Sibele D. Aquino
Samuel Lins- 1Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
- 2Laboratory of Research in Social Psychology, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
- 3Center for Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education Science, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
This study aimed at examining the role of personality traits in impulsive buying, compulsive buying, and panic buying simultaneously during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the beginning of the third confinement announced by the Portuguese government, 485 Portuguese answered in this study, mean age of 41.9 years (min = 18, max = 84; SD = 12.9), and 29.9% were men. Analyzes were carried out to investigate the association of Big Five’s personality factors with impulsive buying, compulsive buying, and panic buying. Results showed that the three buying behaviors under study have significant and positive correlations between them, and they also correlate with different personality traits. The association of each Big Five factor on buying behaviors differed. While conscientiousness was negatively and openness was positively associated with impulsive buying, conscientiousness was negatively associated with compulsive buying, agreeableness was positively associated with panic buying, and neuroticism correlated positively with all consumer behaviors. Understanding the personality traits that contribute to the development of a disorder may provide valuable insight into preventive measures and effective treatment approaches for some debilitating disorders. This study opens ways for investigating impulsive buying and compulsive buying by relating them to panic buying. It discusses the three different buying behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic and future consumer research directions involving other variables.
1. Introduction
Factors such as personality traits and individual variables were relevant to investigating and predicting consumer behavior (1–3). The studies of individual differences have provided literature with diverse ways to analyze their effects. The Big Five Model of personality is, probably, the most widely used framework for explaining individual differences in populations and relies on five sharply independent traits (4). The model has also been used extensively in the study of human characteristics that have an impact on purchase behaviors [(e.g., 5–12)].
Studies bespeak that personality can be defined by a set of traits that determine psychological predispositions that are stable over time. Such traits are grouped into independent dimensions, according to the Big Five personality factor model (14, 13), namely: Extroversion, which refers to how much people enjoy interpersonal contact and socializing; Conscientiousness, which is the tendency to be disciplined and regimented; Openness to new experiences, which refers to how much a person appreciates unconventional sensory and intellectual experiences; Agreeableness, which refers to how kind and cooperative a person is; and finally, the Neuroticism factor points to tendencies to demonstrate emotional instability and experience negative feelings (13).
Since these are stable individual traits throughout life and even considering cultural differences, the use of Big Five measurements is necessary for a better understanding of the influence personality traits may have on specific buying behaviors (15, 16). The Big Five model was chosen over other personality models because its widespread acceptance provides a systematic way to measure personality differences at the most basic levels (17). Prior research on consumer psychology has frequently been developed regarding the role of traits [(e.g., 18,19)], the effects of hedonic and utilitarian motivation, and subjective norms [(e.g., 20–22)], or the role of resources, like time and money (23).
However, individual differences also could predict consumer behavior. Not only attitudes, which are less stable ones, but mainly personality traits may be considered more stable across one’s lifespan. In this sense, identifying which personality components are involved with different buying behaviors is a useful way to build a broader understanding of regular purchases and eccentric buying, which occurs and seems to be underrepresented in the literature (15).
Above this, during a disruptive event such as a pandemic, the information overload people receive can contribute to a sense of fearfulness that increases overconsumption and thus the likelihood of product scarcity (24). Critical changes in material conditions arouse gut feelings that influence people’s behaviors (25). According to a World Bank Group report (26), the economic outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic are severe, considering the period from the beginning turning data collection and publications about the first consumer studies during the new coronavirus spread.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, human behavior has been impacted in multiple ways, with consumption one of the most prominent aspects. As a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers have exhibited a variety of behaviors. According to recent research, the global epidemic of coronavirus disease has provoked psychological distress worldwide, manifesting as pervasive feelings including distress, anxiety, and panic (27, 28). These feelings and emotions may lead to impulsive buying (29, 30), compulsive buying (31); panic buying (32); revenge buying (33).
The uncertainty raised by the health and economic challenges worldwide seems to have affected buying and other decision processes, and these facts push psychological science to understand the role psychological variables play in these behaviors. The COVID-19 pandemic is particularly a challenging environment for advances in areas where findings are not yet definitive.
Covering three different buying behaviors in the same sample during the pandemic could support important findings on personality and shopping and can extend the knowledge about shopping relative to individual tendencies and predispositions (impulsive and compulsive), as well as their relationship to a buying behavior typically impacted by the social context (panic). In this sense, this correlational study aimed to test the role of personality traits on three types of consumer behavior simultaneously (impulsive, compulsive, and panic buying) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.1. Impulsive buying
In defining impulse buying, authors tend to emphasize the spontaneity, inconsistency, and emotional state of the individual at the moment of purchase [(e.g., 34–36)]. For Rook and Fisher (22), impulsive buying occurs when the consumer makes a spontaneous, unreflected, and immediate purchase. They also emphasize that impulsive buying is dominated by emotional attraction. To explain this behavior, both extrinsic and intrinsic factors could be considered. Among extrinsic factors, there are social visibility, time pressure, and economic availability. The intrinsic ones are, for example, impulsiveness and personality factors, such as neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness (15, 35, 38).
Impulsiveness is considered a basic human trait (22). Therefore, buying impulsiveness should be an individual difference to be considered in studies preoccupied with understanding purchasing behavior during times of crisis (39). Impulsive buying is common among healthy individuals and reflects individual needs and differences related or not to the information to which they have access (40).
