Journal of Retailing 88 (1, 2012) 63–71

The Role of Price in the Behavior and Purchase Decisions of

Compulsive Buyers
Monika Kukar-Kinney a,∗ , Nancy M. Ridgway a,1 , Kent B. Monroe a,b,2
a Department of Marketing, Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173, United States
b University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States

Abstract
The present research examines the relationship between consumers’ tendencies to buy compulsively and their response to price based on a survey
of customers of an Internet clothing retailer. The research findings suggest that compulsive buyers possess greater knowledge of store prices and are
more brand conscious and prestige sensitive in comparison with non-compulsive buyers. Moreover, compulsive buyers derive greater transaction
value from price promotions and are more price conscious and sale prone than non-compulsive buyers.
© 2011 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Compulsive buying; Price knowledge; Price consciousness; Brand preferences; Purchase behavior

Compulsive buying has been of interest to consumer
researchers and public policy advocates in the U.S. and other
developed countries for over two decades (Hirschman 1992;
Koran et al. 2006; Müller and de Zwaan 2004; Neuner, Raab,
and Reisch 2005; O’Guinn and Faber 1989). Compulsive buy-
ing is defined as a consumer’s tendency to be preoccupied with
buying that is revealed through repetitive buying and a lack
of impulse control over buying (Ridgway, Kukar-Kinney, and
Monroe 2008). This definition is based on an emerging theoreti-
cal foundation called obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder
which considers compulsive buying as exhibiting elements
of both obsessive-compulsive and impulse-control disorders
(Hollander and Allen 2006; Hollander and Dell’Osso 2005;
McElroy, Phillips, and Keck 1994). The rationale for classifying
compulsive buying as an obsessive-compulsive spectrum disor-
der is that, like obsessive-compulsive disorder, the consumers’
thoughts are preoccupied with buying and repetitive buying
behavior is performed to reduce anxiety (McElroy, Phillips,
and Keck 1994). Moreover, like impulse-control disorder, these
consumers lack control over the urge to buy.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 804 287 1880; fax: +1 804 289 8878.
E-mail addresses: mkukarki@richmond.edu (M. Kukar-Kinney),
nridgway@richmond.edu (N.M. Ridgway), kentmonroe@verizon.net
(K.B. Monroe).
1 Tel.: +1 804 287 6311; fax: +1 804 289 8878.
2 Tel.: +1 804 716 2395.
Drawing on previous research on compulsive buying, we first
outline some of the broad characteristics of compulsive buyers.
First, the behavior is more likely to affect women than men
since it has been estimated that 80–92 percent of compulsive
buyers are women (Black 1996; Faber et al. 1995; Faber and
O’Guinn 1989). Second, although there is some historical evi-
dence of compulsive buying occurring in the early 1900s, the
documentation of this phenomenon appears to be more recent
(Faber 1992). Some researchers believe this recent appearance of
compulsive buying may be related to an increased emphasis on
and availability of material possessions in our consumer culture
(Richins and Dawson 1992; Hirschman 1992). Third, consumer
behavior researchers believe that products are used by people
to define “who we are” (Belk 1988; Krueger 1988; Hirschman
1995). Thus, an addiction to buying products may be a search for
one’s self much more than other compulsive behaviors, such as
gambling, drinking, under- or over-eating, or drug abuse (Belk
1988; Friese 2000).
Previous research has found a consistent relationship
between compulsive buying and other factors, such as
low self-esteem, materialism, impulsiveness, loneliness, and
obsessive-compulsive disorder (Faber and O’Guinn 1992). Also,
compulsive buyers are more likely to spend more than they
can afford and experience credit card difficulties (Roberts and
Jones 2002). Finally, compulsive buyers are more likely than
other buyers to experience shame or guilt associated with their
purchases, hide their purchase and shopping activities from oth-
ers (Ridgway, Kukar-Kinney, and Monroe 2008), and return

0022-4359/$ – see front matter © 2011 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.02.004
64 M. Kukar-Kinney et al. / Journal of Retailing 88 (1, 2012) 63–71
recently purchased products back to stores (Hassay and Smith
1996).
There remain several gaps in the compulsive buying research
literature. Although buying necessarily involves paying a price,
no research to date has examined the role of price in the purchase
decisions and behaviors of these heavy spenders. For example,
are compulsive buyers knowledgeable of store prices due to their
frequent shopping and buying? Are they more likely to infer
quality on the basis of price or brand name? Or, are they more
price conscious? Also, are they more likely to respond to sale and
price promotions relative to non-compulsive buyers? While the
role of price in influencing consumer behavior has been studied
in multiple ways, nevertheless, how it influences a segment of
buyers who buy compulsively has not been studied.
Understanding how compulsive buyers process price infor-
mation and respond to prices is important, because these
consumers are vulnerable to shopping triggers and are heav-
ily dependent on their buying activities. Their out-of-control
buying may lead them to experience financial difficulties, even
bankruptcy, as well as severe negative emotions and extensive
family arguments (Ridgway, Kukar-Kinney, and Monroe 2008).
If our findings indicate that compulsive buyers do not focus much
on price when buying, this may be an area of concern, since non-
attention to price could result in these consumers spending even
more than necessary on their purchases. Similarly, if sale signs
spur buying sprees by these consumers, this would also be of
concern as these consumers may suffer financial harm due to
the additional spending.
The goal of the present research is to determine how compul-
sive buyers perceive and react to prices and price promotions,
and compare their responses to reactions of non-compulsive
buyers. Based on prior behavioral pricing research, several
important price-related constructs are identified. Our research
findings suggest that compulsive buyers possess greater knowl-
edge of store prices and are more brand conscious and prestige
sensitive in comparison with non-compulsive buyers. Moreover,
compulsive buyers derive greater transaction value from price
promotions and are more price conscious and sale prone.
