INFLURNCE OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON COMPULSIVE BUYING BEHAVIOUR AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS IN UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON COMPULSIVE BUYING BEHAVIOR AMONG UNDERGRADUATES IN UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN Adegoke Olusegun Steve Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan Email: olusegunsteveadegoke@gmail.com ABSTRACT This study investigated the influence of personality traits on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates in University of Ibadan. The rationale for the study was premised on the inconclusive findings on the link between personality traits and compulsive buying among students.A cross-sectional survey research design was adopted using standardized questionnaire for data collection. A random sample size of 198 undergraduates was used, with a mean age of 24.38, SD=11.52, 96 males and 102 females. Four hypotheses were tested using inferential statistics. Results indicate that personality traits jointly predicted compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates {R=.669, R2 = .448, F = 45.432; p <.05}. Further, agreeableness (β = .110; t = 1.196; p < .05), agreeableness (β = .206; t = 3.438; p< .05), neuroticism (β = .343; t = 4.780; p < .05) and openness to experience (β = .181; t = 7.100; p < .05) independently predicted compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates. Income levels of students jointly predicted compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates {R=.410, R2 = .168, F = 18.949; p <.05}. High level of income had significant independent influence of 30.8% on compulsive buying among undergraduates (β = .308; t = 5.297; p < .05). Gender had significant influence on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates t (196) = -3.401, p < .05); females reported higher compulsive buying ( = 27.85) than their male counterparts ( =24.01). Age had no significant influence on compulsive buying behavior among the undergraduate students t (196) = 1.025, p < .05). Older students ( = 25.40) while younger students ( = 23.96).It was concluded that personality traits are determinants of compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates. Also, income level and gender had significant influence on compulsive buying behavior among university students. The study identified the implication and limitation of findings while recommended that, further study should consider a longitudinal research design for advancement on the current methodology. Hence, university authority, psychologists, and clinicians should make effort towards cognitive restructuring among students to help reduce compulsive buying behavior through psycho-educational interventions. 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Compulsive Buying (CB) is „a consumer‟s tendency to be preoccupied with buying that is revealed through repetitive buying and a lack of impulse control‟ (Ridgway et al., 2008). Although Kraepelin (1915) and Bleuler (1976) described this phenomenon many years ago, it was the study of Faber et al. (1987) which increased the interest in that topic. For more than 20 years empirical studies have been conducted to increase our knowledge about this maladaptive consumer behavior. The main focus of these studies has been on identifying the antecedents and consequences of CB. First of all, CB is viewed as a method of coping with life‟s challenges (Scherhorn, 1990), low self-esteem (d‟Astous et al., 1990; Hanley & Wilhelm, 1992; O‟Guinn & Faber, 1989) and/or internal psychological tension (Valence et al., 1988). It is also seen as a process whereby the consumer wants to escape from negative feelings, stress and anxiety (Edwards, 1993; Ergin, 2010; O‟Guinn & Faber, 1989). Buying a product causes release of the internal tension. At the same time however feelings of guilt and frustration appear as the person could not control the inner drive to buy an unneeded product. The consumer is caught in a vicious circle. O‟Guinn and Faber (1989) argued that there is no single factor but it is a combination of psychological, physiological, genetic, social and cultural factors that can 2 explain the etiology of CB. This is confirmed in a large number of studies revealing numerous factors differentiating compulsive from non-compulsive buyers. Among them: „„excitement seeking‟ (DeSarbo & Edwards, rose , 2009), „obsessive thoughts‟ (Kwak et al., 2004), „risk-taking tendencies‟ (Kwak et al., 2004), „narcissism‟ (Rose, 2007), „external locus of control‟ (Watson, 2009), „self-control‟ (Sneath et al., 2009), „depression‟ (Ergin, 2010; Sneath et al., 2009), „concern for store return (Joireman , 2010) and „credit card abuse‟ (Faber & O‟Guinn, 1988). CB has also been associated with specific early developmental experiences and the family environment (DeSarbo & Edwards, 2012; Valence et al., 1988). Some researchers argue that CB is an attempt to compensate for a distortion of autonomy incurred in childhood (Scherhorn, 1990). It is believed that knowing the history of consumer‟s early experiences helps to understand why some people are more prone to develop this maladaptive consumer behavior. From a lay man‟s perspective, compulsive buying can be referred to as uncontrolled urge to buy products that may not be of much utility to the buyer. For some adults, shopping is a leisure activity, a means of managing emotions or a way to establish and express self-identity. Compulsive buying is a response to an uncontrollable drive or desire to obtain, use or experience a feeling, substance or activity that leads an individual to repetitively engage in a behavior that will ultimately cause harm to the individual and/or to others. While compulsions are often excessive and ritualistic behaviors 3 designed to alleviate tension, anxiety or discomfort aroused by obtrusive thoughts or obsessions, compulsive behaviors are defined by the American Psychiatric Association (1985) as „repetitive and seemingly purposeful behaviors that are performed according to rules or in a stereotyped fashion. Manifestations of compulsive buying behavior include purchasing behaviors that cannot be controlled, are excessive, time consuming and patterned in nature. Although compulsive buying can be associated with emotional attachment to objects, it is more likely that the pleasure derived from the act of buying is the primary motivation. Compulsive buying involves an inability to control the urge and leads to extreme negative consequences (Ridgway et al, 2006). According to Shoham and Brencic, 2003; compulsive buying is „a chronic repetitive purchasing that becomes a primary response to negative events or feeling‟. It refers to consumers‟ repetitive shopping, at times excessive which occur as a result of boredom, tension or anxiety. Compulsive buying consist of 4 core features namely:  A general pre-disposition towards feelings of anxiety and low self-esteem that appears to worsen directly before urges to shop.  Impulsive shopping episodes, typically accompanied by feelings of „elation‟ or „intoxication‟.  Guilt and remorse following shopping episodes. 4  A renewed impulse to shop, in part to escape feelings of low self-esteem, anxiety and guilt that had been exacerbated during the shopping episodes. (O‟Quinn and Faber, 1989). In other words, a compulsive buyer feels an irresistible impulse to buy, loses control over his /her buying behavior, and continues with excessive buying despite adverse consequences in his/her personal, social or occupational life and financial debt. The diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying by McElroy, et al (1994) states that: A. Maladaptive preoccupation with buying or shopping, or maladaptive buying or shopping impulses or behavior, is indicated by at least one of the following: 1. Frequent preoccupation with buying or impulses to buy that is/are experienced as irresistible, intrusive, and / or senseless. 2. Frequent buying of more than can be afforded, frequent buying of items that are not needed, or shopping for longer periods of time than intended. B. The buying preoccupations, impulses or behaviors cause marked distress, are time consuming, significantly interfere with social or occupational functioning, or result in financial problems ( e.g. indebtedness or bankruptcy). C. The excessive buying or shopping behavior does not occur exclusively during periods of hypomania or mania. 5 When individuals buy compulsively, they purchase excessive quantities of products that they do not need and cannot afford (Hoyer and Maclnnis 2007). The characteristics of compulsive buyers vary but they usually take greater pleasure in shopping and buying. Compulsive buyers feel happy ( or powerful) while shopping, but these transitory emotions are usually followed by letdown or guilt because the affected are distressed by their activities and will often hide the evidences. They often make senseless and impulse purchases, feel depressed after shopping and more often experience uncontrollable buying binges. Compulsive buying behavior is chronic for most, with few periods of remission. Episodic urges usually lasting an hour in length and varying from hourly to daily to weekly in occurrence were reported. Subjects also reported shopping frequently and not limiting their trips to the mall exclusively for special holidays or birthdays. Rather, the compulsive buyers reported having irresistible urges to buy, with unsuccessful attempts to control themselves or their willpower. Compulsive buying is inappropriate and clearly destructive to the lives of individuals being affected (Kwak and Roushanzamir, 2004). Usually, compulsive buyers feel the product „calling them‟, almost demanding them to purchase it. Compulsive buyers feel low when they are not out shopping and crave for that special „high‟ that comes from buying. Compulsive buying may produce some positive rewards temporarily, but it leads to long term severe negative consequences. 