Several researchers have found associations between the Big Five personality factors and impulsive buying. Openness explains impulsive buying behavior (41), as do extraversion, achievement, and neuroticism (42). Conscientiousness negatively predicts impulsive buying, and it is also related to other individual personality factors, explained by extraversion or conscientiousness (1, 43). Specifically, neuroticism is the one that recursively comes out as the Big Five factor that is the most significant predictor of impulsive buying tendency (1, 41, 42, 44, 45). Finding new associations between neuroticism and buying behaviors may shed light on the nature of the vulnerability that high neuroticism elicits.
It is known that there are studies with results similar to each other, and others that do not corroborate previous research about the Big Five and buying behaviors. Thus, findings on personality and shopping are still not unanimous since they do not always associate with the same behaviors and are not always in the same direction. Not being consensual, it is crucial to investigate which factor influences more, or less, certain tendencies in diverse contexts.
Considering that impulsive buying is characterized by the urge to buy and stimulated by the affective state, this type of purchase behavior could sometimes surroundings on Compulsive buying–and both are consumer escapism behavior. Impulsive buying may be a signal for loss of self-control and falling into shopping addiction, so, in this aspect, it can predict compulsive buying (23, 46).
Sometimes, impulse buying looks like a synonym for compulsive buying, but it is all-important to distinguish warily these concepts. As seen, the impulse to purchase may be a simple habitual way by anyone, and a low or strong individual tendency. Distinctively, compulsive buying is chronic, and its key characteristics are a repetitive and uncontrollable desire to buy, always preceded by and resulting in negative feelings.
1.2. Compulsive buying (Oniomania)
Negative emotions lead to the tendency toward compulsive buying (48). When Sneath et al. (49) explored the relationship between consumer emotions and compulsive buying, they found a positive correlation between negative emotions and compulsive buying behavior. Thus, while the typical impulse buyer makes occasional spontaneous, unplanned purchases driven, most of the time, by a positive mood, compulsive buyers may employ impulsiveness and obsessive buying behaviors to cope with and alleviate their undesirable negative emotions like depression or sad feelings (50, 51). Compulsive buying is characterized by excessive shopping and buying ideas that produce distress and damage, including hard-to-control impulsivity (52). Moreover, it is essential to note that compulsive buying-shopping disorder is considered a mental disorder ICD-11 (as are other specified impulse control disorders, 6C7Y).
Evidence has demonstrated that compulsive buying may be a way of compensating for negative emotions (53), which may partially explain excessive consumption during highly uncertain social, economic, or sanitary events and the rise of general anxiety related to them. Despite sharing common traits with impulsive buying, compulsive buying may be considered rather abnormal conduct and is associated with stockpiling behaviors, characterized by the accumulation of goods and the avoidance to abandon unessential ones (54).
Recent studies have found personality factors correlated with this pathological buying behavior (11, 55, 56). Previous studies also reported moderate to high genetic correlations between neuroticism and obsessive–compulsive symptoms (Bergin et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2011). For explaining compulsive buying, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness are personality factors that demonstrated significant predictive power. Moreover, impulsive buying plays a mediating role in this relationship (41, 57).
The diversity of cultural contexts in which personality traits have been demonstrated to be relevant to explaining purchasing behaviors makes it reasonable to consider them as timely variables to be investigated. Understanding these variables simultaneously and not in isolation can provide a wide overview of the relationships found so far, broadening findings involving personality and three different purchase behaviors in the same context.
Compulsive buying behavior is cyclical and pathological, characterized by a repetitive and uncontrollable desire to buy, leading to negative feelings such as regret and guilt (47). This is a type of consumer behavior potentially surrounded by negative feelings, as with panic buying, for example. However, panic buying is characterized by other specific negative feelings, such as fear and panic, whose consequence is to buy beyond what is usually bought (39).
1.3. Panic buying
Panic buying occurs when fear and panic influence behavior, leading people to buy more items than usual (39). In previous events and during the COVID-19 pandemic, feelings of fear have been shown to elicit specific consumer behavior patterns, broadly known as panic buying, which is also related to impulsive buying (39).
Both impulsive buying and personality traits are individual differences shown to exert influence on distinct purchasing behaviors, a pattern that has been replicated with samples from different countries and during diverse major events (15, 35, 38, 41, 57). Therefore, evidence from different countries is a valuable contribution to the understanding of these phenomena.
There are other important individual differences in panic buying, like trust in government and money attitudes (15, 35). Consistent with what has been found in other cultures, levels of trust and the willingness to seek information also play a role in explaining panic buying behavior (38, 58). However, studies investigating panic buying and the Big Five are still scarce.
If personality factors may have a significant effect on consumer emotions (59), neuroticism maybe has the most significant one (60). It is generally agreed that neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, fear, sadness, anger, irritability, loneliness, worry, dissatisfaction, and vulnerability and that this factor is both a response to and a cause of various types of stress and diseases (61–65).
An abundance of studies indicates that neuroticism scores predict stress, psychological distress, emotional disturbance, low subjective well-being, symptoms related to physical tension, and substance abuse. Neuroticism is correlated with most depressive disorders, insomnia, schizophrenia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, bipolar disorder, obsessive–compulsive disorder, and even cardiovascular disease (66–73). High levels of neuroticism reflect similarly high levels of stress that a person regularly experiences. So, individuals tend to behave according to a negativity bias (74) and, during the pandemic, this tendency is often associated with neuroticism scores has shown an insignificant reliance on the valence of the received information (75).
In this sense, when levels of fear, anxiety, panic, and social influence are not maintained to a given level, they may not be beneficial for consumers (76). Depression and stress were predictors of excessive shopping as a coping strategy. Excessive shopping functions as a coping strategy in times of danger, as a way for individuals to protect themselves, reduce anxiety, and alleviate negative feelings (77, 78). An exploratory analysis showed that stockpiling was associated with high scores on extraversion and neuroticism, but with low scores on conscientiousness and openness to experience (35). Behaviors such as hoarding, for example, may occur under other conditions or may be one of the symptoms of different pathologies (79). Moreover, anxiety and stress can also be a precursor to panic buying (77).