Next, we describe the conceptual framework and develop
the hypotheses about differences in consumer responses to
price between compulsive and non-compulsive buyers. We then
describe how we tested the hypotheses. Finally, we present the
findings and discuss the contributions and implications of this
research.
Conceptual framework
One important result of research on the role of price in influ-
encing consumers’ perceptions and purchase behaviors is the
recognition that price plays a dual role in the way it influences
consumer behavior (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer
1993; Monroe 2003). In the traditional economic sense, price
indicates the amount of money that buyers must give up to
acquire the specific product or service. If it serves as an indi-
cator of monetary sacrifice, price is playing a negative role.
However, some buyers consider a higher price to be positive
when they believe that they are gaining something by paying a
higher price. For example, when buyers are uncertain as to the
quality or benefits they might receive from the acquisition of the
product or service, price may also be used to infer what they will
gain when purchasing the higher priced product or service. In
this context, price plays a positive role. We use the conceptual-
ization of price in either negative or positive roles to develop the
hypotheses of how price may influence the shopping and buy-
ing behaviors of consumers with a tendency to buy compulsively
relative to non-compulsive buyers.
The negative role of price
As indicated above, price serves as an indicator of what buy-
ers must give up to acquire a product. Consequently, the higher
the price of a product, ceteris paribus, the less likely would a
consumer purchase the product. In this sense there is a negative
relationship between price and willingness to buy.
Two underlying premises of the economic perspective of
price are that buyers seek to minimize the price paid (what
they give up) and that they are knowledgeable about prices and
where to locate the lowest prices. Price consciousness refers to
the extent that buyers focus on searching for and paying a low
price for the product or service (Lichtenstein, Bloch, and Black
1988; Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer 1993). For price
conscious consumers, obtaining a low price for the chosen prod-
uct is more important than for non-price conscious consumers.
They also tend to engage in higher levels of price comparisons
than less price conscious consumers (Alford and Biswas 2002).
Compulsive buyers have been found to experience nega-
tive feelings, such as guilt, shame or remorse after buying
(Christenson et al. 1994; Faber and O’Guinn 1992). Their over-
buying also often leads to negative financial consequences, such
as high credit card debt (Faber and O’Guinn 1992). Because of
financial as well as social implications of their buying behav-
ior, compulsive buyers feel the need to alleviate their feelings
of guilt and regret and make themselves feel better about their
frequent buying. By focusing on paying a low price for a specific
product, they may be able to rationalize their purchase behavior
to themselves and to others (e.g., “I bought this at the lowest
price available.” Or, “I got this on deal.”). Low prices may also
further enable them to experience greater hedonic benefits of
shopping (Jin, Sternquist, and Koh 2003). Hence, we propose
that compulsive buyers will focus on paying low prices for their
selected purchases to a greater extent than non-compulsive buy-
ers, and consequently will be more likely to exhibit a higher
level of price consciousness.
H1. Compulsive buyers are more likely to be price conscious
than non-compulsive buyers.
We define store price knowledge as consumers’ subjective
estimates of their awareness of the level of store prices across
different stores. Previous research is unclear about how much
buyers, in general, are aware and knowledgeable of prices in the
stores and across stores (Monroe 2003; Vanhuele and Dreze
2002). Similarly as product experience (such as ownership,
usage and information search) affects product knowledge, it has
been suggested that the more consumers are exposed to prices,
 M. Kukar-Kinney et al. / Journal of Retailing 88 (1, 2012) 63–71
the more likely their store price knowledge (both subjective and
objective) will increase (Mägi and Julander 2005; Ofir et al.
2008). Exposure to prices can take place in a variety of ways,
such as in the store itself, reading through stores’ ads, flyers, and
catalogs, or shopping on a store’s website.
One of the characteristics of consumers who exhibit high
compulsive buying tendency is their greater frequency of shop-
ping and buying as well as spending more on their purchases
in comparison with consumers with lower compulsive buying
tendencies (Kukar-Kinney, Ridgway, and Monroe 2009). Due
to their frequent and extensive shopping and buying episodes,
compulsive buyers should be able to accumulate greater expo-
sure to price information and become more knowledgeable
about stores’ prices in comparison with non-compulsive buy-
ers over time. In addition, because of their extensive shopping
experience, they should also consider themselves to be more
knowledgeable than non-compulsive buyers. Hence, we propose
that:
H2. Compulsive buyers will exhibit a higher level of store price
knowledge than non-compulsive buyers.
One of the methods that sellers use to reduce buyers’ per-
ceptions of the sacrifice associated with a purchase is to reduce
the price, either through a sale or a special promotion (e.g., buy
one, get one free). An important issue is whether compulsive
buyers are susceptible to such price promotions. To address this
issue, two questions are relevant. First, are compulsive buyers
more or less susceptible than non-compulsive buyers to sales
and bargains? Second, do they derive more value from taking
advantage of these opportunities?
Sale proneness is defined as an increased propensity to
respond to a purchase offer for a lower price because of the sale
form in which the price is presented (Lichtenstein, Ridgway,
and Netemeyer 1993). Sale signs tend to attract the attention of
shoppers (Inman, McAlister, and Hoyer 1990) and Lichtenstein,
Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993) suggest that sale-prone con-
sumers are more likely to perceive a higher value when the
purchase price is presented in a sale form compared to an equiv-
alent price not presented in a sale form.
Compulsive buyers may reward themselves for finding a sale
(while not necessarily intentionally looking for one) by purchas-
ing more or more frequently than non-compulsive buyers. The
sale should provide them with an excuse to buy, and at the same
time alleviate feelings of guilt associated with buying (Faber and
O’Guinn 1992), as the product is obtained at a reduced price.
Moreover, obtaining a sale price on a desired product may be
a source of additional excitement and enjoyment for these con-
sumers, allowing them to achieve enhanced hedonic benefits of
finding a sale. As discussed before, experiencing positive feel-
ings during the purchase process is crucial to compulsive buyers
(O’Guinn and Faber 1989). Therefore, we would expect that
compulsive buyers will be more likely to respond to a sale offer
by purchasing in comparison with non-compulsive buyers.
