with positive rewards

Having established causal relationships between

these personality traits and the compulsive

behaviors this research adds a new dimension to

our understanding Traditionally depression

anxiety and low self-esteem have been considered

to be the key psychological traits related to

compulsive behaviors That is it was postulated

that consumersrsquo obsessive thoughts and risk-taking

propensities are the personality determinants of

compulsive consumption behaviors As expected

most of the specified causal links were significant in

both cultures An exception to this pattern is found

for the link between risk-taking personality and

compulsive gambling in the US sample Regardingthe US data compulsive gambling showed strong

direct paths from these two antecedent personality

variables For the Korean sample compulsive

gambling and compulsive buying behavior were

strongly linked with consumersrsquo risk-taking

tendency and obsessive thoughts respectively

We tested four theoretical perspectives in this

paper and we found empirical support for two of

them

(1) Kogan and Wallach (1967) SEU theory and

(2) the OCD conceptual model

Table III Cross-cultural structural invariance tests

Baseline Modela Constrained Modelb

x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15

Notes None of the Chi-Square values are significant at p 005 GFI (goodness of fit index) CFI (comparative fit index) aNo

constrains are made between the two countriesb

All factor loadings and structural coefficients are constrained to be equal through thetwo countries However structural coefficient for ldquorisk-taking-propensity compulsive gambling (g 32)rdquo is not constrained to beinvariant between the two groups since the relationship is found insignificant





429



These two approaches may be especially promising

as the foundation for future research on

compulsive behavior and other related cross-

cultural phenomena Hofstedersquos (1991) theory of

cultural values was also not supported by our

results Specifically we found that the US and

Korea are similar rather than dissimilar with

respect to the cultural value of ambiguity or

uncertainty avoidance However Hofstedersquos

(1991) theory was originally created to explain

workplace values Here we find that the theory is

not applicable to a consumer behavior setting

More research is required to determine which of

Hofstedersquos dimensions (if any) are applicable to

consumer behavior and under which

circumstances

In contrast we find that compulsive behaviors

are well explained by Kogan and Wallachrsquos (1967)

SEU theory In other words compulsive

consumers may be uncertain in a compulsive

purchase situation yet they may subjectively

interpret the phenomenon as favorable and take

some risks Thus in the future it may be more

productive for researchers to look at consumersrsquo

psychological properties rather than their common

demographic profiles when investigating cross-

cultural consumer behaviors

This study also provides support for the

conceptual model (eg OCD theory) that links

obsessive thoughts with compulsive behavior and

OCDs In the two cultures we found a strong link

between obsessive thoughts and compulsive

behaviors (eg purchase substance abuse

gambling) In the future researchers may want to

focus research attention on these two conceptual

approaches which worked well here ndash SEU theoryand OCD theory

Some limitations in interpreting the results must

be noted First a student sample was used

Second the measurement properties of some of

the scales could be improved Third the analysis

presented is based on cross-sectional data which

may not capture fully the complexities of

compulsive buying patterns Future researchers

may wish to implement a longitudinal design to

study the chronic development of impulsive

control disorders Intervention strategies may also

be investigated so that researchers can begin to

develop ways to alleviate some of the dark

symptoms associated with compulsive buying

behaviors (eg family disruptions suicides)

Indeed a triangulation approach is needed for

further studies investigating these related

behaviors in detail

Another avenue for the study of compulsive

buyers arises from the ethical issues surrounding

such vulnerable consumers Marketing-related

ethics (eg promotional messages) were not the

focus of the present research nonetheless the

purchasing environment is saturated with

promotional messages For example gambling-

like promotions for a credit card read ldquo buy

anything you like and you will be automatically

entered to $10000 sweepstakes rdquo For average

consumers the impact of such messages may be

negligible However for compulsive consumers

these messages may serve as unavoidable

reinforcers encouraging even more purchases

The sheer ubiquity of promotional messages

makes these ethical considerations paramount andresearch regarding them crucial

As a group compulsive buyers are risk-takers

and doubters Their fundamental internal

contradictions lead to behaviors with negative

personal and social consequences For them

serious problems arise not necessarily from their

financial situation but from their inner poverty

Such psychological pennilessness has the potential

to push compulsive consumers into an abyss of

despair Social scientists can work to improve the

life quality of compulsive consumers by learning

more about this disorder

References

Abbott DA Cramer SL and Sherrets SD (1995)ldquoPathological gambling and the family practiceimplicationsrdquo The Journal of Contemporary Human Services Vol 76 No 4 pp 213-19