As pointed out by the literature, all three types of buying behavior have a strong emotional root. The connection between the affects and impulse buying, compulsive buying, and panic buying is signaled by most studies on each of these themes (see Table 1).
Table 1. Overlaps and differences between the three buying behaviors.
Apparently, what differentiates them is whether it is commonplace behavior, casual and more impacted by positive affects (impulsive buying), whether it is a pathological and uncontrollable behavior that brings negative consequences (compulsive buying), or whether it is behavior driven mainly by challenging and disruptive events (panic buying). These aspects have relevance to the study of consumer psychology involving personality in impulsive buying, compulsive buying, and panic buying.
2. Study design
This correlational study aimed to test the role of personality traits on different buying behaviors (impulsive, compulsive, and panic buying) during the COVID-19 pandemic in a convenience Portuguese sample.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
In this study, there were 485 Portuguese participants, with a mean age of 41.9 years (min = 18, max = 84; SD = 12.9), 29.9% being men. The sample included people from all social classes, with 1.6% of the respondents self-reporting as lower class; 14.8% lower middle class; 65.2 middle class; 17.5% upper-middle class, and 0.8% upper class. Of the total participants, 0.6% reported primary education, 4.9% basic education, 36.1% secondary education, 41% undergraduate, 15.5% master’s, and 1.9% doctorate.
3.2. Instruments
An online questionnaire was used, available on the Internet. Upon agreeing to answer the survey, the participants were directed to the questionnaire that contained sociodemographic questions (gender, age, education, perceived social class). In addition to these questions, there were psychometric scales to access the Big Five, impulsive buying, compulsive buying, and panic buying to follow:
3.2.1. Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality
Participants’ personality traits were measured by the Portuguese version of the Mini-IPIP [(90), adapted for European Portuguese version by Oliveira (16)]. This 20 items version aims to assess the five dimensions of personality briefly using four items for each factor. All items could be answered using a seven-point Likert-type scale, measured from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Items use specific questions regarding Extraversion (α = 0.60; ω = 0.61), Agreeableness (α = 0.67; ω = 0.68), Conscientiousness (α = 0.56; ω = 0.58), Neuroticism (α = 0.61; ω = 0.61), and Openness (α = 0.62; ω = 0.64).
3.2.2. Buying impulsiveness scale
It used a shortened version of the Rook and Fisher scale (22), adapted to the Portuguese context by Lins et al. (91), with four items (“Just do it” describes the way I buy things; I often buy things without thinking; “I see it, I buy it” describes me; Buy now, think about it later describes me; α = 0.88; ω = 0.88). The scale was measured from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree).
3.2.3. Compulsive buying scale
The Brazilian version was adjusted to European Portuguese [Faber and O’Guinn (92) version adapted for a Brazilian Portuguese version by Leite et al. (93)], two native speakers to improve the understanding. To measure shopping compulsivity, a seven-item unidimensional scale measured from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) was used. The items represent behaviors, motivations, and feelings associated with compulsive buying (e.g., Felt anxious or nervous on days I did not go shopping; Felt others would be horrified if they knew of my spending habits; α = 0.67; ω = 0.74).
3.2.4. Panic buying scale- PBS
The original PBS is in Brazilian Portuguese (39) and was adjusted to European Portuguese by two native speakers to improve their understanding. A seven-item unifactorial scale was applied. There was the following instruction “During the current outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, how would you describe your buying behavior?.” For each statement, participants indicated a degree of disagreement or agreement considering recent behavior during the coronavirus pandemic, with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree (e.g., Fear drives me to buy more than I usually do; Panic makes me buy more things than I usually do; α = 0.93; ω = 0.94).
It is necessary to observe that the α and ω presented refer to the current data. Additionally, the score for the three types of consumer behavior was calculated using the average of the items, and higher scores indicate high levels of impulsive, compulsive, and panic buying.
3.3. Data collection and analysis
Participants were recruited by invitations on social networks. In terms of disclosure, this was done through social networks, specifically Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The snowball sampling method was used, in which participants are asked to share this questionnaire with other individuals who fall within the target population of the study (94, 95). The invitations explained the research and provided the link to access the questionnaire. On the first page of the questionnaire, an Informed Consent Form was available, complying with all the guidelines and standards regulating research involving human subjects in Portugal.
The questionnaires were administered between November 9th and November 30th, 2020, coinciding with the beginning of the third state of emergency decreed to contain the advance of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, Portugal adopted strict social measures, such as bans on driving on public roads at certain times and on certain days. In addition to banning driving on public roads between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. on weekdays and 1 p.m. on weekends, the state of emergency included several measures to combat the pandemic, such as taking body temperature in public places such as workplaces, transportation, and commercial facilities, and requiring diagnostic testing for COVID-19 in certain situations.
In total, the research received 534 responses, but only fully completed questionnaires were used (n = 485). The sample size was calculated according to Dancey and Reidy (96) and Green (97) ≥104 + M, where M represents the number of predictors. The appropriate number of participants was based on the psychometric literature, which recommends a minimum of 10 respondents per item for acceptable analysis (98, 99). Thus, the sample size of this study exceeds the minimum recommended in the literature (N = 124 or N = 380).