6 Since no single factor can explain the etiology of compulsive buying but rather a combination of psychological, physiological, genetic, social and cultural factors, some researchers have argued that compulsive buying is an attempt to compensate for a distortion of autonomy incurred in childhood. It is believed that knowing the history of consumers‟ early experiences help to understand why some people are more prone to developing this maladaptive consumer behavior. Though no consensus about the classification of compulsive buying as a mental disorder has been found, there is no doubt that compulsive buying is a serious psychological problem which causes significant impairments in financial, social and occupational areas of functioning of an affected person. As a result of the impact of globalization, the hierarchy of needs of individuals is moving unnaturally, not exactly in the same order as Maslow predicted in the continuum (natural). Product marketers now use persuasive advertisements to attract purchase, there is easier access to malls and supermarkets, and shopping has become a symbol of status as contrary to previous times when there was a stigma attached to it and it was considered an indication of moral or spiritual decay. Compulsive buying has been conceptualized as a chronic and repetitive purchasing pattern which turns into a primary response to negative events or feelings that provides short-term positive rewards but which ultimately carries harmful consequences. The role of personality traits are considered very useful in predicting behavior. Also, one 7 of the psychological variables documented in marketing literature to influence consumers‟ buying behavior is personality (Blackwell, Miniard & Engel, 2007, Solomon, 2011). „Personality‟ is „the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are organized and relatively enduring and that influence his or her interactions with, and adaptations to, the intrapsychic, physical, and social environments‟ (Larsen & Buss, 2010, p. 4). For many years efforts in research on personality have been focused on identifying the elemental personality traits. In 1934 Thurstone suggested that there are five independent common factors underlying personality, a notion further supported by Fiske (1949), Tupes & Christal (1961) and a host of other researchers (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1985; John, 1999; Goldberg, 1992; Wiggins, 1996). An Application of the Big Five Personality Model Five (Goldberg, 1992) consists of five broad personality dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism (or Emotional Instability) and Intellect/Imagination (or Openness to Experience). Extravert people are social, active and have a tendency to experience positive emotions whereas individuals scoring high on Agreeableness are sympathetic, trusting and cooperative. Conscientious people are wellorganized and scrupulous while those scoring high on Intellect are open to new experiences, intellectually curious and imaginative. The last dimension – Neuroticism represents a tendency to experience psychological distress and emotional instability (Costa and McCrae, 1992). 8 Since the Big Five has achieved the greatest degree of consensus of all trait taxonomies (Larsen & Buss, 2010), it has been used to explain individual differences in a large amount of research (e.g., Endler & Spear, 1998). Although the first attempts to understand and predict consumer behavior through the use of personality variables have yielded disappointing results (Kassarjian, 1971), there has recently been a growing interest in personality influences in consumer research (e.g., Egan & Taylor, 2010; Lin, 2010; Mowen, 2000). The first attempt to identify a link between personality and compulsive buying behaviour was made by Mowen and Spears (1999). They employed Allport‟s hierarchical approach where surface traits are explained by central traits which are predicted by cardinal psychological traits. With regard to this approach the Five Factor Model of personality will be used to explain compulsive buying behaviour. Personality traits refer to the complex characteristics that distinguishes an individual from another. Psychologists who try to explain the science of who we are defined personality as individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving. A person‟s attitudes, tastes, preferences and values are indicative of his/her personality. To understand the construct called personality and make use of the knowledge to gain insight into how it affects consumer buying behavior, marketers, scholars and researchers have relied on various models like the Neo-Freudian, humanistic, psychoanalytic, trait theory, etc. Of these, the trait theory has been the 9 primary basis of personality research due basically to its consistency and stability (Dejong, 2008). The Big Five personality traits, otherwise known as the five factor model (FFM), that was made use of in this research refers to five broad dimensions used by some psychologists to describe human personality. The five factors have been labeled:      Openness to experience Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, imaginative, have broad interests and have a better perception of reality. The Openness to experience trait has typically been unrelated to shopping addiction (Mowen and Spears, 1999; Wang and Yang, 2008; Andreessen et al.., 2013). Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al .., 2012 suggested that shopping reported a negative relationship by stating that shopping addicts are less adventurous and less curious and put less emphasis on abstract thinking than their counterparts. Conscientiousness refers to discipline, precision and responsibility (Costa & McCrae, 1992). People scoring high on conscientiousness are well organized and 10 consider the consequences of their actions carefully and as such are unlikely to engage in compulsive buying. In this case, conscientiousness appear to be a protective factor (Wang and Yang, 2008; Andreessen et al.., 2013). People with low conscientiousness scores appear to shop compulsively due to low ability to be structured and responsible. Extraversion implies energy, positive emotions, assertiveness, sociability, talkativeness and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others. High extraversion is often perceived as attention-seeking and domineering. Low extraversion causes a reserved, reflective personality which can be perceived as aloof or self-absorbed. Extraversion has been positively associated with shopping addiction (Balabanis, 2002; Thompson and Prendergast, 2015) suggested that extroverts may be using shopping to uphold their social status and sustain their social attractiveness, such as buying a new outfit and accessories for every occasion. This is true especially if someone is high on extraversion. Agreeableness refers to the tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. It is also a measure of one‟s trusting and helpful nature, and whether a person is generally well-tempered or not. High agreeableness is often seen as naive or submissive whereas low agreeableness personalities are often competitive or challenging people. The relationship between agreeableness and shopping addiction appears to be more ambivalent. Some studies have reported a positive relationship (Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al.., 2012) while others have a 11 negative one (Andreessen et al.., 2013). High degree of agreeableness may represent a protective factor for developing shopping addiction (or addiction of any kind) as such, individuals typically avoid conflicts and disharmony. At the same time, students high on agreeableness trait may be more prone to fall for exploitative marketing techniques since they can easily trust others. Neuroticism is the tendency to experience unpleasant emotions, such as anger, anxiety, depression and vulnerability easily. It also refers to the degree of emotional stability and impulse control. Someone who is high on neuroticism is termed stable and calm while someone who is low on neuroticism is termed unstable or insecure. Neuroticism has also been consistently related to shopping addiction (Wang and Yang, 2008; Thompson and Prendergast, 2015). Neurotic individuals typically being anxious, depressive and self-conscious may use shopping as a means of reducing their negative emotional feelings. Therefore, this study focused on the influence of personality traits on compulsive buying behaviors among undergraduates in University of Ibadan. 1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Currently, compulsive buying (CB) is most often diagnosed as „Impulse Control Disorder Not Otherwise Specified‟. Though no consensus about the classification of CB as a mental disorder was yet found there is no doubt that CB is a serious psychological problem which causes significant impairments in financial, legal, social and occupational areas of functioning of an affected person. 