H3. Compulsive buyers are more likely to be sale prone than
non-compulsive buyers.
65
Transaction value refers to the psychological satisfaction or
pleasure obtained from taking advantage of the financial terms
of a deal (Grewal, Monroe, and Krishnan 1998). We propose
that compulsive buyers will perceive greater transaction value
from obtaining a good deal on their purchase in comparison with
non-compulsive buyers. Because of their focus on obtaining low
prices and their tendency to respond to sales and promotion,
obtaining a good deal should be important to them. In addition,
a key characteristic of compulsive buyers is that they strive to
experience positive feelings that the purchase process can elicit
in them. Compulsive buyers love the act of buying and for a
period of time (usually short-lived) buying makes them happy
(Aboujaoude, Gamel, and Koran 2003). In fact, some compul-
sive buyers experience a “high” when buying. Obtaining a good
financial deal may even heighten this “high”. Another reason
is that a good financial deal can provide compulsive buyers an
excuse to buy, allowing them to quickly satisfy their urge to
buy, while at the same time reducing the strong feelings of guilt
that are often experienced after purchases (Faber and O’Guinn
1992). Finally, the value of completing the transaction should
be greater for compulsive buyers, as their focus is on actually
buying, rather than just shopping. Therefore:
H4. Compulsive buyers will perceive the transaction value
from a price promotion to be greater in comparison with non-
compulsive buyers.
The positive role of price
Before making a purchase decision, consumers may need to
invest time and effort into obtaining sufficient information to
perform a careful and deliberative evaluation of the product, its
benefits, and alternatives. When not enough time is available or
when motivation to carefully evaluate is low, consumers may
rely on heuristics to guide them in the decision making process.
For example, consumers may use price as an indicator of quality
or benefits—known as the price-quality heuristic. When price
is used in this role, there will be a positive relationship between
price on one hand and perceived value, purchase intentions and
choice on the other hand. It has been shown that consumers are
more likely to use the price-quality heuristic in situations when
they do not have sufficient time to evaluate alternatives or when
they do not have sufficient knowledge to judge quality (Rao and
Monroe 1988; Suri and Monroe 2003).
Compulsive buyers are experienced shoppers who have been
able to accumulate extensive product knowledge over the course
of their frequent buying trips (Kukar-Kinney, Ridgway, and
Monroe 2009). As such, they should have sufficient knowledge
to evaluate the quality of the product in a timely manner without
having to spend substantial effort to reach the purchase decision.
Therefore, being relatively more knowledgeable, compulsive
buyers should not need to rely on the price as an indicator of
quality as much as the less experienced non-compulsive buyers
(Ofir et al. 2008; Rao and Monroe 1988). Consequently, we pro-
pose that compulsive buyers will be less likely to rely on price as
an indicator of quality, in comparison to non-compulsive buyers.
Hence,
66 M. Kukar-Kinney et al. / Journal of Retailing 88 (1, 2012) 63–71

H5. Compulsive buyers are less likely to infer quality on the to the survey. After accounting for bounce-back messages from
basis of price than non-compulsive buyers. this initial mailing, an invitation to participate with the link to the
survey was sent to 1,310 customers. Technical problems reduced
Prestige sensitivity is the extent of a buyer’s feelings and
the final number of potential respondents to 1,294. From this
beliefs that high-priced products signal to others the buyer’s
potential set, 314 responded to the survey, resulting in a response
high level of prestige and status (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and
rate of 24.3 percent. The responding sample consisted of 98.5
Netemeyer 1993). Compulsive buyers have been found to have
percent women, 63 percent of the respondents were married,
lower self-esteem than other consumers (d’Astous 1990; Dittmar
their average age was 53 years (range 28–75 years), and average
and Drury 2000; Faber and O’Guinn 1992). Consumers with
household income was $82,000. The sample was reflective of the
feelings of insecurity and low self-esteem may attempt to
consumer segment most afflicted with problems of compulsive
compensate to make themselves feel more worthy. One way
and compulsive buying (i.e., adult women).
to temporarily enhance their self-esteem is to buy things for
The respondents received a choice of a $10-reward or free
themselves. Because of their lower self-esteem, most female
shipping on their next order (value up to $24.95) from the
compulsive buyers tend to buy clothing and accessories pri-
retailer. The survey contained questions about general shopping
marily for themselves to boost their self-esteem and enhance
and buying behavior including measures of compulsive buying
their self-image to a greater degree than non-compulsive buyers
and their response to price, questions about individual consumer
(Benson 2000; McElroy, Phillips, and Keck 1994). For example,
characteristics, and demographic questions. In addition, some
research indicates a positive relationship between compulsive
questions about consumers’ evaluations of various aspects of
buying tendency and fashion interest (Park and Burns 2005).
the Internet retailer and its Website were asked.