American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders AmericanPsychiatric Association Washington DC

Bagozzi RP and Heatherton TF (1994) ldquoA general approach torepresenting multifaceted personality constructs

Table IV Summary results of hypothesis testing

Model Hypothesis Key relationship The US Korea

Model 1 H1 Existence of comorbidity of compulsive behaviors Supported Supported

Model 2 H2 Obsessive thoughts compulsive buying Supported Supported

Obsessive thoughts compulsive drug use Supported Supported

Obsessive thoughts compulsive gambling Supported Supported

H3 Risk-taking propensity

compulsive buying Supported SupportedRisk-taking propensity compulsive drug use Supported Supported

Risk-taking propensity compulsive gambling Not supported Supported





430



application to state self-esteemrdquo Structural Equation Modeling Vol 1 No 1 pp 35-67

Beck AT and Freeman A (1990) Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders Guilford Press New York NY

Bem D (1980) ldquoThe concept of risk in the study of humanbehaviorrdquo in Dowie J and Lefrere P (Eds) Risk and Chance Selected Readings The Open University PressMilton Keynes pp 1-15

Bentler PM (1990) ldquoComparative fit indices in structuralmodelsrdquo Psychological Bulletin Vol 107No2 pp 238-46

Bergler E (1957) The Psychology of Gambling Hill and WangInc New York NY

Briggs JR Goodin BJ and Nelson T (1996) ldquoPathologicalgamblers and alcoholics do they share the sameaddictionsrdquo Addictive Behaviors Vol 21 No 4pp 515-19

Brockhaus RH SR (1980) ldquoRisk taking propensity of entrepreneursrdquo Academy of Management Journal Vol 23No 3 pp 509-20

Bromiley P and Curley SP (1992) ldquoIndividual differences in risktakingrdquo in Yates JF (Ed) Risk Taking Behavior WileyChichester West Sussex pp 87-132

Burns AC Gillett PL Rubinstein M and Gentry JW (1990)ldquoAn exploratory study of lottery playing gamblingaddiction and links to compulsive consumptionrdquo inGoldberg ME Gorn G and Pollary RW (Eds) Advances in Consumer Research Vol 17 Association for ConsumerResearch Provo UT pp 298-305

Campbell DP (1976) ldquoWho wants to be a professionalgamblerrdquo in Eadington WR (Ed) Gambling and Society Interdisciplinary Studies on the Subject of Gambling Thomas Springfield IL

Cherlin A (1992) Marriage Divorce Remarriage HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge MA

Christiansen EM (1987) ldquoThe 1986 US gross annual wagerrdquoGaming and Wagering Business Vol 8 No 7 pp 7-14

Cole L and Sherrell D (1995) ldquoComparing scales to measurecompulsive buying an exploration of theirdimensionalityrdquo in Corfman K and Lynch J (Eds)Advances in Consumer Research Vol 22 Association forConsumer Research Provo UT pp 419-27

Coventry KR and Brown IF (1993) ldquoSensation seeking ingamblers and non-gamblers and its relation to preferencefor gambling activities chasing arousal and loss of controlin regular gamblersrdquo in Eadington WR andCornelius JA (Eds) Gambling Behavior and Problem Gambling Institute for the Study of Gambling andCommercial Gaming College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Nevada Reno NV pp 25-50

drsquoAstous A (1990) ldquoAn inquiry into the compulsive side of normal consumersrdquo Journal of Consumer Policy Vol 13pp 15-30

drsquoAstous A Maltais J and Roberge C (1990) ldquoCompulsivebuying tendencies of adolescent consumersrdquo in GoldbergME Gorn G and Pollay RW (Eds) Advances in Consumer Research Vol 17 Association for ConsumerResearch Provo UT pp 306-12

Dickerson MG (1984) Compulsive Gamblers Longman IncNew York NY

Dowling GR (1986) ldquoPerceived risk the concept and itsmeasurementrdquo Psychology amp Marketing Vol 3 No 3pp 193-210