12 Therefore it is of major importance to investigate the nature of CB and its antecedents in more detail. Knowing which variables significantly influence CB will help clinicians and affected persons to understand what the „driving force‟ behind this maladaptive behavior is and to address the potential source of the problem during the therapy. Because of their stability, personality traits are considered very useful in predicting behaviour. Although few studies were conducted in order to find the link between CB and personality (eg., Mowen & Spears, 1999; Balabanis, 2001; Wang & Yang, 2008), the inconsistent results prevent from drawing reliable conclusions. The aim of the current study is to explore the causes of these inconsistencies and to give an ultimate answer to the question whether Big Five personality traits differentiate compulsive and non-compulsive buyers especially among undergraduate students in higher institution. In an attempt to clarify the link between personality traits and compulsive buying behavior as gap identified in the previous studies, a major question emerged; what are the influences of personality traits on compulsive buying among undergraduates in University of Ibadan? 13 PURPOSE OF STUDY The main purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of personality traits on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates in the University of Ibadan. Hence, the specific objectives will include the following; 1. Examine the influence of personality traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion ,openness to experience and neuroticism on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates in University of Ibadan. 2. To determine the influence of income on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates in University of Ibadan. 3. To investigate the influence of gender and age on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates in University of Ibadan. RELEVANCE OF STUDY  Research on marketing tools is indeed important to understand the determinants of consumers‟ purchasing intention and buying behaviour as a whole. Through this information, marketers and retailers could as well plan their resources to gain the maximum profit. Thus, this study aim to investigate the determinants of purchasing among university students in Nigeria which implies that the outcomes of the study will fill in the gap in the literature regarding this study concepts 14 globally and expand knowledge and perspectives on the psychological factors affecting consumers‟ purchasing intention in real life situation  From the consumer perspective, this study will add to knowledge of consumer psychology and advances methodological approach to understanding the effect of prestige sensitivity, price consciousness and value consciousness on purchasing intention while considering that theories have established the direct link between intention and behaviour in the field of consumer psychology.  Additionally, the findings of the study will present better understanding and information to marketers and suggest some rationale for international retailers to develop different pricing perception strategies when expanding their business into these cultures.  The present investigation is unique in its approach in studying the comparison of the psychological characteristics of compulsive and non-compulsive buyers among faculty of the social sciences undergraduates of the University of Ibadan.  The present investigation can be particularly helpful because university undergraduates are the young adults of the country and they have the strongest possibility of coming under the spell of this buying problem.  The importance of studying compulsive buying stems, in part from its nature as a negative aspect of consumer behavior. Specifically, research on negative facets of consumption is useful because it can potentially contribute to society‟s wellbeing, an important criterion for usefulness of any research. 15  More so, the present research aims at improving the understanding of compulsive buying and consequently help in dealing with it in a better way and avert it from overpowering the life of the faculty of the social sciences undergraduates of the University of Ibadan.  Finally, this research is expected to provide an acceptable way of assessing and measuring the problem associated with compulsive buying behavior. This will also be a basis for further research in the area of individual behavior and attitude and enable the researchers to further investigate the factors that predispose young adults to compulsive buying behavior. 16 LITERATURE REVIEW This section presents a review of literature on the influence of personality traits on compulsive buying behaviour among University of Ibadan undergraduate students. It focuses on the theoretical framework and empirical reviews that are related to the study. Stimulus-Response Model Behaviour is primarily made in response to a change in environmental stimuli (Mowen, 1995). Behavioural learning may be defined as a process in which experience with the environment leads to a relative change in behaviour or the potential for a change in behaviour. Because sales promotions are an element of the environment of the consumers, these theories could be very useful in explaining how and why sales promotions affect consumer behaviour. Researchers have identified three major approaches to behavioural learning: classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and vicarious learning (Mowen 1995). This last approach of learning, vicarious learning, occurs when individuals observe the actions of others and model or imitate those actions. New product adoption may be based in part on vicarious learning, but we do not believe that this approach is applicable to the field of sales promotions. Therefore vicarious learning will not be dealt with in detail. Classical and operant conditioning are dealt with more in-depth in the next two subsections. In classical conditioning, behaviour is influenced by a stimulus that occurs prior to the behaviour and elicits it in a manner that has the appearance of being a reflex. In the 17 process of classical conditioning, a neutral stimulus is paired with a stimulus that elicits a response. Through a repetition of the pairing, the neutral stimulus takes on the ability to elicit the response. Pavlov discovered the phenomenon when he was working with dogs. The dogs had the messy propensity to begin salivating profusely (the response) each time meat powder (the stimulus) was presented to them. The stimulus of meat powder reflexively elicited the response of salivation. The reflexive response elicited by the stimulus is called the unconditioned response; the stimulus that causes the unconditional response is called the unconditioned stimulus. When classical conditioning occurs, a previously neutral stimulus (called the conditional stimulus) is repeatedly paired with the unconditioned stimulus. After a number of such pairings, the ability to elicit a response is transferred to the conditioned stimulus. In the experiments of Pavlov, the presence of the meat powder was preceded in time by the ringing of a bell. After a number of such pairings, the mere ringing of the bell would elicit the conditioned response of salivation. Consumer researchers have shown that (through advertising) products may become conditioned stimuli and elicit a positive emotional response in consumers‟ increased attention (this phenomenon is called sign tracking). A premium or prize serves as an unconditioned stimulus; it naturally elicits a response of excitement. By frequently coupling the premium with a particular brand, the brand itself eventually becomes a conditioned stimulus. Special displays or feature advertising, even if not accompanied by a price discount, can elicit strong sales effects. Since these activities are often associated with 18 price discounts, which do naturally elicit a strong response, they become conditioned stimuli. A display is like the ringing of Pavlov‟s bell: it automatically makes the consumer salivate in anticipation of a sale. The idea of promotions serving as conditioned or unconditioned stimuli has a certain logical appeal. One has only to observe consumers in a local supermarket snatching up coffee from a special display to be struck by the apparently automatic nature of the response. Stimulus-Response-Organism Model This theory deals with the inner cognitive processing of the consumer. Many of those processes are about the consumers‟ perception of the environment (attribution, price perception, perceived risk, and prospect theory). But processes related to the translation of those perceptions into actual choices (attitude and consumer decisionmaking models) are therefore of the stimulus-response-organism type.an example of stimulus response organism model is Attribution model. Attribution theory describes how consumers explain the causes of events. These explanations are called “attributions.” Attributions cause a change in attitude rather than a change in behaviour. Attribution theory does not formally address the behavioural consequences of a consumer‟s attributions. However, to the extent that attitudes are the antecedents of behaviour, the theory is relevant. Suppose that brand X is promoted. Questions could be: „why is brand X being promoted?‟ A possible attribution could be: 19 „brand X is being promoted because they can‟t sell it at its regular price.‟ It‟s probably a low-quality product‟, or brand X is being promoted because the store manager knows brand X is very popular that it will bring in more customers into the store.