Because of compulsive buyers’ self-esteem being lower than that
of non-compulsive buyers, we expect that they should be more
Measures
likely to buy prestigious products. Buying prestigious products
could help these consumers facilitate the goal of increasing their
The tendency to buy compulsively was measured using a
perceptions of self-worth and self-completion (Belk 1988).
recently developed six-item compulsive buying scale (Ridgway,
H6. Compulsive buyers are more likely to be prestige sensitive Kukar-Kinney, and Monroe 2008). Compulsive buying has been
than non-compulsive buyers. found to be a second-order construct, consisting of two under-
lying dimensions: the obsessive-compulsive preoccupation with
Similarly, we would expect compulsive buyers to be more
buying and impulsive buying. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale as
focused on buying well-known national brands as opposed
a whole (across the two dimensions) was .84. To use the scale in
to lesser known or store brands. While brand conscious-
further analysis, we composed an index of compulsive buying
ness as a buyer characteristic may not be directly related to
by summing the responses to the six items (each measured on a
price, nevertheless, well-known and national brands are almost
7-point frequency or Likert-type scale). The mean value of com-
always priced higher than less familiar store brands (Apelbaum,
pulsive buying index was 17.13, the median value was 16 and
Gerstner, and Naik 2003; Dick, Jain, and Richardson 1997).
the range across respondents was 6–42. The chi-square value for
This idea holds true for clothing brands as well (for example,
the confirmatory factor model was 96 (8 d.f.). Other goodness
Caslon being Nordstrom’s less expensive store brand). As with
of fit measures were: CFI = .90, IFI = .90, and RMSEA = .08,
prestige sensitivity, compulsive buyers should be more likely
indicating an adequate fit of the model.
to receive a boost to their self-esteem when buying (and con-
All price-related constructs were measured with multiple
sequently, using) higher-priced well-known brands. Moreover,
items. Most items were taken or adapted from the previous litera-
previous research shows a link between hedonic benefits and
ture and some were developed and added to existing items in this
buying national brands on promotions (Ailawadi, Neslin, and
research. All items used along with the source of each measure
Gedenk 2001). Experiencing positive feelings, such as shopping
are listed in Appendix A. All construct reliabilities exceed .70
enjoyment, is a crucial part of the buying process for compulsive
(with all but one greater than .80), exhibiting sufficient reliabil-
buyers (Faber and O’Guinn 1992), and they should be likely to
ity. Individual construct reliabilities as well as inter-correlations
experience greater shopping enjoyment when buying national
for each measure are shown in Table 1. The chi-square value for
as compared to store brands, leading them to prefer national to
the confirmatory factor model containing all price-related mea-
store brands. Hence, we propose that:
sures was 765 (382 d.f.). Other goodness of fit measures were:
H7. Compulsive buyers are more likely to be brand conscious CFI = .93, IFI = .93, and RMSEA = .06.
than non-compulsive buyers. Discriminant validity of measures was assessed first by ver-
ifying that all inter-construct correlations were significantly
Methodology lower than one. As the second, more stringent test, we constricted
items that were supposed to measure two different constructs,
Sample to load on a single underlying construct. For all pairs of con-
structs, this action resulted in a significantly worse confirmatory
To test the hypotheses, a national survey of customers of factor model fit, indicating that the respective items indeed mea-
an Internet women’s clothing retailer was conducted. An email sure distinct underlying constructs, thus providing additional
message was sent to a sample of 1,490 customers alerting them evidence of discriminant validity.
 M. Kukar-Kinney et al. / Journal of Retailing 88 (1, 2012) 63–71 67

Table 1
Construct inter-correlations and reliabilities.
Compulsive Price Store price Sale Transaction Price-quality Prestige Brand
buying consciousness knowledge proneness value sensitivity consciousness

Compulsive buying .84

Price consciousness .10* .71
Store price knowledge .19*** .52*** .93
Sale proneness .16*** .49*** .42*** .81
Transaction value .20*** .52*** .49*** .51*** .90
Price-quality inferences .04 −.16*** .02 −.09 −.07 .90
Prestige sensitivity .18*** −.04 .13** .13** .04 .47*** .90
Brand consciousness .12** −.02 .23*** .01 .08 .42*** .29*** .81

Notes: Construct reliabilities are displayed on the diagonal, construct inter-correlations obtained are reported below the diagonal.
* Significant at .05 level.
** Significant at .01 level (two-tailed).
*** Significant at .001 level.

Analysis and results
Because of the subsequent analysis, it was necessary to create
a group of compulsive buyers and a group of non-compulsive
buyers. Therefore, we split the respondents into two groups
based on their compulsive buying index. Consistent with the
classification criteria recommended by the developers of the
scale (Ridgway, Kukar-Kinney, and Monroe 2008), respondents
with a compulsive buying index value of 25 or higher were clas-
sified as compulsive buyers and those respondents whose index
value was 24 or below were labeled as non-compulsive buy-
ers. This procedure resulted in 16 percent of our sample being
categorized as compulsive buyers. The categorical variable indi-
cating whether the consumer was a compulsive buyer (1) or
non-compulsive buyer (0) was used in further analyses. The
hypotheses were tested using MANOVA, with compulsive buy-
ing as the fixed factor and the response variables as the dependent
variables. Income was used as covariate in the analysis. Initially,
we also used social desirability as a covariate, since it was found
to be correlated with the compulsive buying index (ρ = −.23,
p < .01). However, social desirability was not significant in the
MANCOVA analysis (p > .10), and hence was dropped to obtain
a more parsimonious model.
The negative role of price: We proposed in Hypothesis
1 that compulsive buyers are likely to be more price con-
scious than non-compulsive buyers. The results confirm
this prediction as the mean level of price consciousness
is higher for compulsive than for non-compulsive buy-
ers (Mcompulsive buyers = 4.94, Mnon-compulsive buyers = 4.50,
F1, 255 = 5.19, p = .02, r = .14). Hypothesis 2 predicted that
compulsive buyers will exhibit higher store price knowledge
than non-compulsive consumers. Consistent with Hypothesis 2,
compulsive buyers on average rate their store price knowledge to
be higher than non-compulsive buyers (Mcompulsive buyers = 4.98,
Mnon-compulsive buyers = 3.93, F1, 255 = 17.95, p = .00, r = .26).
In line with our predictions stated in Hypothesis 3, the
sale proneness level of compulsive buyers is higher than
that of non-compulsive buyers (Mcompulsive buyers = 3.65,
Mnon-compulsive buyers = 3.19, F1, 255 = 4.19, p = .04, r = .13),
providing support for Hypothesis 3. Further, as predicted
in Hypothesis 4, perceived transaction value is higher for
compulsive buyers as opposed to non-compulsive buy-
ers (Mcompulsive buyers = 5.83, Mnon-compulsive buyers = 5.06,
F1, 255 = 9.21, p = .00, r = .19), providing support for Hypothesis
4 and confirming that compulsive buyers experience greater
pleasure when obtaining a good price deal than non-compulsive
consumers.