Pearson’s r correlation analysis was performed to verify correlations between personality factors and buying behaviors. A Student’s t-test for independent samples was performed to investigate the extent to which the levels of each buying behavior differed between women and men. Bootstrapping procedures (1,000 resampling, 95% IC BCa) were performed to increase the reliability of the results, to correct for deviations from normality in the sample distribution and differences in the size of the groups, and to provide a 95% confidence interval for differences between means. Multiple linear regression analyzes (Enter method) tested the predictive power of the Big Five on the studied behaviors.
4. Results
The sample for the present study comprised 485 Portuguese who replied to all questions and all instruments. Sample characteristics are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
Initially, correlations were assessed between the five major personality factors and the three buying behaviors, as presented in Table 3. The highest negative correlation was found between conscientiousness and impulsive buying r (485) = −0.18, p < 0.01; while the highest positive correlation was found between neuroticism and panic buying r (485) = 0.16, p < 0.01.
Table 3. Correlations between variables.
A Student’s t-test for independent samples was used to determine the extent to which the levels of each purchase behavior differed between women and men. The results showed no significant differences in the scores between the genders (see Table 4).
Table 4. Mean differences in buying behaviors between women and men.
A multiple linear regression analysis (Enter method) was conducted to investigate which five major personality factors (extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) impacted buying behaviors. Thus, the results show that there is a significant predictive power of some personality factors on distinct buying behaviors.
While less conscientiousness and less openness predict more impulsive buying and less conscientiousness predicts more compulsive buying, less agreeableness predicts more panic buying. In a different direction, a higher neuroticism factor positively predicts all the buying behaviors in this study.
Finally, the sociodemographic characteristics were included in the regression model with the Big Five factors. Specifically, to test the effect of gender on buying behavior, as the literature reports gender differences in impulsive buying [(e.g., 1, 100)], compulsive buying (101), and panic buying (39). Additional demographic variables were also examined. Some correlations between the Big Five factors and purchase behavior remain significant after controlling for demographic variables. The regression coefficients of all predictors are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. The predictive power of the Big Five factor on three different buying behaviors.
5. Discussion
Personality tends to be stable in a variety of situations (14). In a state of emergency context, the role of the Big Five factors was tested to discern how they were associated with impulsive buying, compulsive buying, and panic buying. By testing the relations between personality factors and three different buying behaviors simultaneously during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study combines a perspective on personality traits and their associations with impulsive buying, compulsive buying, and panic buying in the same sample. Personality is a major determinant of consistent behavioral patterns and can interfere with various everyday situations (102, 104), and the present study indicates significant correlations between some Big Five traits and different shopping behaviors. The pandemic situation deserves highlighted just because it is a context of exceptional destabilization, not only locally but worldwide at the same time: This is a study realized during a distinct contingency.
First, regarding impulse buying, the correlations found corroborate the literature, indicating that the greater the conscientiousness–and thus the sense of responsibility and planning–the lower the individual’s tendency to buy impulsively. Similarly, the tendency to impulse buy increases as neuroticism and openness are also greater, according to previous studies (15, 45, 105). Both reactivity and emotional instability, as well as being more open-minded, imaginative, and curious, make people more prone to impulsive buying behavior.
On compulsive buying, the correlations found in this study were similar to the same personality factors correlated with impulsive buying. Oniomania tends to be higher as people are more cultured or artistically sensitive [characteristics of the openness factor (90)], and as the level of experiencing negative feelings such as anxiety and depression more strongly identified in those with higher averages of neuroticism (106, 107) is also higher. Conversely, individuals who had higher averages in conscientiousness were more likely to exhibit less compulsive buying behaviors. These results indicate that while characteristics related to intellectual and emotional sensitivity are linked to uncontrolled buying behaviors, the ability to balance planning and goal focus distances individuals from compulsive shopping.
As for panic buying, is fundamental to discuss first its correlation with impulsive buying and compulsive buying, even though both behaviors have been examined in several previous studies. Those behaviors so widely studied in other contexts have similarities, emphasized, for example, by the affects that impact each of the buying behaviors presented.
In this way, the positive correlations found between impulsive buying, compulsive buying, and panic buying showed that both individuals who tend to buy impulsively and those who are more compulsive tend to engage more in panic behaviors while shopping. We presume that anxiety about feeling in control during an unstable circumstance is also related to poor emotional regulation of unplanned purchases and to negative feelings that lead to compulsivity. These associations deserve special awareness since panic buying was a specific focal point during the COVID-19 pandemic, which provoked countless feelings of insecurity, anxiety, and fear (108–111).
More on panic buying, it also correlates positively with the neuroticism factor. It is known that individuals with higher averages in this personality factor tend to experience greater emotional instability (112, 113), which may make them more prone to feelings of insecurity and fear (116). Panic buying is preceded by fear (39), and this behavior is related to an individual’s emotional instability (114).
An apparently intriguing result is the negative correlation between panic buying with extroversion. It is presumed that this propensity to seek stimulation in interaction with others and to be active is lower when panic buying tendency increases because, to some degree, the social interactions of extroverted individuals may serve the function of appeasing the anxiety and fear driving panic buying. Even with the physical detachment imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is reasonable to conjecture those individuals who seek energy in the presence of other people find ways of interacting that are sufficient to provide some armor that exempts them from engaging in panic buying.