‟ This example illustrates that there can be more than one attribution associated with a certain event. Three types of attribution theories can be distinguished that differ in the object of attribution: self-perception (“why did I buy”), object-perception (“why is brand X on promotion”), and person-perception (“why did the salesperson talk more about brand Y, when brand X was on sale”). According to the self-perception theory, individuals form their attitudes by trying to be consistent with their past behavior. The key question individuals ask themselves is whether the action they take is due to external causes (e.g., a promotion) or internal causes (e.g., favorable brand attitude). For example, if strong external causes are present, the individual invokes the “discounting principle,” whereby internal causes are disregarded. As a result, brand attitude (e.g., the repeat purchase probability) does not necessarily change. TRAIT THEORY The trait theory is an approach to studying human personality that identifies and measures the degree to which certain personality traits (recurring patterns of thoughts and behaviors) exist from individual to individual. In other words, this theory assumes behavior is determined by relatively stable traits which are the fundamental units of one‟s personality. Traits predispose one to act in a certain way, regardless of the situation. This 20 means that traits should remain consistent across situations and overtime, but may vary between individuals. There have been a number of approaches to trait theory. Examples are: Gordon Allport 4000 traits, Raymond Cattell 16PF traits and Eysenck‟s personality theory. Over the years of study and research, many would argue that Allport‟s approach was too inclusive, and Eysenck‟s far too simplified, but, psychologists would continue to come upon similar, recurring theories and character traits, such that there are a handful that have become commonly accepted. As a result, many psychologists have settled upon five key personality traits. These five traits also known as the Big Five factors of personality , according to many, make up the OCEAN of personality, as the acronym goes, and are often considered to be the basic traits under which all other aspects of personality fall. The traits are: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Each of the 5 personality trait describes, relative to other people, the frequency or intensity of a person‟s feelings, thoughts, or behaviors. Everyone possesses all 5 of these traits to a greater or lesser degree. For example, two individuals could be described as „agreeable‟ (agreeable people value getting along with others). But there could be significant variation in the degree to which they are both agreeable. In other words, all 5 personality traits exist on a continuum rather than as attributes that a person does or does not have. 21 Openness to experience: refers to the dimension ranging from outgoing, liberal, interested in new things and imaginative to reserved, conservative, traditional and conforming. Like all of these five traits, people will fall somewhere on a continuum with most falling somewhere in the middle. By relating this trait to compulsive buying, we can say that people who are open to experience are less likely to buy compulsively because they have a better perception of reality. It is therefore assumed that they do not believe that the usage of some products will make one to be socially desirable and they are not out to impress others unlike the compulsive buyers. We can also assume that they know better than accumulation of properties. Conscientiousness: refers to the continuum ranging from organized, careful, and determined to careless and weak willed. Those on the high end of this factor may be seen as stoic, cold and methodical while those on the low end may be seen as gullible, followers or may see the needs of others as always superceding their own. With regards to compulsive buying, we can say that people who are high on conscientiousness are less likely to engage in compulsive buying since it is an impulsive act and people who are highly conscientious do not act impulsively, they would rather consider the consequences of their actions carefully. Such people are more likely to calculate the amount of money at their disposal and the important needs that are on 22 ground to be met and would likely rethink before jumping at any product „calling‟ their attention. Extraversion: refers to preferring group activities, group sports, large gatherings, lots of friends and acquaintances, loud music and social endeavors. Introversion on the other hand refers to preferring more solitude, quiet music, small groups or individual sports. An introvert would rather stay at home or engage in small group activity than attend a party or large social gathering. It has been found out that while extroverts tend to get bored more easily and become followers who seek out others to avoid this boredom, introverts tend to become anxious more easily especially in larger groups and prefer the individual activity to avoid this anxiety and as more of an individualist, may be seen as more of a leader. In relation to compulsive buying, extroverts are more likely to buy compulsively than introverts because they are more impulsive and exhibit lower self control, the more reason they go for any product that catches their attention. Their compulsive buying behavior can also be linked to the fact that extroverts always want to fit in to social gatherings and would therefore go for products like clothes, shoes and accessories that would „blend‟ into these gatherings. Agreeableness: represents the extremes of stubborn versus easy going, or suspicious versus trusting. Those high on agreeableness are helpful, sympathetic to others and 23 understanding. Those low on this trait are seen as argumentative, skeptical and strongwilled. In relation to compulsive buying, it can be assumed that those high on agreeableness are less likely to engage in compulsive buying. This is because agreeableness deals with motives for maintaining positive relationship with people while compulsive buying is a socially undesirable behavior that can prevent maintaining positive relationship with others. Neuroticism: refers to the dimension of emotional stability. Someone high on neuroticism would exhibit an instability in his or her emotions, interactions and relationships. They may have frequent and wide mood swings, be difficult to understand, and become more upset over daily stressors and interactions. The person low on neuroticism may be seen as reserved, calm and perhaps even unemotional. With regards to compulsive buying, it can be assumed that people high on neuroticism would be more of compulsive buyers. This is because individuals scoring high on neuroticism tend to have low self esteem, high levels of anxiety and depression. Someone who has a low self esteem can resort to shopping so as to boost the level of self esteem because he/she feels that by moving with the tide and purchasing products anyhow, a higher self esteem would be guaranteed. Also, when some people are depressed, they may engage in „comfort shopping‟ not necessarily because they need what they are 24 purchasing but because they need something to reward themselves and mask over their sadness. Related Studies Conscientious people are well organized and scrupulous while those scoring high on Intellect are open to new experiences, intellectually curious and imaginative, research has found that conscientiousness had no significant effect on compulsive buying behavior (Larsen, 2010). The last dimension – Neuroticism represents a tendency to experience psychological distress and emotional instability and it has significant influence on conpulsive buying due to emotional instability (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Since the Big Five has achieved the greatest degree of consensus of all trait taxonomies , it was reported that personality factors are strong predictors of compulsive buying behavior among college students (Larsen & Buss, 2010), it has been used to explain individual differences in a large amount of research (e.g., Endler & Spear, 1998). Although the first attempts to understand and predict consumer behavior through the use of personality variables have yielded disappointing results (Kassarjian, 1971), there has recently been a growing interest in personality influences in consumer research (e.g., Egan & Taylor, 2010; Lin, 2010; Mowen, 2000). There was significant a link between personality and compulsive buying behaviour by Mowen and Spears (1999). They employed Allport‟s hierarchical approach 25 where surface traits are explained by central traits which are predicted by cardinal psychological traits. With regard to this approach the Five Factor Model of personality was used to explain materialism and the needs for arousal, which in turn predict compulsive buying behaviour. With respect to personality traits the results showed that low Conscientiousness, high Agreeableness and low Stability predict compulsive buying directly. A similar approach was applied in two studies by Mowen (2000) with impulsiveness and compulsiveness as central traits. When data were analyzed excluding mediators from the model, only two personality traits – Neuroticism and Agreeableness, appeared to be significant predictors of compulsive buying. Balabanis (2001) used the Five Factor Personality Model to explain compulsive buying behaviour. The results indicated that Extraversion and Intellect, the two factors which did not appear to directly influence compulsive buying in previous studies, were found to be related to buying compulsiveness in lottery tickets and scratch-cards. Extraversion was positively and Intellect negatively related to compulsive buying behaviour. Surprisingly, in contradiction to the findings by Mowen and Spears (1999), Balabanis (2001) found a negative correlation between Agreeableness and CB. A few years later Wang and Yang (2008) published their paper on the influence of personality and compulsive buying in an online shopping context. In accordance with the findings of Mowen and Spears (1999), the researchers found Stability to be negatively 26 correlated with compulsiveness in buying. With regard to the other Big Five personality traits no significant differences between compulsive and non-compulsive buyers were found. It is important to notice that also Schlosser et al. (1994) and Mueller et al. (2010) were