The positive role of price: Compulsive buyers were
proposed to be less likely to infer quality based on price
in comparison with non-compulsive buyers (Hypothesis
5). However, as shown in Table 2, the average level of
price-quality inferences is not significantly different for com-
pulsive and non-compulsive buyers (Mcompulsive buyers = 3.37,
Mnon-compulsive buyers = 3.70, F1, 255 = 2.35, p = .13, r = .10).
Compulsive buyers do exhibit a directionally lower extent
of making such inferences, but the difference does not quite

Table 2
Results of hypotheses tests.
Dependent variable Hypothesis Mean (C)a Mean (NC)a F1,.255 p-Value Conclusion

Price consciousness H1: C > NC 4.94 4.50 5.19 .02 Supported

Store price knowledge H2: C > NC 4.98 3.93 17.95 .00 Supported
Sale proneness H3: C > NC 3.65 3.19 4.19 .04 Supported
Transaction value H4: C > NC 5.83 5.06 9.21 .00 Supported
Price-quality inferences H5: C < NC 3.37 3.70 2.35 .13 Mixed supportb
Prestige sensitivity H6: C > NC 2.68 2.01 12.20 .00 Supported
Brand consciousness H7: C > NC 5.00 4.46 6.26 .01 Supported
a C = compulsive buyers; NC = non-compulsive buyers.
b MANOVA analysis suggests rejection of H4 (p = .13), while one-sided independent t-test results indicate support for H4 (p = .03).
68 M. Kukar-Kinney et al. / Journal of Retailing 88 (1, 2012) 63–71
reach statistical significance. Thus, Hypothesis 5 is not
accepted. Hypothesis 6 proposed that compulsive buyers
will be more prestige sensitive than non-compulsive buyers.
As predicted, compulsive buyers are more prestige sensitive
than non-compulsive consumers (Mcompulsive buyers = 2.68,
Mnon-compulsive buyers = 2.01, F1, 255 = 12.20, p = .00, r = .22),
providing support for Hypothesis 6. Moreover, compul-
sive buyers are also more brand conscious in comparison
with non-compulsive buyers (Mcompulsive buyers = 5.00,
Mnon-compulsive buyers = 4.46, F1, 255 = 6.26, p = .01, r = .15),
which supports Hypothesis 7.
Discussion
The hypothesized relationships between compulsive buy-
ing and the price response constructs were all supported with
an exception of price-quality inferences. We expected that, in
comparison with non-compulsive consumers, compulsive buy-
ers would be less likely to rely on the price-quality heuristic
because of their extensive shopping experience resulting in more
accumulated product and price knowledge. While, as antici-
pated, the compulsive buying group is directionally less likely
to infer quality on the basis of price than the non-compulsive
group, our MANOVA findings show that the difference in sam-
ple means across the two groups of buyers does not quite
reach statistical significance (p = .13). Because of these bor-
derline results, we followed up the MANOVA analysis with
an independent samples t-test, which allowed us to use a
one-tailed significance test. The obtained t-test results indicate
that, in fact, compulsive buyers are less likely to make price-
quality inferences in comparison with non-compulsive buyers
(Mcompulsive buyers = 3.33, Mnon-compulsive buyers = 3.72, t = 1.90,
one-sided p = .03). Therefore, the additional analysis shows
that the price-quality hypothesis may also be supported by the
data.
To remain conservative in our interpretation, we can con-
clude with confidence that compulsive buyers are not more
likely to make price-quality inferences than non-compulsive
buyers. At worst, they are equally likely to make such infer-
ences (as MANOVA results indicate), and possibly, even less
likely than non-compulsive buyers (as the t-test results sug-
gest).
As discussed earlier, compulsive buyers are knowledgeable
and experienced consumers (both of which should lead to their
lesser use of heuristics when making purchase decisions). At the
same time, however, they may still focus on instant gratification
and desire a “quick fix” for their negative mood in the form
of buying (Faber and O’Guinn 1992). As a result, they may
not always want to take the time and effort needed to carefully
evaluate the product and its quality, and may still – to some
extent – rely on the price-quality heuristic. However, they do not
make the price-quality inferences to any larger degree than non-
compulsive consumers. This is a positive finding as it suggests
that compulsive buyers may not be more vulnerable to paying a
higher price just because they would more strongly believe and
rely on the heuristic that higher-priced products are of higher
quality. Even though these consumers focus on positive feelings
they experience through the buying process, they do not appear
to use the price-quality heuristic as a shortcut to faster purchase
decisions any more than other shoppers.
In fact, as conclusions based on other hypotheses tested in
the present research suggest, even though these consumers buy
compulsively, they seem to behave as smart shoppers when
they search for and buy products of interest. In general, they
are more likely to shop around, exhibiting higher levels of
price consciousness. In addition, they are also more prone
to purchase items that are on sale in comparison with non-
compulsive buyers. Thus, when they actually make purchases,
they are more inclined to make sure they get a low price for
the products of interest. Buying on sale or finding another
form of a good price deal provides them with inner satisfac-
tion and allows them to attain the positive feelings they seek
when purchasing. In our study, compulsive buyers reported
deriving more pleasure (i.e., higher transaction value) from
taking advantage of a price promotion or another price deal
than non-compulsive buyers. Therefore, it is not just buying
per se that allows the compulsive buyers to alleviate negative
feelings and provides them with a boost of positive feelings,
but it is rather buying selected products or brands at a good
price.
In addition, the compulsive buying group appears to focus
their purchases on products that provide them with prestige
and recognition, such as well-known and higher priced brands.
