واکنش پذیری عاطفی و خود تنظیم در رابطه با خرید اجباری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|39074||2010||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4347 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 49, Issue 5, October 2010, Pages 526–530
Abstract Compulsive buying has received increased research attention in the last decade. This study explores the relationship between compulsive buying and reactive and regulative temperament while controlling for depression and materialism. One hundred and thirty female psychology students filled out the Compulsive Buying Scale, the Behavioral Inhibition/Activation Scales, and the Effortful Control Scale/Self Control Scale, the depression scale of the Patient Health Questionnaire and the Materialistic Values Scale. Compulsive buying was explained by high materialism, high levels of behavioral activation, and low levels of effortful control, even after controlling for depressive symptoms. Given our results, future work is needed to examine behavioral control strategies in the treatment of compulsive buying.
1. Introduction Compulsive buying (CB) (oniomania) is characterized by excessive shopping cognitions and buying behavior that leads to distress or impairment (Black, 2007, p. 14), and that does not occur exclusively within hypomaniac or maniac episodes (McElroy, Keck, Pope, Smith, & Strakowski, 1994). The lifetime prevalence of CB is estimated to be 5.8% in the American (Koran, Faber, Aboujaoude, Large, & Serpe, 2006) and about 7% in the German (Mueller et al., in press and Neuner et al., 2005) general population. Clinical trials suggest that 80–95% of persons seeking treatment for CB are women (Black, 2007). However, the results of population based studies are mixed; some studies confirm the gender effect (Neuner et al., 2005) whereas others don’t (Koran et al., 2006 and Mueller et al., in press). It has been posited that CB is an obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder that can be considered an impulse control disorder (e.g., Dell’Osso, Altamura, Allen, Marazziti, & Hollander, 2006). CB has also been conceptualized as a non-substance addiction (e.g., Brewer & Potenza, 2008). The inability to exert control seems to be a key element of compulsive buying and distinguishes it from buying or shopping for leisure (Faber, 2004, p. 182). While not included in DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), compulsive buying disorder was included in DSM-III-R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) as an Impulse Control Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (Black, 2007). Compulsive buying has been shown to be associated with several other conditions that are characterized by an impaired impulse control, including substance abuse disorders (e.g., Schlosser, Black, Repertinger, & Freet, 1994), binge eating (e.g., Faber, Christenson, de Zwaan, & Mitchell, 1995), affective disorders (e.g., McElroy et al., 1994), and impulse control disorders (Schlosser et al., 1994). In the present study, we investigated CB from a temperament point of view. Rothbart, Ahadi, and Evans (2000) define temperament as individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation “Reactivity refers to the excitability, responsivity, or arousability of the behavioral and physiological systems of the organism, whereas self-regulation refers to neural and behavioral processes functioning to modulate this underlying reactivity” ( Rothbart et al., 2000, p. 123). Reactive temperament can be conceptualized in terms of two separate neurobiological systems: the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) and the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) (Gray, 1982; the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST)). The BIS is sensitive to stimuli that signal conditioned punishment and with the omission or termination of reward (non-reward), and is involved in behavioral inhibition. The BAS is sensitive to stimuli that signal unconditioned reward and the relief from punishment (non-punishment), and is involved in approach behavior. In the original RST, impulsive behavior can be explained in terms of low BIS reactivity or high BAS reactivity (Avila, 2001). Over the years, RST included a third system: the Fight-Flight System (FFS; Gray, 1987) that responds to unconditioned punishment and unconditioned non-reward and is involved in unconditional defensive aggression (fight) or escape behavior (flight). In 2000, Gray and McNaughton presented a major revision of RST (Corr, 2008). The BAS is now assumed to be responsive to all (un)conditioned positive valenced stimuli. The FFS is renamed the Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS) and is supposed to mediate reactions to all (un)conditioned aversive stimuli. The BIS is now believed to be responsible for the resolution of goal conflict in general (e.g., approach-avoidance conflicts). To the best of our knowledge, no studies have yet investigated the association between CB and BIS/BAS reactivity. Besides reactive temperament (automatic, bottom-up), also self-regulation (controlled, top-down) can play a role in human behavior. Self-regulation is often synonymously used with terms such as effortful control (Rothbart, 1989) and self-control (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994), and is related to prefrontal cortical functioning (Nigg, 2006). The notion of effortful control includes both behavioral forms of self-control as well as attentional processes (Rothbart, 1989) and is related to the personality trait ‘conscientiousness’ (Nigg, 2006). Lack of self-regulation, effortful control or self-control is associated with impulsive behaviors (e.g., Baumeister, Heatherton, and Tice, 1994). Several studies (e.g., Faber, 2004 and Vohs and Faber, 2007) have found a negative relationship between self-control and CB, suggesting that a lack of self-control increases the probability of CB. Furthermore, several studies (e.g., Mueller et al., in press, Van der Linden et al., 2006 and Wang and Yang, 2008) showed a negative association between ‘conscientiousness’ and CB; indicating that the higher the lack of premeditation or deliberation, the higher the score on CB/impulsive buying. The aim of this study is to investigate the joint – interactive or additive – influence of reactive and regulative temperament on CB. In the first case (interactive), regulative temperament acts as a moderator on the association between reactive temperament and CB. In the second case (additive), reactive temperament and regulative temperament have additive effects on CB. Until now, no study systematically investigated the joint influence of reactive and regulative temperament on CB. We hypothesize that low BIS levels, high BAS levels and low levels of self-regulation would be associated with CB in undergraduate psychology students. Given that there is increasing evidence that vulnerability to psychopathology is associated with extreme levels of reactivity in combination with low levels of effortful control (interactive; Bijttebier, Beck, Claes, & Vandereycken, 2009), we hypothesize that high BAS/low BIS in interaction with low effortful control will increase the risk for CB in our student sample.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
. Results 3.1. Clinically significant CB The mean score on the CBS was 1.66 (SD = 1.44; range −4.30 to 3.61). Six of the 129 female students (4.7%), who completed the CBS, scored equal or below the cut-off score of −1.34. 3.2. Correlations between CB and reactive and regulative temperament Table 1 displays the correlations between CB (reversed), reactive and regulative temperament, depression and materialism. CB was positively related to the three BAS reactivity subscales (approach), depression, and materialism, and negatively related to effortful control. There was no significant association with BIS reactivity. Table 1. Correlations between CB, reactive and regulative temperament, depression and materialism. CBS1 BIS BAS-FS BAS-D BAS-RR EC PHQ9 MVS-SF Reactive Temperament BIS 0.11 – BAS-FS 0.33⁎⁎ −0.27⁎⁎ – BAS-D 0.31⁎⁎ −0.08 0.33⁎⁎ – BAS-RR 0.37⁎⁎ 0.04 0.30⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎ – Regulative Temperament EC −0.37⁎⁎ 0.01 −0.36⁎⁎ −0.02 −0.10 – Control Variables PHQ9 0.25⁎⁎ 0.33⁎⁎ 0.10 0.25⁎⁎ 0.20⁎ −0.33⁎⁎ – MVS-SF 0.34⁎⁎ 0.19⁎ −0.13 0.16 0.19⁎ −0.13 0.33⁎⁎ – CBS = CB Scale; BIS = Behavioral Inhibition Scale, BAS = Behavioral Activation Scale, FS = Fun Seeking; D = Drive; RR = Reward Responsiveness; EC = Effortful Control-Composite Score; PHQ9 = Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (depression); MVS-SF = Materialistic Values Scale-Short Form. 1 Scores on the CBS were reversed: higher scores on the CBS indicate a higher level of CB. ⁎ p < 0.05. ⁎⁎ p < 0.01. Table options 3.3. Prediction of CB based on reactive and regulative temperament controlled for depression and materialism Prior to performing a hierarchical regression analysis with ENTER method we have standardized all the predictors and the dependent variable by means of the z-transformation. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis with the z-values of BIS, BAS-FS, BAS-DR, BAS-RR, and EC and their second-order interactions as independent variables and the z-value of CBS as dependent variable (controlled for depression and materialism) are shown in Table 2. The results clearly show that CB is predicted by the main effects of materialism, BAS-Fun Seeking, BAS-Reward Responsiveness and lack of effortful control. The interactions between reactive and regulative temperament did not significantly predict CB in graduate students. Table 2. Prediction of CB based on reactive and regulative temperament controlled for depression and materialism. β R2 Step 1 MVS 0.28 PHQ9 0.15 0.12⁎⁎⁎ Step 2 MVS 0.26⁎⁎ PHQ9 −0.06 BIS 0.14 BAS-FS 0.21⁎ BAS-D 0.15 BAS-RR 0.18⁎ EC −0.25⁎⁎ 0.33⁎⁎⁎ Step 3 MVS 0.22⁎⁎ PHQ9 −0.07 BIS 0.14 BAS-FS 0.20⁎ BAS-D 0.13 BAS-RR 0.18⁎ EC −0.27⁎⁎ BIS⁎BAS-FS −0.03 BIS⁎BAS-D 0.05 BIS⁎BAS-RR 0.02 BIS⁎EC −0.08 BAS-FS⁎EC 0.12 BAS-D⁎EC −0.12 BAS-RR⁎EC −0.12 0.34⁎⁎⁎ CBS = CB Scale; BIS = Behavioral Inhibition Scale, BAS = Behavioral Activation Scale, FS = Fun Seeking; D = Drive, RR = Reward Responsiveness; EC = Effortful Control-Composite Score; PHQ9 = Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (depression); MVS-SF = Materialistic Values Scale-Short Form. 1 Scores on the CBS were reversed: higher scores on the CBS indicate a higher level of CB. ⁎ p < 0.05. ⁎⁎ p < 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < 0.001.