interested in personality influences on CB. However since their studies were conducted in clinical samples, their aim was not to compare compulsive with noncompulsive buyers in a general consumer population but to „assess the overall life-style and problems of subjects already recognised as compulsive shoppers‟ (Schlosser et al., 1994, p. 205) or „identify personality prototypes in treatment seeking patients with CB‟ (Mueller et al., 2010, p. 930). Attempts have been made by researchers and investigators to classify customers on the basis of their shopping pattern. According to Edwards (1993), the classification can be along a compulsive buying continuum ranging across the categories namely: normal, recreational, borderline, compulsive and addictive spenders in order of increasing magnitude of compulsiveness in buying behavior. The normal (non-compulsive) consumer is believed to shop and spend mainly out of necessity, the recreational buyer occasionally uses shopping to relieve stress or to celebrate, and the compulsive and addicted spenders mostly buy in order to relieve anxiety, with the addicted spender being someone whose extreme buying behavior has created extreme dysfunctions in their daily lives, like any other addiction might do. Someone spending pattern lies between recreational and compulsive could be categorized as a borderline compulsive buyer who stands a favorable chance of falling in the addictive category in the course of time. 27 Researchers have shown that most compulsive buyers fulfill the urge of buying by purchasing apparel related products. Since most compulsive buyers buy apparel and apparel related products, there is a strong affinity and attachment of compulsive buyers with these products. It has also been noted that females had high levels of involvement with apparel-products (Jalees, 2007). Koran et al.. , 2006 stated that clinical compulsive buyers were more likely to suffer from comorbid substance abuse, eating disorders, and other impulse control disorders. Compulsive buying has potentially severe consequences for the individual affected, others around him or her and the society at large. Compulsive buying have also been found to have low self esteem. Depression, anxiety and low self esteem affect the compulsive buyer and his or her personal relationships. For instance, compulsive buying in the U.S has contributed to a record number of personal bankruptcy filings and credit card debt (Roberts & Jones , 2001). Personality is difficult to define given its vast and dynamic nature and there is no single generally accepted definition of the concept (Pierre, Harthem, and Dwight 2011). According to Arnold, Price and Zinkhan (2002), personality is the distinctive and enduring pattern of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that characterized each individual‟s adaptation to the situation of his or her life. Blythe (2008) defined personality as the collection of individual characteristics that makes a person unique and which control an individual‟s responses and relationship with the external environment. 28 Also, Kottler and Keller (2009) describes personality as a set of distinguishing human psychological traits that lead to relatively consistent and enduring responses to environmental stimuli. Smith (2001) defined personality as consistent way of responding to the environment in which a person lives. Solomon (2011) sees personality as a person‟s unique psychological makeup and how it consistently influences the way a person responds to his/her environment. Schiffman and Kanuk (2010) defined personality as the inner psychological characteristics that both determine and reflect how a person responds to his or her environment. Researchers, analysts and authors have not agreed on the correlation between personality and compulsive buying behavior. Agbonifoh et al.., (2007) noted that some studies have found relationship between personality and product use while others have not. Another review across numerous studies conducted by Kassarjin and Sheffets (in Arnold, Price and Zinkhan, 2002) revealed that personality traits only explain about 10% of the variation in consumers‟ purchase and product preference. Mulyanegara, Tsarenko, and Anderson (2007) in their research work on the relationship between the Big Five and brand personality found strong correlation between personality traits and buying behavior. Specifically, they found out that consumers who exhibit a conscientious personality demonstrate preferences towards „trusted‟ brands while the extroverts are motivated by „sociable‟ brands. Male respondents who are 29 dominant on the neuroticism dimension prefer „trusted‟ brand while „trusted‟ brand is preferred by females who are dominant on the conscientiousness dimension. Tsao and Chang, (2010) reveals that the values and preferences of consumers are reflected in their personality traits, which along with psychological state influence the formation of consumers purchase motivation. For further verification, the duo conducted a research on the impact of personality traits on online shopping behavior, using the big five personality traits as predictor variables. The study shows that compulsive buying behavior is positively influenced by three of the big five traits: neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience. This means that the higher people are on neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience scales, the more inclined they would be to seek out fun, excitement and enjoyment during online shopping. Also Mowen (2000) found significant positive correlations between neuroticism, agreeableness and compulsive buying. Johnson and Attman (2009) investigated compulsive consumption within a product specific content using a hierarchical model adapted from Mowen and Spears. They made use of path analysis and reported significant relationships between neuroticism and materialism, neuroticism and compulsive cloth buying , materialism and fashion interest, and fashion interest and compulsive cloth buying. Matthew, Bonaventure and Chisom (2015) found extraversion and agreeableness as joint predictors of compulsive buying behavior. They found out that sex(in terms of 30 male or female) is not a predictor on compulsive buying behavior. Their findings negate those of earlier researchers who provided support that more women than men suffer from compulsive buying disorder. They also stated that workers who are compulsive in nature are usually sensitive to their spending habits which may in turn cause emotional breakdown. By and large, it is important to note that Muller et al.., (2010) also showed interest in personality influences on compulsive buying. However, their studies were conducted in clinical samples, therefore, their aim was not to compare compulsive with noncompulsive buyers in a general consumer population but to assess the overall lifestyle and problems of subjects already recognized as „compulsive shoppers‟ and to identify personality prototypes in treatment seeking patients with compulsive buying. It was eventually concluded that compulsive buying was a function of personality factors. Research Hypotheses 1. Personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness and openness to experience) will jointly and independently predict compulsive buying behavior among undergraduate students. 2. Income level of students (high income, moderate income and low income) will jointly and independently predict compulsive buying behavior among undergraduate students. 31 3. Female undergraduate students will significantly report higher compulsive buying behavior than their male counterparts. 4. Undergraduate students who were older in age will report less compulsive buying behavior than those who were younger in age. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purpose of this study, the following definitions were specifically referred to:  Personality: This is the characteristic pattern of thoughts, feelings and behaviors that make a person unique. It was measured using 44-item Big-5 scale developed by Goldberg, (1999).  Compulsive buying: This refers to the chronic, repetitive purchasing that becomes a primary response to negative events of feelings. It was measured using 11-item scale developed by Valence et al,.(1988). High scores indicate higher compulsive buying behavior vice-versa. Big Five Personality Traits : refers to five broad dimensions used by some psychologists to describe human personality.  Openness to experience : is a personality trait characterized by active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety and intellectual curiosity. 32  Conscientiousness : is the personality trait of being thorough, careful vigilant and a desire to do a task well.  Extraversion : is defined as a behavior in which someone enjoys being around people more than being alone.  Agreeableness : personality trait manifesting itself in individual behavioral characteristics that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm and considerate.  Neuroticism: personality trait characterized by anxiety, fear, moodiness, worry, envy, frustration, jealousy and loneliness. 33 METHOD SETTING The study was carried out at university of Ibadan, sited within the Ibadan North Local government Area, off the Oyo road on the northern fringes of Ibadan, Oyo state. The premier university (UI) presently can be accessed from three points. Two of these points are along the ever congested Oyo road while the third is on the boundary with the polytechnic Ibadan. It has been perceived however that the growth and development of the university has no doubt exerted physical, social and economic implications on the Ibadan city as a whole. 