But why would various forms of interaction with people protect them from eventual panic buying? Notably, extroversion is a characteristic, among other things, of people who enjoy social interaction (103, 104), and consequently, may be involved by blown-up strong connections and social support. Understanding that highly extroverted people more often participate in interactive and group events (115, 117), these characteristics shield such people from loneliness. A study found consumers with elevated levels of anxiety and loneliness have gotten involved in panic buying behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic (118). Thus, it is conceivable that the possible absence of loneliness in extroverts is related to the absence of anxiety and fear that would lead to panic buying. In this sense, the social interactions and high communication skills of outgoing people may provide more stability in experiencing the negative feelings that lead to panic buying. On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that people lower in the extraversion factor are compulsorily lonelier because other individual characteristics can suppress the anxiety of social isolation.
Similarly, panic buying was the only purchase behavior correlated with participants’ age. Unlike the original study that developed the panic buying scale (39), in the present study the older the individuals, the more likely they were to engage in panic buying. This is another result that is thought-provoking from a theoretical point of view and justifies being highlighted. The Big Five literature consistently indicates that emotional instability tends to decrease as people age (119–123), which was not supported by the found correlations in the present study. Thus, the fact that panic buying is more prevalent among older individuals may indicate that this consumer behavior is related both to circumstances or perceptions of current events and to the emotional instability characteristic of people high on the neuroticism factor.
The relatively high correlation between impulsive and compulsive buying deserves discussion. There may be an overlap between some characteristics of impulsive and compulsive buying, especially regarding conceptualization and observable behaviors. However, in the present study, the differential measurement was between the extent to which consumers’ buying behavior is repetitive (characteristic of compulsive buying only) or lacks impulse control (characteristic of both impulsive and compulsive buying). Some of the items on both measures may reflect the underlying tendency of consumers to be impulsive, and this may explain the higher correlation found. Lack of impulse control is an undeniable characteristic of the tendency to buy impulsively (22, 124) which may predict compulsive buying disorder (52). Thus, both behaviors are subject to similar antecedents, such as irresistible impulses to buy (23, 46).
Acknowledging some conceptual overlap, it is argued that impulsive buying may involve this uncontrollable urge to buy only once, without necessarily causing distress, while compulsive buying is a repetitive condition that interferes with personal functioning and is considered a spectrum of OCD. Other than that, it is possible to consider both impulse buying and compulsive buying are part of the same continuum and are subject to the same antecedents (101, 125). Nonetheless, each behavior is distinct from the other, and this distinction is well documented in the literature (see Table 1). Although there are certain conceptual overlaps, not everyone exhibits all three buying behaviors. Compulsive buyers, for example, may be highly impulsive and highly involved in panic buying, but not every impulsive buyer must be compulsive.
From the correlations found with the Big Five, regressions indicated the association of some personality factors on each investigated buying behavior. The models presented that personality factors predicted 5% of impulsive buying, 4% of compulsive behavior and 8% of panic buying, with some factors differing for each type of purchase. Consumer behavior is known to be multifaceted, resulting from both internal and external factors, from multiple reasons and contingencies (126–129).
So, only personality factors do not fully explain buying behavior, but they can reveal tendencies and patterns. At this point, it is essential to mention that similar studies also found low explained variance or even no impact of the Big Five factors on buying behaviors [(e.g., 11, 12)]. In this sense, the current findings both corroborate previous research and add a new perspective.
Impulsive buying was predicted by openness and conscientiousness (beyond neuroticism). The positive predictive power of the openness factor can be understood by the fact that momentary impulsive buying stimuli should be more irresistible to these people who like to try new things (90). On the other hand, the negative predictive power of conscientiousness is explained by the fact that people with high averages in this factor are also more self-controlled (90) and, therefore, less likely to buy thoughtlessly. This same characteristic of people higher in conscientiousness explains the negative prediction power of this factor on compulsive buying. Consequently, if individuals with higher self-control in task performance are more disciplined and organized (90), they are likely to be “protected” from compulsive buying tendencies.
Engaging in panic buying was negatively predicted by agreeableness. This result may indicate that people with a greater tendency to show empathy, altruism, and pro-social behaviors will not tend to be gripped by the fear that drives people to buy more things than usual. Although the pandemic context is overly disruptive for everyone, the negative feelings of uncertainty do not impact people with higher mean scores of agreeableness, perhaps because these people avoid stockpiling by imagining that their excessive consumption could lead to an unnecessary shortage of products and cause a scarcity of items for their peers and their communities. Studies using an experimental approach could deeply investigate these causes in the future.
We identified that high levels of vulnerability, stress, and sensitivity predicted all of the different consumer behaviors tested. High averages of neuroticism were positive predictors of shopping compulsion, which is likely to be enhanced by frequent negative emotion stages that intervene with reasoning and decision-making ability (130). In the case of panic buying, neuroticism also was a positive predictor, strongly indicating how emotional instability and anxiety drive fear and panic that lead to excessive and dysfunctional shopping during challenging events.
The neuroticism factor is like a joker in big five’s literature, a wild card in the deck of behaviors associated with emotions. In response to various types of stress, individuals tend to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, fear, sadness, anger, guilt, disgust, irritability, loneliness, concern, self-consciousness, discontent, hostility, shame, reduced confidence, and feelings of vulnerability, and to engage in situations that promote negative affect (62, 131).
A growing body of evidence suggests that neuroticism has a profound impact on mental health (65, 132–138), as high levels of neuroticism reflect similarly high levels of distress and stress that an individual experiences on a regular basis. Thus, while neuroticism is associated with a variety of disorders, we propose that the same may be true for unusual shopping behavior. An individual’s propensity to shop may indicate that he or she has a co-occurring disorder or other difficulties with his or her mental and psychological health. Observing this may tell us as much about who we are as it does about how we shop.