Focusing on more prestigious brands and products likely allows
these consumers to feel better about themselves by provid-
ing a boost to their self-esteem. Since prestigious brands and
products tend to be higher priced than lesser known or store
brands (Apelbaum, Gerstner, and Naik 2003; Dick, Jain, and
Richardson 1997), this finding may at first appear to be inconsis-
tent with the compulsive buyers’ identified focus on low prices.
However, while compulsive buyers are indeed found to prefer
prestigious national brands, at the same time it seems that they
like to search for a good price on these brands across different
stores or desire to buy them on sale or some other type of price
deal.
Implications
Theoretically, the present research is to the best of our knowl-
edge the first study to explore how compulsive buyers perceive
and react to prices. As such, it importantly contributes to iden-
tifying and determining the nature of the relationship between
consumers’ compulsive buying tendencies and the role of price
in consumer buying behavior. Overall, we find that compulsive
buyers tend to have a heightened response (in comparison with
non-compulsive buyers) to price in both its positive and nega-
tive roles. This finding translates into compulsive buyers on one
hand being more vulnerable to buying higher-priced prestigious
brands, and searching for good price deals on these brands on
the other hand.
From the consumer welfare perspective, a question that we
sought to address in the present research is the extent to which
compulsive buyers consider the price of products when shopping
and buying. Because their focus is on deriving positive feelings
 M. Kukar-Kinney et al. / Journal of Retailing 88 (1, 2012) 63–71
from the buying process, it was possible that they would not pay
much attention to price, and thus potentially could overpay for
the selected purchases. A possibility for such consumer behavior
exists as it seemed plausible that compulsive buyers make less
than optimal choices due to their need to buy quickly (impul-
sively), resulting in them not spending sufficient time shopping
around for low prices. However, our findings indicate that this
may not be the case.
Consumer compulsive buying behavior still remains an
important concern from the consumer welfare perspective
because of the frequency with which it occurs, the total amount
these consumers spend on their purchases, and the dysfunctional
consequences that result from compulsive buying behavior
(d’Astous 1990; Ridgway, Kukar-Kinney, and Monroe 2008).
Compulsive buying behaviors frequently lead to harmful conse-
quences, such as arguments with family, suboptimal allocation
of time, and negative financial outcomes. However, the present
research demonstrates that once the decision has been made to
buy a product, these consumers do not necessarily make sub-
optimal price choices based on the products of interest. While
this finding may seem a small “light” amidst a sea of nega-
tive consequences, nonetheless, it does alleviate a concern that
these vulnerable consumers are at risk of paying higher prices
than necessary. Interestingly, compulsive buyers, while admit-
ting that they often purchase items they do not need or did not
plan to buy (“buy things I don’t need”; “buy things I did not
plan to buy”), nevertheless do enjoy and get positive feelings
from shopping and finding products that are being price pro-
moted. In this sense they are vulnerable to frequent price and
sales promotions.
This research also has implications for retailers. Online retail-
ers frequently, often daily, inform consumers via email about
new products and collections they are offering, as well as sales
and other promotional events, such as free shipping. These fre-
quent notifications may spur compulsive buyers to purchase
more frequently, especially when an attractive price offer is
included. Thus compulsive buyers have an excuse to buy and
an opportunity to achieve an even higher “high” because of the
pleasure of being able to take advantage of a price deal. From
the consumer welfare standpoint, retailers might consider iden-
tifying these problematic buyers and excluding them from some
of their communications. However, notifying consumers about
sales and other forms of price promotions provides compulsive
buyers opportunities to experience more transaction value and
pay lower prices at the same time. While these two prescriptions
may seem like a “Catch 22,” it would seem that encouraging con-
sumers who have or exhibit a tendency to buy compulsively to
be more moderate in their buying would have social benefits.
In addition, leaving problematic buyers out of communications
would have personal benefits to individual consumers. They
would, perhaps, buy less frequently when they are not constantly
alerted to online products and deals or promotions.
Conclusions
While all but one of the proposed hypotheses were supported
in the present study, we need to note that the sample that was
69
used to test the hypotheses was not representative of an average
consumer. Given that the data were obtained from customers of
an Internet clothing retailer, the sample was limited to consumers
who purchase clothing online, but did not examine consumers
who make purchases primarily at bricks-and-mortar stores. The
sample was also relatively affluent and predominantly limited to
women (who were previously found to constitute the majority
of compulsive buyers). Thus, future research should use more
heterogeneous consumer populations to test the proposed rela-
tionships.
The present research focused on a general group of com-
pulsive buyers classified as such by a compulsive buying scale
suitable for use with the general population, rather than on
a narrowly defined group of pathological compulsive buyers
who are psychiatrically identified. Thus, we cannot general-
ize our findings to those consumers. Due to the necessary
financial problems psychiatrically identified compulsive buy-
ers experience as a result of their buying behavior, it would
also be of interest to examine the price-related responses
of this consumer population in future research. For exam-
ple, it is possible that the severe financial problems they
are experiencing are an indication that the pathological com-
pulsive buyers may not respond to price as rationally as
non-pathological compulsive buyers identified in the current
research.
Another intriguing area of future research would be inves-
tigating in more depth the relationship of price knowledge
and compulsive buying. In our study, we collected only sub-
jective estimates of price knowledge, which may not be an
accurate reflection of objective price knowledge (Mägi and
Julander 2005; Ofir et al. 2008). Thus, both subjective and
objective price knowledge should be measured and its link to
compulsive buyers should be examined. Are compulsive buy-
ers indeed more knowledgeable about store prices, which may
enable them to make better purchase decisions? Or, alterna-
tively, do they just think that they know the prices better, in
turn being over-confident and making worse purchase deci-
sions?