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN The research design for this study was a cross-sectional survey design . questionnaire was administered for data collection. PARTICIPANTS The study population consisted of both male and female Undergraduate students of the University of Ibadan who were between the ages of 16 and 30. A random sampling technique was adopted by using odd and even number method. At the end, 198 respondents participated in the study. Males were 96 and female were 102. The mean age of respondent was 24yrs, SD= 11.02. 34 PROCEDURE Questionnaires were personally distributed by the researchers for the respondents to complete. The researcher got all the respondents from the faculty of the social sciences, University of Ibadan. The respondents were all undergraduates and they were approached on a face-to-face basis. Having obtained informed consent, the data were collected individually and coded for data analysis. 3.5 INSTRUMENTS A structured questionnaire was designed for data collection as the only instrument in the study. A questionnaire is a self-report form designed to elicit information that can be obtained through the written responses of the subjects. The questionnaires consisted of sections A, B and C. It was composed of 55 items in all. Section A aimed at gaining demographic data such as age, level of education, income, gender, nationality, etc. These information could assist the researcher when interpreting the results. Section B- compulsive buying behavior questionnaire developed by Valence, D‟astous & Fortier (1998). It has 11-items with a reliability coefficient of 0.89 and a test –retest reliability of 0.85 within two weeks interval. It is a 5-point Likert scale with a response format ranging from SD=1, D=2, U=3,A=5, and SA=5. The authors reported content and construct validity. High scores on the scale indicate higher compulsive buying behavior 35 vice-versa. In this study, the scale has a reliability Cronbach‟s alpha =0.88, with a mean score = 26, SD=11.25. Section C- The Big Five Inventory The scale was developed by Goldberg, (1999), it has 44-items measuring a five dimensional personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness). The items are rated on a five - point Likert scale from 1(disagree a lot) to 5(agree a lot). The Big Five Inventory (BFI) yields five primary scales. Descriptions of the scales and item loadings are listed below. Scale scores are calculated as the sum of respective items. The scale has a reliability Cronbach‟s alpha = 0.85 in this study. Scale name Description Item Loadings (Abbreviation) Reliability Cronbach‟s alpha BFI-EXT Extraversion 1,6,11,16,21,26,31,36. subscale 36 .67 BFI-AGR Agreeableness 2,7,12,17,22,27,32,37,42. .79 3,8,13,18,23,28,33,38,43. .66 4,9,14,19,24,29,34,39. .81 subscale BFI-CON Conscientiousness subscale BFI-NEU Neuroticism subscale BFI-OPEN Openness subscale 5,10,15,20,25, 30,35,40,41,44. .63 3.6: Statistical Analysis After the data coding, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to explore both descriptive and inferential statistics. Hypotheses 1 & 2 were tested using multiple regressions while hypotheses 3 & 4 were tested using t-test for the independent samples. Further analysis was conducted to determine the reliability statistics of the instrument used. 37 RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the data analysis centered on the influence of personality traits on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates in university of Ibadan. Four hypotheses were tested and the results are presented as follow: Hypothesis one Hypothesis one which stated that personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness and openness to experience) will jointly and independently predict compulsive buying behavior among undergraduate students was tested using multiple regression analysis. The results are presented in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Multiple Regressions showing the influence of Personality Traits on Compulsive Buying Behavior Predictor  t-value Sig Extraversion .110 1.196 <.05 Agreeableness .206 3.438 <.05 Conscientiousness .594 7.298 >.05 Neuroticism .343 4.780 <.05 7.100 <.05 Openness .181 DV: Compulsive Buying Behaviour R R2 F P .669 .448 45.432 <.05 As shown in Table 4.1, personality traits jointly predicted compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates {R=.669, R2 = .448, F = 45.432; p <.05}. This result implies that personality factors jointly accounted for 45% variance in compulsive buying while the 38 remaining 55% could be attributed to other alienated factors not considered in this study. Further, agreeableness (β = .110; t = 1.196; p < .05), agreeableness (β = .206; t = 3.438; p< .05), neuroticism (β = .343; t = 4.780; p < .05) and openness to experience (β = .181; t = 7.100; p < .05) independently predicted compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates. By implication, emotional instability/ neuroticism had the highest independent influence on compulsive buying than the rest personality traits. The hypothesis is confirmed and accepted. Hypothesis two Hypothesis two which stated that income level of students (high income, moderate income and low income) will jointly and independently predict compulsive buying behavior among undergraduate students was tested using multiple regression analysis. The results are presented in Table 4.2. Table 4.2: Multiple Regressions showing the influence of Income levels on Compulsive Buying Behavior Predictor  t-value Sig High income .308 5.297 <.05 Moderate income .234 1.733 >.05 1.019 >.05 Low income .124 DV: Compulsive Buying Behaviour R R2 F P .410 .168 18.949 <.05 As shown in Table 4.2, income levels of students jointly predicted compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates {R=.410, R2 = .168, F = 18.949; p <.05}. This result 39 implies that income levels jointly accounted for 16.8% variance in compulsive buying while the remaining 83.2% could be attributed to other alienated factors not considered in this study. Further results showed that only high level of income had significant independent influence of 30.8% on compulsive buying among undergraduates (β = .308; t = 5.297; p < .05). Therefore, the results support the stated hypothesis and it is accepted. Hypothesis Three Hypothesis three stated that female undergraduate students will significantly report higher compulsive buying behavior than their male counterparts. This hypothesis was tested using t-test for independent samples and the results are presented in Table 4.3. Table 4.3: Summary of T-Test Showing Gender Influence on Compulsive Buying Behaviour Gender N X SD Male 96 24.01 3.89 Female 102 27.85 5.29 Df t Sig 196 -3.401 <.05 Table 4.3 shows that gender had significant influence on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates t (196) = -3.401, p < .05). The finding from this study suggests that females reported higher compulsive buying ( = 27.85) than their male counterparts ( =24.01). The hypothesis is therefore confirmed. Hypothesis four 40 Hypothesis four states that undergraduate students who were older in age will report less compulsive buying behavior than those who were younger in age. This hypothesis was tested using t-test for independent samples and the results are presented in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: Summary of T-Test Showing the Influence of Age on compulsive buying behavior Age N X SD Old 73 25.40 4.88 Young 125 23.96 4.12 df 196 t Sig 1.025 >.05 Table 4.3 showed that age had no significant influence on compulsive buying behavior among the undergraduate students t (196) = 1.025, p < .05). In the Table, older students ( = 25.40) while younger students ( = 23.96). The hypothesis is therefore not confirmed. 41 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION This chapter presents the discussion of finding with the relevant empirical studies; drawn conclusions based on the study findings and highlighted the implication and recommendation of findings with regard to the influence of personality traits on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates in University of Ibadan. Four hypotheses were tested while only one was rejected while the remaining three were confirmed. DISCUSSION Hypothesis one which stated that personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness and openness to experience) will jointly and independently predict compulsive buying behavior among undergraduate students was tested using multiple regression analysis. The results indicate that personality traits jointly predicted compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates. This result implies that personality factors jointly accounted for 45% variance in compulsive buying while the remaining 55% could be attributed to other alienated factors not considered in this study. Further, agreeableness, agreeableness , neuroticism and openness to experience independently predicted compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates. By implication, emotional instability/ neuroticism had the highest independent influence on compulsive buying than the rest personality traits. The hypothesis is confirmed and accepted. 