Among the commonly used reliability statistics, Cronbach’s alpha has been the most frequently cited in the literature. However, consistent studies reveal that tau-equivalence is often violated (139–141). To overcome these limitations, psychometrists recommend using McDonald’s Omega (142) as the best index of internal consistency compared to other reliability indices (143–146). Accordingly, the present study presents both indices, emphasizing that McDonald’s omega is more suitable for evaluation (139, 147).
Here, it is necessary to briefly discuss some scale indices. Brief assessment measures are helpful for researchers who are faced with limited assessment time (148, 150), but this imposes some measurement challenges. The present study used instruments that are commonly used in the professional literature. Despite their convenience, such brief measures can be criticized for their psychometric quality, especially problems with low reliability (148), which is a real challenge for personality scales, for example, the BFI-10 (146, 149).
In the case of PIP, previous studies have already reported that the trait of conscientiousness has lower reliability compared to other traits (16, 151). This was also observed by Cooper et al. (152), who presented conscientiousness with indices α = 0.67, and by Wielkiewicz (151), whose Conscientiousness factor reached α. = 0.64. Also, in adapting the instrument to European Portuguese, the trait showed low values (α = 0.67) (16). These results are consistent with the results of this study, in which the trait of conscientiousness had a reliability of 0.57. However, we reiterate that although the alpha values appear unsatisfactory at first glance, it is worth noting that for social science constructs in general, only alphas below 0.50 are considered unacceptable (153). Therefore, it is understood that the results obtained are consistent but should be interpreted with caution (154).
Purchasing goods to a given satisficing threshold, which may vary from individual to individual according to the above-discussed factors, is a way to cope with uncertainty (155, 156). Thus, some kinds of buying behaviors, especially panic buying, may have compensatory roles in human functioning.
Personality is an important variable in the analysis of consumer behavior. The results of the present study, conducted in the context of the pandemic, suggest that other potential individual drivers deserve attention from psychological science. Despite the robustness of previous studies not only of consumer behavior but also of human decisions under uncertain circumstances, the factors that influence purchase and its possible consequences must be further explored, more specifically other individual traits, like impulsive buying tendency (in the present study showed a strong correlation with compulsive and panic buying). Although individual differences contribute to advancing the understanding of buying behaviors, identifying which behavioral variables and habits precede consumption trends and choices in different contexts is also a challenge for psychology.
This research does not ignore additional confounding factors that may influence purchasing behavior. For example, in the present study, we tested age, gender, and perceived social class. Age is not only correlated with panic buying but is also a predictor of it. It is assumed that people naturally take on more household and family responsibilities as they age. Therefore, the tendency to buy more than usual to guarantee high stock levels may have been a way that grown-ups to minimize other insecurities, uncertainties, and the instability of the pandemic scenario (157).
From a socioeconomic point of view, in addition to the changes in daily life, access to information was considered a prominent role (158). The quality of received information and access to data is also linked to social, educational, and economic issues (108). It is conceivable to speculate that the troubled collection data period could have increased panic buying behavior among those who stayed more connected to information that impact emotions–such as the higher social classes.
Considering that panic buying is influenced by fear and the perception of a lack of control over the future (25), this circumstance may have contributed to the growth in feelings of fear and uncertainty. Finally, although the literature has reported gender differences in impulsive buying (1, 100), compulsive buying (101), and panic buying (39), the present study did not confirm these findings.
It should be noted that learning about shopping behavior is as relevant to psychology as it is to management, public policy, and psychiatry. Critical changes in disruptive conditions tend to arouse gut feelings that influence people’s behaviors (25). This is especially true because shopping tendencies can wax and wane in intensity over time, leading to varying prevalence rates among people. Moreover, in many countries, there is insufficient awareness of buying behaviors because conclusions about human behavior are based primarily on observations from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples, particularly from the United States (159–161). Intending to increase knowledge about various aspects of the disorder, the present study is important to increase the conceptualization and study of buying tendencies in populations other than WEIRD samples.
This study, however, was not without its limitations. First, there are limitations regarding context and sample characterization. There is not much control over this. This study’s limitations are the overrepresentation of women and people with higher education from a specific European country. At the same time, although one of the strengths of this study is the data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic, the social desirability bias for answers about making extra purchases, even stronger in times of crisis, cannot be ruled out.
Additionally, the present findings should consider other limitations. We highlight that one of them was to disregard other individual variables such as hedonic motivations, affects, or mood, whose association challenges in-depth studies on consumption, even more so when these purchase behaviors are essentially linked to emotions –such as impulsive buying, the compulsive buying, and the panic buying. Beyond this, the analysis of these phenomena would acquire strength if evaluated also with other psychological factors such as fear or social support. Another limitation was not considering online shopping habits and behaviors, which could extend our understanding of how social media use had affected consumer anxiety and consequently internet responses, where online shopping channels received great attention and greater demands during the COVID-19 pandemic [(e.g., 162)].
Presumably, situational, and social variables also may impact a shift in consumer behavior, along with basic individual dispositions. The Big Five perspective is a personality trait model that has a high degree of consensus and stability, encompassing observable, environmental, and biological variables (104). Even though the literature has provided consistent evidence for the organization of personality through the Big Five (163), exclusively adopting a structural model of personality may limit studies of purchase behaviors. Other personality measurement models [(e.g., 164, 165)] could enable or collaborate with further studies in Consumer Psychology. Thus, future investigations of individual differences in purchase behavior may incorporate other personality trait models–like HEXACO (164) or 3 M (165) more theoretically related to consumption, reflecting stable dispositions, but in a specific way to contexts of purchasing products or services. Future studies could also specify the clusters formed by the psychological variables based on personality models. Cluster analysis must be relevant to classify people into narrow profiles, identifying subgroups or prototypes among buyer behaviors based on their demographic characteristics, habits, and preferences.