Elsberg D (1961) ldquoRisk ambiguity and the savage axiomsrdquoQuarterly Journal of Economics Vol 75 pp 643-69

Faber RJ (1992) ldquoMoney changes everythingrdquo American Behavioral Scientist Vol 35 No 6 pp 809-19

Faber RJ and Christenson GA (1996) ldquoIn the mood to buydifferences in the mood states experienced by compulsivebuyers and other consumersrdquo Psychology amp Marketing Vol 13 No 8 pp 803-19

Faber RJ and OrsquoGuinn TC (1988) ldquoCompulsive consumptionand credit abuserdquo Journal of Consumer Policy Vol 11No 1 pp 97-109

Faber RJ and OrsquoGuinn TC (1989) ldquoClassifying compulsive

consumers advances in the development of a diagnostictoolrdquo in Srull T (Ed) Advances in Consumer Research Vol 16 Association for Consumer Research Provo UTpp 738-44

Faber RJ and OrsquoGuinn TC (1992) ldquoA clinical screener forcompulsive buyingrdquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 19 pp 459-69

Faber RJ OrsquoGuinn TC and Krych R (1987) ldquoCompulsiveconsumptionrdquo in Wallendorf M and Anderson P (Eds)Advances in Consumer Research Association forConsumer Research Provo UT pp 132-5

Faber RJ Christenson GA Zwaan MD and Mitchell J(1995) ldquoTwo forms of compulsive consumptioncomorbidity of compulsive buying and binge eatingrdquoJournal of Consumer Research Vol 22 pp 296-304

Franklin J and Thomas DR (1989) ldquoClinical observations of family members of compulsive gamblersrdquo in Shaffer HJStein SA Gambino B and Cummings TN (Eds)Compulsive Gambling Theory Research and Practice Lexington Books Lexington MA pp 135-46

Frost RO and Shows DL (1993) ldquoThe nature andmeasurement of compulsive indecisivenessrdquo BehavioralResearch and Therapy Vol 31 No 7 pp 683-92

Gamblers Anoymous (1999) 20 Questions (GA)Gerbing DW and Anderson JC (1993) ldquoMonte Carlo

evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structuralequation modelsrdquo in Bollen KA and Long JS (Eds)Testing Structural Equation Models Sage Newbury ParkCA pp 40-65

Gowen D (1995) ldquoCompulsive gambling and the criminal

offender a treatment and supervision approachrdquo Federal Probation Vol 59 No 3 pp 36-9

Guidano V and Liotti G (1983) Cognitive Processes and Emotional Disorders A Structural Approach to Psychotherapy The Guilford Press New York NY

Hanley A and Wilhelm MS (1992) ldquoCompulsive buying anexploration into self-esteem and money attitudesrdquoJournal of Economic Psychology Vol 13 No 1 pp 5-18

Hassay DN and Smith MC (1996) ldquoCompulsive buying anexamination of the consumption motiverdquo Psychology amp Marketing Vol 13 No 8 pp 741-52

Heath DB (1988) ldquoEmerging anthropological theory andmodels of alcohole use and alcoholismrdquo in Chaudron CDand Wilkinson DA (Eds) Theories on Alcoholism Addiction Research Foundation Toronto pp 353-410

Hensley WE (1977) ldquoProbability personality age and risktakingrdquo Journal of Psychology Vol 95 pp 139-45

Hirschman EC (1992) ldquoThe consciousness of addiction towarda general theory of compulsive consumptionrdquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 19 pp 155-79

Hofstede G (1991) Cultures and Organizations McGraw-HillBook Co London

Hui CH and Triandis HC (1985) ldquoMeasurement incross-cultural psychology a review and comparison of strategiesrdquo Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Vol 16pp 131-52

Hunt A (1996) ldquoCompulsive buying studied by marketingprofessor Jim Robertsrdquo Baylor Business Review Vol 14pp 10-11





431





Skinner BF (1953) Science and Human Behavior Free PressNew York NY

Steenkamp J-BEM and Baumgartner H (1998) ldquoAssessingmeasurement invariance in cross-national consumerresearchrdquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 25pp 78-90

Stern RS and Cobb JP (1978) ldquoPhenomenology of obsessive-compulsive neurosisrdquo British Journal of Psychiatry