An interesting supplement to the present research would be
an in-depth qualitative study of a small number of compul-
sive buyers, focusing on their shopping experiences and the
best deals they have ever obtained, their motivations and jus-
tification for buying products on price promotions, as well as
potential remorse when not taking advantage of a promotion.
Further research could also explore whether compulsive buying
is a product- or product-category specific or a more generalized
consumer behavior.
Appendix A. Scale items
Compulsive Buying (Ridgway, Kukar-Kinney, and Monroe
2008):
My closet has unopened shopping bags in it.
Others might consider me a “shopaholic”.
Much of my life centers around buying things.
70 M. Kukar-Kinney et al. / Journal of Retailing 88 (1, 2012) 63–71
Buy things I don’t need.*
Buy things I did not plan to buy.*
I consider myself an impulse purchaser.
Price consciousness (Kopalle and Lindsey-Mullikin 2003;
Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer 1993; Putrevu and
Ratchford 1997):
I check the prices even for inexpensive items before buying.
I read price tags of the products I buy.
Low price is an important consideration in my purchases.
No matter what I buy, I shop around to get the lowest price.
I would never shop at more than one retail store to find low
prices. (reverse-coded)
Store price knowledge (Urbany, Dickson, and Kalapurakal
1996):
I know a lot about how prices compare for similar items across
different stores.
I know which stores have the best prices for clothing and
accessories.
I know which stores have good price promotions.
Sale proneness (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer
1993):
If a product is on sale, that can be a reason for me to buy it.
I am more likely to buy brands that are on sale.
Compared to most people, I am more likely to buy brands that
are on special.
One should try to buy the brand that is on sale.
Transaction value (Grewal, Monroe, and Krishnan 1998):
Taking advantage of price-deals makes me feel good.
I get a lot of pleasure knowing that I would save money at the
reduced sale prices.
Beyond the money I save, taking advantage of price deals gives
me a sense of joy.
Price-quality inferences (Gotlieb and Sarel 1991;
Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer 1993):
A product that costs more will give you better service.
Low-priced products are also low quality products.
Generally speaking, the higher the price of the product the
higher the quality.
The old saying “you get what you pay for” is generally true.
The price of a product is a good indicator of its quality.
You always have to pay a bit more for the best.
Prestige sensitivity (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer
1993):
Even for a relatively inexpensive product I think that buying a
costly brand is impressive.
People notice when you buy the most expensive brand of a
product.
Buying a high-priced brand makes me feel good about myself.
I enjoy the prestige of buying a high-priced brand.
It says something to people when you buy the high-priced
version of a product.
I have purchased the most expensive brand of a product because
I knew other people would notice.
Brand consciousness (Donthu and Gilliland 1996; Shim and
Gehrt 1996):
I usually purchase brand name products.
The well known national brands are best for me.
When given a choice between a national brand name product
and a store brand product, I choose the national brand most of
the time.
Note: All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale,
except items denoted by *, which were responses to a question
“How often do you . . .?” and were anchored at 1 = never, and
7 = very often.
References
Aboujaoude, E., N. Gamel and Lorrin Koran (2003), “A 1-Year Naturalistic
Follow-Up of Patients with Compulsive Shopping Disorder,” Journal of
Clinical Psychiatry, 64 (8), 946–50.
Ailawadi, Kusum L., Scott A. Neslin and Karen Gedenk (2001), “Pursuing the
Value Conscious Consumer: Store Brands Versus National Brand Promo-
tions,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (January), 71–89.
Alford, Bruce L. and Abhijit Biswas (2002), “The Effects of Discount Level,
Price Consciousness and Sale Proneness on Consumers’ Price Perception
and Behavioral Intention,” Journal of Business Research, 55 (9), 775–83.
Apelbaum, Eidan, Eitan Gerstner and Prasad A. Naik (2003), “The Effects of
Expert Quality Evaluations versus Brand Name on Price Premiums,” Journal
of Product and Brand Management, 12 (2/3), 154–65.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 15 (September), 139–68.
Benson, April Lane (2000), I Shop Therefore I Am: Compulsive Buying and the
Search for Self, New York, NY: Aronson.
Black, Donald W. (1996), “Compulsive Buying: A Review,” Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 57 (8), 50–5.
Christenson, Gary, Ronald Faber, Martina de Zwann, Nancy Raymond, Sheila
Specker, Michael Ekern, Thomas MacKenzie, Ross Crosby, Scott Crow, Elke
Echert, Melissa Mussell and James Mitchell (1994), “Compulsive Buying:
Descriptive Characteristics and Psychiatry Comorbidity,” Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 55 (1), 5–11.
d’Astous, Alain (1990), “An Inquiry into the Compulsive Side of Normal Con-
sumers,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 13 (March), 15–31.
Dick, Alan, Arun Jain and Paul Richardson (1997), “How Consumers Evaluate
Store Brands,” Pricing Strategy & Practice, 5 (1), 18–24.
Dittmar, Helga and John Drury (2000), “Self-Image-Is It In the Bag? A Qualita-
tive Comparison between ‘Ordinary’ and ‘Excessive’ Consumers,” Journal
of Economic Psychology, 21 (2), 109–42.
Donthu, Naveen and David Gilliland (1996), “The Infomercial Shopper,” Jour-
nal of Advertising Research, 36 (March/April), 69–76.
Faber, Ronald J. (1992), “Money Changes Everything: Compulsive Buying from
a Biopsychological Perspective,” American Behavioral Scientist, 35 (6), 809.
Faber, Ronald J., Gary A. Christenson, Martina de Zwaan and James Mitchell
(1995), “Two Forms of Compulsive Consumption: Comorbidity of Com-
 M. Kukar-Kinney et al. / Journal of Retailing 88 (1, 2012) 63–71
pulsive Buying and Binge Eating,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22
(December), 296–304.
Faber, Ronald J. and Thomas C. O’Guinn (1989), “Classifying Compulsive Con-
sumers: Advances in the Development of a Diagnostic Tool,” In Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, Srull, Thomas ed. Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research, 738–44.
and (1992), “A Clinical Screener
for Compulsive Buying,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December),
459–6.