Finally, it ought to be warned that the COVID-19 pandemic had a powerful impact worldwide. It should not be overlooked or ignored, that the fear of unknown circumstances caused substantial changes in the lives and behaviors of individuals (158), and society’s daily life changed throughout this period, triggering changes also in consumer habits (25). Cases of panic buying, excessive stockpiling, and revenge buying were reported worldwide and were not rare (166–169). The pandemic period implied a noticeable change in shopping habits around the world.
Notwithstanding the conceptual overlaps and differences, buying behaviors could be compensatory and maybe can function as a kind of coping strategy for alleviating the negative feelings caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Fear–a powerful engine of human behavior, especially in times of crisis like the pandemic–also leads people to hoard goods and products, buying more items than they usually would (39). It is always important to note that hoarding behavior may occur under other conditions or may be a symptom of other pathologies (79).
Studies are addressing only one or two types of purchasing separately, and many of the findings are not consensual and have not been tested extensively in periods of global health and social crisis. Although corroborating previous findings, the present study is relevant also because it was carried out in a European sample. This differentiates it from most similar studies since these were mostly performed with Anglo-Saxon samples. Furthermore, the current study presents the triad behavior of consumers during a disruptive situation, which confirms the role of neuroticism as a wild card in consumer behavior.
In addition to the cited suggestions for further research, the broader implication of this study is to raise possible strategies to reduce dysfunctional buying behaviors. First, impulse buying needs that people be aware of the stimuli in the environment and their impulsivity so that this behavior does not cause any future damage. Pathological compulsive buying and panic buying need to be addressed by provoking the importance of self-awareness about people’s personality traits, preferences, and emotions.
This knowledge would give individuals some protection against compulsive and panic buying behavior. For example, even if different personality traits can respond to stress in many ways, it is known that people with high neuroticism deserve special attention from mental health professionals because of the impact of this personality trait on buying behaviors. Last and foremost, especially in times of crisis, self-awareness about emotions and feelings can provide the necessary self-control in buying and the indispensable self-reinforcement in emotional regulation. The shopping bag can contain healthy limits and balance.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
SA and SL contributed substantially to the conception and design of the study. SL organized the database. SA performed the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data and wrote the first draft and all sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the critical review of the manuscript and read and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Aquino, SD, Natividade, JC, and Lins, SLB. Sua personalidade vai ao shopping? Relações da personalidade e compra por impulso. [does your personality go to the mall? Personality relationships and impulse buying]. Psico. (2019) 50:31905. doi: 10.15448/1980-8623.2019.4.31905
2. Bairrada, CM, Coelho, A, and Lizanets, V. The impact of brand personality on consumer behavior: the role of brand love. J Fash Mark Manag. (2019) 23:30–47. doi: 10.1108/JFMM-07-2018-0091
3. Islam, T, Pitafi, AH, Arya, V, Wang, Y, Akhtar, N, Mubarik, S, et al. Panic buying in the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country examination. J Retail Consum Serv. (2021) 59:102357. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102357
4. McCrae, RR, and John, OP. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J Pers. (1992) 60:175–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
5. Ali, F, Tauni, MZ, and Ali, A. The big five dyad congruence and compulsive buying: A case of service encounters. J Retail Consum Serv. (2022) 68:103007. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103007
6. Ayob, AH, Wahid, SD, and Omar, NA. Does personality influence the frequency of online purchase behavior? Int J Online Market. (2022) 12:1–15. doi: 10.4018/IJOM.299398
7. Fujiwara, K, and Nagasawa, S. Relationships among purchase intentions for luxury brands and personality traits based on the big five. Am J Ind Bus Manag. (2015) 5:631–9. doi: 10.4236/ajibm.2015.511063
8. Hermes, A, Sindermann, C, Montag, C, and Riedl, R. Exploring online and in-store purchase willingness: associations with the big five personality traits, trust, and need for touch. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:808500. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808500
9. Leong, L-Y, Jaafar, NI, and Sulaiman, A. Understanding impulse purchase in Facebook commerce: does big five matter? Internet Res. (2017) 27:786–818. doi: 10.1108/IntR-04-2016-0107
10. Mueller, A, Claes, L, Mitchell, JE, Wonderlich, SA, Crosby, RD, and De Zwaan, M. Personality prototypes in individuals with compulsive buying based on the big five model. Behav Res Ther. (2010) 48:930–5. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.05.020
11. Otero-López, JM, Santiago, MJ, and Castro, MC. Big five personality traits, coping strategies and compulsive buying in Spanish university students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:821. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020821
12. Yoon, CH, and Lim, DS. The effect of the big five and the MBTI on impulsive and compulsive buying behaviors: an integrated analysis in online shopping. J Int Trade Commerce. (2018) 14:101–117. doi: 10.16980/jitc.14.3.201806.101
14. Goldberg, LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am. Psychol. (1993) 48:26–34. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26
15. Fenton-O’Creevy, M, and Furnham, A. Money attitudes, personality and chronic impulse buying. Appl Psychol. (2020) 69:1557–72. doi: 10.1111/apps.12215
16. Oliveira, JP. Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale. Curr Psychol. (2019) 38:432–9. doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9625-5
17. Kang, W, Steffens, F, Pineda, S, Widuch, K, and Malvaso, A. Personality traits and dimensions of mental health. Sci Rep. (2023) 13:7091. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-33996-1
18. Rook, DW, and Hoch, SJ. Consuming impulses. Adv. Consum. Res. (1985) 12:23–7 Available at: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6351/
19. Verplanken, B, and Herabadi, A. Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: Feeling and no thinking. Eur. J. Pers. (2001) 15:S71–83.