42 The findings of the current study confirm the utility of the personality approach to comprehend consumer behaviour and extend our understanding of compulsive buying behaviour. The study provides strong empirical support that personality traits have impact on compulsive buying . First of all, the results confirm that outgoing, sociable, active people are more prone to buy compulsively. Compulsive buyers score higher on Agreeableness as compared to noncompulsive buyers. This effect deserves extra attention and can explain why Balabanis (2001) found a negative relation between these two variables. If we think of compulsive buying as a not socially desirable behaviour we expect Agreeable people to score lower since they are highly motivated to maintain positive relations with others (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). This is an important finding as it shows that Agreeableness can be sensitive to the retail context under investigation and might point out, that excessive buying does not always have to be considered as socially undesirable. As expected, Neuroticism had significant independent influence on compulsive buying. Emotional unstable people who often experience a variety of negative feelings, such as anxiety, depression, anger or embarrassment (McCrae & Costa, 1985) are more prone to buy compulsively. On the other hand, Intellect was negatively related to CB which means that the more imaginative, daring, reasonable a person is, the lower tendency she or he has to buy compulsively. Finally, the results didn‟t confirm the influence of trait conscientiousness on compulsive buying among undergraduates. This means that responsibility, precision and self-discipline are characteristic which neither 43 prevent nor make people more prone to engage in excessive buying behavior (Thompson et al., 2003). Hypothesis two which stated that income level of students (high income, moderate income and low income) will jointly and independently predict compulsive buying behavior among undergraduate students was tested using multiple regression analysis. The results revealed that income levels of students jointly predicted compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates. This result implies that income levels jointly accounted for 16.8% variance in compulsive buying while the remaining 83.2% could be attributed to other alienated factors not considered in this study. Further results showed that only high level of income had significant independent influence of 30.8% on compulsive buying among undergraduates . Therefore, the results support the stated hypothesis and it is accepted. Similarly, the finding is supported by Schlosser (2009) and Mueller (2010) who found that level of income had significant influence on compulsive buying behavior among people with high level of monthly income. However since their studies were conducted in clinical samples, their aim was not to compare compulsive with noncompulsive buyers in a general consumer population but to „assess the overall life-style and problems of subjects already recognised as compulsive shoppers‟ based on monthly earnings (Schlosser 2009) and (Mueller et al., 2010) concluded that high level of income is significantly associated with high compulsive buying behavior. 44 Hypothesis three stated that female undergraduate students will significantly report higher compulsive buying behavior than their male counterparts. This hypothesis was tested using t-test for independent samples and the results showed that gender had significant influence on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates. The finding from this study suggests that females reported higher compulsive buying than their male counterparts. The hypothesis is therefore confirmed. This finding is in line with previous research on the topic (e.g., Black, 2007; Koran et al., 2006). The research revealed significant demographical differences between compulsive and non-compulsive buyers, with young women having the most chance to buy compulsively. This tendency can be due to fact, that emotional and identity-related dimensions of shopping are more important for women than for men (Babin et al., 1994; Dittmar et al., 2004) and reflect the developmental needs of young people to explore consumer activities or to establish an adult identity by material goods (Dittmar, 2005). In addition, Tsao and Chang, (2010) reveals that the values and preferences of consumers are reflected in their personality traits, which along with gender difference influence the formation of consumers purchase motivation. For further verification, the duo conducted a research on the impact of gender and personality traits on online shopping behavior, using the big five personality traits and gender as predictor variables. The study shows that compulsive buying behavior is positively influenced by three of the big five traits: neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience and gender. This 45 means that the higher people are on neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience scales, the more inclined they would be to seek out fun, excitement and enjoyment during online shopping. Also Mowen (2000) found significant gender influence on compulsive buying. Therefore, gender determines compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates. Hypothesis four states that undergraduate students who were older in age will report less compulsive buying behavior than those who were younger in age. This hypothesis was tested using t-test for independent samples and the results showed that age had no significant influence on compulsive buying behavior among the undergraduate students. The hypothesis is therefore not confirmed. Researchers, analysts and authors have not agreed on the correlation between age and compulsive buying behavior. Agbonifoh et al.., (2007) noted that some studies have found relationship between age and product use while others have not. Another review across numerous studies conducted by Kassarjin and Sheffets (in Arnold, Price and Zinkhan, 2002) revealed that age only explain about 10% of the variation in consumers‟ purchase and product preference but no significant influence on compulsive buying. Mulyanegara, Tsarenko, and Anderson (2007) in their research work on the relationship between age and compulsive buying found strong correlation between age and compulsive buying behavior. Specifically, they found out that older consumers buy 46 more compulsively than the younger ones as against the finding in this study. However, this study found no age influence on compulsive buying among undergraduates. CONCLUSION The study found that personality traits jointly and independently predicted compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates. It was concluded that personality traits are predictors of compulsive buying among university students. Also, the study found that income levels of students have significant influence on compulsive buying behavior among undergraduates. This means that, high level income earners among students are more likely to buy compulsively. The finding from this study suggests that females are more prone to compulsive buying than their male counterparts. In addition, age had no significant influence on compulsive buying behavior among the undergraduate students. Therefore, it is concluded that there is gender difference in compulsive behavior. RECOMMENDATION Several limitations of the study should be mentioned. First, cause-effect relationships could be determined from this cross-sectional data. Thus, the sample of this study was relatively small considering the size of the model being evaluated using university of Ibadan students due to time constraints. Our results should, therefore, be 47 considered as preliminary. It is also likely that only medium or higher effects could be identified. Third, data were collected using self-reporting questionnaires. Responses to questions may be biased by individuals‟ willingness to self-disclose their feelings, selective recall, and their desire to present themselves in a socially desirable way. Fifth, the extent to which the findings can be generalized beyond the scope of the sample remains unclear. However, based on the findings of the study, following recommendations for future research could be taken into account. For example, future researchers could focus on different sub-groups such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and subjects from urban and rural areas etc with respect to compulsive buying behaviour. Also, longitudinal study could be designed to replicate the study among adolescents, youth and adult in Nigeria and this might be helpful and contribute to the literature as well as expanding the understanding of factors predicting compulsive buying among various age groups. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS One of the limitations with this research design is that it is all cross sectional data, which only demonstrates the association between co-occurring variables but provides no clear evidence for how one might cause another. A longitudinal study would serve as a useful way to observe the stability as well as any long-term contributing factors that may have been overlooked. It may also supply a better look at any antecedents that may be influencing factors on a person's compulsive buying tendencies. 48 There is also another limitation in only using self-report measures and university students sample. This leaves room for a possible bias within the test takers. A possible solution would be to examine credit score across various age groups for a follow-up study. 49 REFERENCES Association, A. P. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th, Text Revision. http://www.psychiatryonline.com/resourceTOC.aspx Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.20, No. 4, pp. 644-656. Bagozzi, R. P., & Youjare, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No.1, pp. 74-94 . Balabanis, G. (2001). The relationship between lottery ticket and scratch-card buying behaviour, personality and other compulsive behaviors. Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol.2, No.1, pp. 7-22. Black, D. W. (2007). A review of compulsive buying disorder. World Psychiatry, Vol.6, No.1, pp. 14–18. Bleuler, E. (1976). Textbook of psychiatry, Arno Press, ISBN 0-405-074107, New York, New York, USA Brown, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assesing Model Fit. In: Testing Structural Equation Models, A. B. Kenneth & J. S. Long, (Eds.), 445-455, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, USA Christenson, G. A., Faber, R. J., de Zwaan, M., & Raymond, N. C. (1994). Compulsive buying: Descriptive characteristics and psychiatric comorbidity. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 5-11. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, Florida, USA Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, Vol.4, No.1, pp. 5-13. Cote, J., Netemeyer, R. & Bentler, P. (2001). Structural equation modeling: improving model fit by correlating errors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.10, No.2, pp. 87-88. d'Astous, A. (1990). An inquiry into the compulsive side of normal consumers. Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol.13, No.1, pp. 15-31. 50 DeSarbo, W. S., & Edwards, E. A. (1996). Typologies of compulsive buying behavior: a constrained clusterwise regression approach. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.5, No. 3, pp. 231-262. Dickey, D. (1996). Testing the fit of our models of psychological dynamics using confirmatory method, In: Advances in social science methodology, B. Thompson, (Ed.), 219-227, JAI Press, ISBN 9781559387729, Greenwich, Connecticut, USA Dittmar, H. (2005). Compulsive buying – a growing concern? An examination of gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. British Journal of Psychology, Vol.96, No. 4, pp. 467–491. Dittmar, H., Long, K., & Meek, R. (2004). Buying on the internet: Gender differences in online and conventional buying motivations. Sex Roles, Vol.50, No.5-6, pp. 423444. Dongijn, L., Ying, J., Shenhui, A., Zhe, S., & Wenji, J. (2009). The influence of money attitudes on young Chinese consumers' compulsive buying. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, Vol.10, No.2, pp. 98-109. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, Vol.18, No.2, pp. 192–203. Edwards, E. A. (1993). Development of a new scale for measuring compulsive buying behavior. Financial Counseling and Planning, Vol.4, No. 1, pp. 67-84. Egan, V., & Taylor, D. (2010). Shoplifting, unethical consumer behaviour, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol.48, No. 8, pp. 878-884. Endler, N. S., & Speer, R. L. (1998). Personality Psychology: Research Trends for 19931995. Journal of Personality, Vol.66, No. 5, pp. 621-669. Ergin, E. A. (2010). Compulsive buying behavior tendencies: The case of Turkish consumers. African Journal of Business Management, Vol.4, No.3, pp. 333-338. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: a natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press. Faber, R. J., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1988). Compulsive consumption and credit abuse. Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol.11, No. 1, pp. 97-109. Faber, R. J., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1992). A clinical screener for compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, No.3, pp. 459-469. 51 Faber, R. J., O'Guinn, T. C., & Krych, R. (1987). Compulsive consumption, In: Advances in Consumer Research, M. Wallendorf & P. Anderson, (Eds.), The Association for Consumer Research, ISBN 978-091-5552-19-1, 132-135, Provo, Utah, USA Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the Factorial Structures of Personality Ratings from Different Sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.44, No.3, pp. 329- 344. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, Vol.4, No.1, pp. 26-42. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models, In: Personality Psychology in Europe, I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt & F. Ostendorf, (Eds.), Tilburg University Press, ISBN 90-361-9929-8, 7-28. Tilburg, The Netherlands Hanley, A., & Wilhelm, M. S. (1992). Compulsive buying: An exploration into self-esteem and money attitudes. Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol.13, No.1, pp. 5-18. Hassay, D. N., & Smith, M. C. (1998). Compulsive buying: An examination of the consumption motive. Psychology and Marketing, Vol.13, No.8, pp. 741 – 752. Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.7, No.3, pp. 239-260. Höck, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2006). Strategic networks in the software industry: an empirical analysis of the value continuum, IFSAM VIIIth World Congress, 28.10.2010, Available from http://www.fim-unihh.de/IFSAM06.pdf Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, Vol.69, No.2, pp. 323 – 362. John, O. P. (1999). The "Big Five" Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in the Natural Language and Questionnaires, In: Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, O.P. John & L. A. Pervin, (Eds.), Guilford Press, New York, New York, USA Johnson, T., & Attmann, J. (2009). Compulsive buying in a product specific context: clothing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol.13, No.3, pp. 394405. 52 Joireman, J., Kees, J., & Sprott, D. (2010). Concern with immediate consequences magnifies the impact of compulsive buying tendencies on college students' credit card debt. Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol.44, No.1, pp. 155-178. Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Personality and consumer behavior: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, No.11, pp. 409-418. Koran, L. M., Faber, R. J., Aboujaoude, E., Large, M. D., & Serpe, R. T. (2006). Estimated prevalence of compulsive buying behavior in the United States. The American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol.163, No.10, pp. 1806-1812. Kraepelin, E. (1915). Psychiatrie (8th ed.). Leipzig: Barth. Kwak, H., Zinkjan, G. M., & Lester-Roushanzamir, E. P. (2004). Compulsive comorbidity and its psychological antecedents: a cross-cultural comparison between the US and South Korea. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.21, No.6, pp. 418-434. Kyrios, M., Frost, R. O., & Steketee, G. S. (2004). Cognitions in compulsive buying and acquisition. Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol.28, No.2, pp. 241-258. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, McGraw Hill Higher Education, ISBN 978-007-0164-99-4, London, England Lin, L.-Y. (2010). The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand loyalty: an empirical study of toys and video games buyers. Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.19, No.1, pp. 4-18. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Openness to experience. In: Perspectives in personality, R. Hogan & W. H. Jones, (Eds.), 145–172. McElroy, S. L., Keck, P. E., Pope Jr., H. G., Smith, J. M. R., & Strakowski, S. M. (1994). Compulsive buying: A report of 20 cases. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, Vol.55, No.6, pp. 242-248. Mowen, J. (2000). The 3M model of motivation and personality: Theory and empirical applications to consumer behavior. Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Mowen, J. C., & Spears, N. (1999). Understanding compulsive buying among college students: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.8, No.4, pp. 407-430. Mueller, A., Claes, L., Mitchell, J. E., Wonderlich, S. A., Crosby, R. D., & de Zwaan, M. (2010). Personality prototypes in individuals with compulsive buying based on 53 the Big Five Model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol.48, No.9, pp. 930935. O'Guinn, T. C., & Faber, R. J. (1989). Compulsive buying: A phenomenological exploration. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.16, No.2, pp. 147-157. Ridgway, N. M., Kukar-Kinney, M., & Monroe, K. B. (2008). An expanded conceptualization and a new measure of compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.35, No.4, pp. 622-639. Rose, P. (2007). Mediators of the association between narcissism and compulsive buying: The roles of materialism and impulse control. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, Vol.21, No.4, pp. 576-581. Scherhorn, G. (1990). The addictive trait in buying behaviour. Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol.13, No.1, pp. 33-51. Schlosser, S., Black, D. W., Repertinger, S., & Freet, D. (1994). Compulsive buying: Demography, phenomenology, and comorbidity in 46 subjects. General Hospital Psychiatry, Vol.16, No.3, pp. 205-212. Sneath, J. Z., Lacey, R., & Kennett-Hensel, P. A. (2009). Coping with a natural disaster: Losses, emotions, and impulsive and compulsive buying. Marketing Letters, Vol. 20, No.1, pp. 45-60. Strack, S. 1991. Manual for the Personality Adjective Check List (PACL), 21st Century Assessment, Southern Pasadena, California, USA Thompson, L. F., Surface, E. A., Martin, D. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2003). From paper to pixels: Moving personnel surveys to the Web. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56, No.1, pp. 197- 227. Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of mind. Psychological Review, Vol.41, No.1, pp. 132. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings. Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command Valence, G., d'Astous, A., & Fortier, L. (1988). Compulsive buying: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol.11, No.4, pp. 419433. Wang, C.-C., & Yang, H.-W. (2008). Passion for online shopping: the influance of personality and compulsive buying. Social Behavior and Personality, Vol.36, No.5, pp. 693-706. 54 Watson, S. (2009). Credit card misuse, money attitudes, and compulsive buying behaviors: A comparison of internal and external locus of control (LOC) consumers. College Student Journal, Vol. 43, No.2, pp. 268-275. Wiggins, J. S. (1996). The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives, Guilford Press, New York, NewYork, USA 55