Friese, Susanne (2000), A Self-Concept and Identity in a Consumer Society:
Aspects of Symbolic Product Meaning, Marburg, Germany: Tectum.
Gotlieb, Jerry B. and Dan Sarel (1991), “Comparative Advertising Effectiveness:
The Role of Involvement and Source Credibility,” Journal of Advertising,
20 (1), 38–45.
Grewal, Dhruv, Kent B. Monroe and R. Krishnan (1998), “The Effects of
Price-Comparison Advertising on Buyers’ Perceptions of Acquisition Value,
Transaction Value and Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Marketing, 62
(April), 46–59.
Hassay, Derek N. and Malcolm C. Smith (1996), “Compulsive Buying: An
Examination of the Consumption Motive,” Psychology and Marketing, 13
(December), 741–52.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1992), “The Consciousness of Addiction: Toward
a General Theory of Compulsive Consumption,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 19 (September), 155–79.
(1995), “Professional, Personal, and Popular Culture
Perspectives on Addiction (1995),” American Behavioral Scientist, 38 (4),
537.
Hollander, Eric and Andrea Allen (2006), “Is Compulsive Buying a Real Dis-
order, and Is it Really Compulsive,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 163
(10), 1670–2.
Hollander, Eric and Bernardo Dell’Osso (2005), “New Developments in an
Evolving Field,” Psychiatric Times, 22 (8), 17.
Inman, Jeffrey, Leigh M. McAlister and Wayne D. Hoyer (1990), “Promotion
Signal: Proxy for a Price Cut?,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June),
74–81.
Jin, Byoungho, Brenda Sternquist and Aeran Koh (2003), “Price as Hedo-
nic Shopping,” Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 31 (4),
378–402.
Kopalle, Praveen K. and Joan Lindsey-Mullikin (2003), “The Impact of External
Reference Price on Consumer Price Expectations,” Journal of Retailing, 79
(4), 225–36.
Koran, Lorrin, Ronald J. Faber, Elias Aboujaoude, Michael D. Large and
Richard T. Serpe (2006), “Estimated Prevalence of Compulsive Buying
Behavior in the United States,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 163 (1),
1806–12.
Krueger, David W. (1988), “On Compulsive Shopping and Spending: A Psy-
chodynamic Inquiry,” American Journal of Psychotherapy, 42 (4), 574–8.
Kukar-Kinney, Monika, Nancy M. Ridgway and Kent B. Monroe (2009), “The
Relationship between Consumers’ Tendencies to Buy Compulsively and
Their Motivations to Shop and Buy on the Internet,” Journal of Retailing,
85 (3), 298–307.
71
Lichtenstein, Donald R., Peter H. Bloch and William C. Black (1988), “Corre-
lates of Price Acceptability,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 243–52.
Lichtenstein, Donald R., Nancy M. Ridgway and Richard G. Netemeyer (1993),
“Price Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study,” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 30 (May), 234–45.
Mägi, Anne W. and Claes-Robert Julander (2005), “Consumers’ Store-Level
Price Knowledge: Why are Some Consumers More Knowledgeable than
Others?,” Journal of Retailing, 81 (4), 319–2.
McElroy, Susan, Katharine Phillips and Paul Keck (1994), “Obsessive Compul-
sive Spectrum Disorder,” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55 (10), 33–5.
Monroe, Kent B. (2003), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 3rd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Müller, Astrid and Martina M. de Zwaan (2004), “Current Status of Psychother-
apy Research on Pathological Buying,” Verhaltenstherapie, 14 (2), 112–9.
Neuner, Michael, Gerhard Raab and Lucia Reisch (2005), “Compulsive Buy-
ing in Maturing Consumer Societies: An Empirical Re-Inquiry,” Journal of
Economic Psychology, 26 (4), 509–22.
O’Guinn, Thomas C. and Ronald J. Faber (1989), “Compulsive Buying:
A Phenomenological Exploration,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16
(September), 147–5.
Ofir, Chezy, Priya Raghubir, Gili Brosh, Monroe S Kent B. and Amir Heiman
(2008), “Memory Based Store Price Judgments: The Role of Knowledge,”
Journal of Retailing, 84 (December), 414–23.
Park, Hye-Jung and Leslie Davis Burns (2005), “Fashion Orientation, Credit
Card Use, and Compulsive Buying,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22
(3), 135–41.
Putrevu, Sanjay and Brian T. Ratchford (1997), “A Model of Search Behavior
with an Application to Grocery Shopping,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (4),
463–86.
Richins, Marsha L. and Scott Dawson (1992), “A Consumer Values Orientation
for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), 303–17.
Ridgway, Nancy M., Monika Kukar-Kinney and Kent B. Monroe (2008), “An
Expanded Conceptualization and New Measure of Compulsive Buying,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (4), 622–39.
Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1988), “The Moderating Effect of Prior
Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 15 (September), 253–64.
Roberts, James A. and Eli Jones (2002), “Money Attitudes, Credit Card Use,
and Compulsive Buying Among American College Students,” Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 35 (2), 213–40.
Shim, Soyeon and Kenneth C. Gehrt (1996), “Hispanic and Native Ameri-
can Adolescents: An Exploratory Study of Their Approach to Shopping,”
Journal of Retailing, 72 (3), 307–24.
Suri, Rajneesh and Kent B. Monroe (2003), “The Effects of Time Constraints
on Consumers’ Judgments of Prices and Products,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 30 (June), 92–104.
Urbany, Joel, Peter R. Dickson and Rosemary Kalapurakal (1996), “Price Search
in the Retail Grocery Market,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), 91–104.
Vanhuele, Marc and Xavier Dreze (2002), “Measuring the Price Knowledge
Shoppers Bring to the Store,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (October), 72–85.