Vol 132 pp 233-9Straus EW (1948) ldquoOn obsession a clinical and

methodological studyrdquo Nervous and Mental Disease Monographs Vol 73 New York NY

Tallis F (1995) Obsessive Compulsive Disorder A Cognitive and Neuropsychological Perspective Wiley New York NY

Teinowitz I (1999) ldquoAds could come up loser in gamblingdebaterdquo Advertising Age p 3

Valence G drsquoAstous A and Fortier L (1988) ldquoCompulsivebuying concept and measurementrdquo Journal of Consumer Policy Vol 11 No 4 pp 419-33

Volberg RA and Steadman HJ (1989) ldquoPolicy implications of prevalence estimates of pathological gamblingrdquo inShaffer HJ Stein SA Gambino B and Cummings TN(Eds) Compulsive Gambling Lexington Books Lexington

MA pp 163-74Wallace J (1996) ldquoTheory of 12-step-oriented treatmentrdquo in

Rotgers F Keller DS and Morgenstern J (Eds) Treating Substance Abuse The Guilford Press New York NYpp 13-36

Wallach MA and Kogan N (1959) ldquoSex differences and judgment processesrdquo Journal of Personality Vol 27pp 555-64

Wallach MA and Kogan N (1961) ldquoAspects of judgment anddecision-making interrelationships and changes withagerdquo Behavioral Science Vol 6 pp 23-6

West R (1989) ldquoThe psychological basis of addictionrdquoInternational Review of Psychiatry Vol 1 pp 71-80

Winger G Hofmann FG and Woods JH (1992) A Handbook on Drug and Alcohole Abuse The Biochemical Aspects

Oxford University Press New York NYYaryura-Tobias JA and Neziroglu FA (1997) Obsessive- Compulsive Disorder Spectrum Pathogenesis Diagnosisand Treatment American Psychiatric Press IncWashington DC

Zinkhan GM and Karande KW (1991) ldquoCultural and genderdifferences in risk-taking behavior among American andSpanish decision makersrdquo The Journal of Social Psychology Vol 131 No 5 pp 741-2

Zuckerman M (1983) Biological Bases of Sensation SeekingImpulsivity and Anxiety Erlbaum Hillsdale NJ

Appendix

Obsessive thoughts (OT)

Consumersrsquo obsessive thoughts were assessed for

four items using a 5-point scale 1frac14 never and

5 frac14 very often)

(1) I feel fear of contamination (eg fearing dirt

germs cancer AIDS bodily wastes asbestos

chemicals radiation sticky substances)

(2) I am in fear of causing harm to another

(eg putting poison in food spreading illness

smothering a child pushing a stranger in front

of a car running over a pedestrian)

(3) I live in constant fear of making a mistake

(eg setting fire to the house flooding the

house losing something valuable

bankrupting the company)

(4) I feel fear for behaving in a socially

unacceptable manner (eg swearing making

sexual advances saying the wrong thing)

An item of CDQ

Ms C a married woman with two children has a

steady job that pays her about $20000

(W15000000) per year She can easily afford the

necessities of life but few of the luxuries Ms Crsquos

father who died recently carried a $16000

(W10000000) life insurance policy Ms C would

like to invest this money in stocks She is well aware

of the secure high quality stocks and bonds that

would pay approximately 6 percent on her

investment On the other hand Ms C has heardthat the stocks of a relatively unknown Company X

might double their present value if a new product

currently in production is favorably received by the

buying public However if the product is

unfavorably received the stocks would decline in

value

Imagine you are advising Ms C Listed below

are several probabilities or odds that Company X

will double their value

Please check the lowest probability that you

would consider acceptable for Ms C to invest in

Company X stocks

_______ The chances are 1 in 10 that the

stocks will double their value









_______ Place a check here if you think Ms C

should not invest in Company X stocks no

matter what the probabilities

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers

and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of

this article Those with a particular interest in the topic

covered may then read the article in toto to take

advantage of the more comprehensive description of the

research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit

of the material present





433



Sex and drugs and rock lsquonrsquo roll ndash compulsive

consumer behaviour

One of the challenges for marketers is how we

promote legal products that have the potential to

cause harm or create addictive or compulsive

behaviour On the one hand we recognise the rights

associated with free speech (first amendment rights

in the USA) and their extension to include theldquospeechrdquo that is advertising On the other hand

however we see a duty on us individually and

collectively to act ethically

This situation remains somethingof a trickyarea

Some so-called consumer activists lobby groups

and politicians argue for severe constraints on the

promotion of ldquodangerousrdquo products Others use

legalactions to secure compensation on the premise

thatthe addictive individual could not help himself

Such actions are likely to increase as the lobbyists

and lawyers extend their sights from tobacco

products to alcohol and fatty foods

Kwak Zinkhan and Roushanzamir present afascinating study of ldquocomorbidityrdquo from the

perspective of marketing rather than psychology

In doing so they widen the debate about the ethics

of advertising gambling alcohol and other

ldquodangerousrdquo or addictive products Importantly

they show how compulsive activities (such as in

this case compulsive shopping) often link to

addictive or compulsive behavior in another area of

life such as gambling or drinking

The next aspect of Kwak et al rsquos work that adds to

our understanding is the assessment of cultural

influences on compulsive behavior through the

comparison of Korean and US samples

Importantly the primary causal links remained

the same across cultures with the exception that

risk-taking personality takes on a more significant

role among the Korean sample

Addiction or compulsion

We have become used to the populist use of the

term ldquoaddictrdquo to describe compulsive behavior

(such and such a celebrity admits to being a

ldquosex addictrdquo for example) and we also use the

term ldquoshopaholicrdquo to describe the kind of behavior

best described as compulsive buying However

there is an important distinction between

addiction and compulsion with the latter being abetter description of the characteristic described

by Kwak et al

The issue for marketers is to appreciate the

existence of such compulsions be aware of their

symptoms and provide mechanisms to reduce the

negative impact of compulsive behavior It is not

for marketers to adopt a judgmental position with

regard to what is in its fundamentals and mental

illness or at best a ldquopersonality disorderrdquo We need

to consider the ethics but not to let the problems of

a few spoil the enjoyment of the many

The consumption of marketing messages by compulsives

It is likely (and Kwak et al make this clear) the

compulsives consume marketing messages

somewhat differently from the average consumer

The authors illustrate this with the commonexample

of a promotional sweepstake To the normal

consumer this is simply an appealing incentive to

purchasebut for thecompulsive gambler themessageacts only to reinforce the compulsive behavior

This dichotomy presents a problem for marketers

Do we respond to the concerns about encouraging

compulsive behavior or ignore them as a ldquominorityrdquo

Thereis a strongargument forregulation andcontrol

in the case of sales promotions but the case is not so

easy to make with image advertising

For sales promotions involving chance or

gambling there is a direct appeal to those with a

compulsion to engagein such activity It seems right

to constrain the circumstances where gambling

takes place so as to discourage the association of a

chance to win with a purchase Thus in UK lawsweepstakes and prize draws are only allowed as a

promotion where the entry is free

We can see the same problems associated with

other types of promotion where they seem to

encourage (over the period of the offer) frequent

and perhaps unnecessary purchase Again the

various regulations constraining promotions of this

type act (perhaps not with intent) to mitigate the

worst influences on compulsive consumers

In the case of image advertising the debate will

continue between those who believe advertising to

be manipulative and those who see it as legitimate

commercial free speech It is hard to argue againstconstraints over the content and location of

advertising for such products as alcoholic drinks

casinos andtobacco Most developed countries have

these restrictions to a greater or lesser extent (some

statutory others based on a self-regulatory system)

but this does not reduce the pressure to further

restrict or even ban advertising for these products

With compulsive buying the problem is clearly

more broad-based Any advertisement is an

inducement to purchase and short of a complete

ban on ads this will not change However there is a

case for reducing the encouragement to stock up or

the representation of compulsive shoppingbehavior in an advertisement

Kwak etal rsquos recommendation that social scientists

understandthe social impactof compulsive behavior

is a good one and those involved in marketing

products subject to compulsive behavior need to

play their part in this work

(A pre cis of the article ldquoCompulsive comorbidity and its

psychological antecedents a cross-cultural comparison

between the US and South Koreardquo Supplied by

Marketing Consultants for Emerald)









































































1972)









420


























(Wallace 1996)



























Comorbidity





































general population


























421








(Figure 1)

[MODEL 2]





















and Karande 1991)



































424


























































[MODEL 2]







Method

Sample



































1999)

Measures














425


































been designed









Pilot study












manner




































Mean 196 381 189 150 130

SD 068 160 065 041 040

Alpha 072 088 074 086 083






426





























gambling




































invariance















invariant and















two samples



















427


























measurement models


behavior (Model 1)





























































x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf



27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1








428
































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al





































































































































1972)









420


























(Wallace 1996)



























Comorbidity





































general population


























421








(Figure 1)

[MODEL 2]





















and Karande 1991)



































424


























































[MODEL 2]







Method

Sample



































1999)

Measures














425


































been designed









Pilot study












manner




































Mean 196 381 189 150 130

SD 068 160 065 041 040

Alpha 072 088 074 086 083






426





























gambling




































invariance















invariant and















two samples



















427


























measurement models


behavior (Model 1)





























































x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf



27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1








428
































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al




























































































(Wallace 1996)



























Comorbidity





































general population


























421








(Figure 1)

[MODEL 2]





















and Karande 1991)



































424


























































[MODEL 2]







Method

Sample



































1999)

Measures














425


































been designed









Pilot study












manner




































Mean 196 381 189 150 130

SD 068 160 065 041 040

Alpha 072 088 074 086 083






426





























gambling




































invariance















invariant and















two samples



















427


























measurement models


behavior (Model 1)





























































x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf



27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1








428
































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al










































































(Figure 1)

[MODEL 2]





















and Karande 1991)



































424


























































[MODEL 2]







Method

Sample



































1999)

Measures














425


































been designed









Pilot study












manner




































Mean 196 381 189 150 130

SD 068 160 065 041 040

Alpha 072 088 074 086 083






426





























gambling




































invariance















invariant and















two samples



















427


























measurement models


behavior (Model 1)





























































x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf



27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1








428
































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al








































































(Figure 1)

[MODEL 2]





















and Karande 1991)



































424


























































[MODEL 2]







Method

Sample



































1999)

Measures














425


































been designed









Pilot study












manner




































Mean 196 381 189 150 130

SD 068 160 065 041 040

Alpha 072 088 074 086 083






426





























gambling




































invariance















invariant and















two samples



















427


























measurement models


behavior (Model 1)





























































x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf



27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1








428
































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al






































































(Figure 1)

[MODEL 2]





















and Karande 1991)



































424


























































[MODEL 2]







Method

Sample



































1999)

Measures














425


































been designed









Pilot study












manner




































Mean 196 381 189 150 130

SD 068 160 065 041 040

Alpha 072 088 074 086 083






426





























gambling




































invariance















invariant and















two samples



















427


























measurement models


behavior (Model 1)





























































x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf



27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1








428
































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al




























































































































[MODEL 2]







Method

Sample



































1999)

Measures














425


































been designed









Pilot study












manner




































Mean 196 381 189 150 130

SD 068 160 065 041 040

Alpha 072 088 074 086 083






426





























gambling




































invariance















invariant and















two samples



















427


























measurement models


behavior (Model 1)





























































x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf



27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1








428
































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al




































































































been designed









Pilot study












manner




































Mean 196 381 189 150 130

SD 068 160 065 041 040

Alpha 072 088 074 086 083






426





























gambling




































invariance















invariant and















two samples



















427


























measurement models


behavior (Model 1)





























































x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf



27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1








428
































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al































































































gambling




































invariance















invariant and















two samples



















427


























measurement models


behavior (Model 1)





























































x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf



27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1








428
































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al




























































































measurement models


behavior (Model 1)





























































x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf



27051 2 0957 0946 4214 1








428
































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al


































































































shown in Table IV

Discussion























































them





x 2 df GFI CFI x

2 df GFI CFI Dx 2

Ddf

Model 1 (H1) 108698 48 0944 0962 121590 57 0939 0960 12892 9

Model 2 (H2H3) 356504 168 0925 0916 378031 183 0918 0916 21527 15








429


















circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al




















































































circumstances





































behaviors in detail




























References

















430

















































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al



















































































































431























Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al

























































































Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al























































































Appendix



















An item of CDQ















value






Company X stocks


























433




consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al






































































consumer behaviour












































by Kwak et al



































































Documents

Compulsive Com. George Zinkhan