20. Baumeister, RF. Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. (2002) 28:670–6.
21. Arnold, MJ, and Reynolds, KE. Hedonic shopping motivations. J. Retail. (2003) 79:77–95. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00007-1
22. Rook, DW, and Fisher, RJ. Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. J Consum Res. (1995) 22:305–13.
23. Vohs, KD, and Faber, RJ. Spent resources: self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. J Consum Res. (2007) 33:537–47. doi: 10.1086/510228
24. Jin, X, Li, J, Song, W, and Zhao, T. The impact of COVID-19 and public health emergencies on consumer purchase of scarce products in China. Front Public Health. (2020) 8:1–10. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.617166
25. Sim, K, Chua, H, Vieta, E, and Fernandez, G. The anatomy of panic buying related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Res. (2020) 288:113015. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113015
26. World Bank Group. Global economic prospects. Washington, DC: The World Bank Publications. (2020). Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/33748/9781464815539.pdf.
27. Usher, K, Durkin, J, and Bhullar, N. The COVID-19 pandemic and mental health impacts. Int J Ment Health Nurs. (2020) 29:315–8. doi: 10.1111/inm.12726
28. Xiong, J, Lipsitz, O, Nasri, F, Lui, LMW, Gill, H, Phan, L, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. J Affect Disord. (2020) 277:55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001
29. Deng, S, Wang, W, Xie, P, Chao, Y, and Zhu, J. Perceived severity of COVID-19 and post-pandemic consumption willingness: the roles of boredom and sensation-seeking. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:567784. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.567784
30. Naeem, M. Do social media platforms develop consumer panic buying during the fear of COVID-19 pandemic? J Retail Consum Serv. (2021) 58:102226. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102226
31. Jaspal, R, Lopes, B, and Lopes, P. Predicting social distancing and compulsive buying behaviours in response to COVID-19 in a United Kingdom sample. Cogent Psychol. (2020) 7:1800924. doi: 10.1080/23311908.2020.1800924
32. Sheu, JB, and Kuo, HT. Dual speculative hoarding: A wholesaler-retailer channel behavioral phenomenon behind potential natural hazard threats. Int J Disaster Risk Reduc. (2020) 44:101430. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101430
33. Schneider, AB, and Leonard, B. From anxiety to control: mask-wearing, perceived marketplace influence, and emotional well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Consum Aff. (2022) 56:97–119. doi: 10.1111/joca.12412
34. Youn, S, and Faber, RJ. Impulse buying: Its relation to personality traits and cues. Adv Consum Res. (2000) 27:179–85. Available at: https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/8383/volumes/v27/NA-27/full
36. Iyer, GR, Blut, M, Xiao, SH, and Grewal, D. Impulse buying: A meta-analytic review. J Acad Mark Sci. (2020) 48:384–404. doi: 10.1007/s11747-019-00670-w
37. Dammeyer, J. An explorative study of the individual differences associated with consumer stockpiling during the early stages of the 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe. Personal Individ Differ. (2020) 167:110263. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110263
38. Lippold, JV, Laske, JI, Hogeterp, SA, Duke, É, Grünhage, T, and Reuter, M. The role of personality, political attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics in explaining individual differences in fear of coronavirus: A comparison over time and across countries. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:552305. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.552305
39. Lins, S, and Aquino, S. Development and initial psychometric properties of a panic buying scale during COVID-19 pandemic. Heliyon. (2020) 6:e04746. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04746
40. Xiao, H, Zhang, Z, and Zhang, L. A diary study of impulsive buying during the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr Psychol. (2020) 41:5745–57. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-01220-2
41. Shahjehan, A, Zeb, F, and Saifullah, K. The effect of personality on impulsive and compulsive buying behaviors. Afr J Bus Manag. (2012) 6:2187–94. doi: 10.5897/ajbm11.2275
42. Thompson, ER, and Prendergast, GP. The influence of trait affect and the five-factor personality model on impulse buying. Personal Individ Differ. (2015) 76:216–21. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.025
43. Badgaiyan, AJ, and Verma, A. Intrinsic factors affecting impulsive buying behaviour–evidence from India. J Retail Consum Serv. (2014) 21:537–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.04.003
44. Bratko, D, Butkovic, A, and Bosnjak, M. Twin study of impulsive buying and its overlap with personality. J Individ Differ. (2013) 34:8–14. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000091
45. Olsen, SO, Tudoran, AA, Honkanen, P, and Verplanken, B. Differences and similarities between impulse buying and variety seeking: A personality-based perspective. Psychol Mark. (2016) 33:36–47. doi: 10.1002/mar.20853
46. Darrat, AA, Darrat, MA, and Amyx, D. How impulse buying influences compulsive buying: the central role of consumer anxiety and escapism. J Retail Consum Serv. (2016) 31:103–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.03.009
47. Lins, S. Preparando-se Para a Copa do mundo: O que leva os brasileiros a comprar impulsivamente produtos Para apoiar o seu país? [Getting ready for the world cup: what drives Brazilians to buy products impulsively to support their country?]. Psicologia. (2020) 34:249–482. doi: 10.17575/psicologia.v34i1.1681
48. Luo, S, Gu, B, Wang, X, and Zhou, Z. Online compulsive buying behavior: the mediating role of self-control and negative emotions. In proceedings of the 2018 international conference on internet and e-business, pp. 65–69. (2018).
49. Sneath, JZ, Lacey, R, and Kennett-Hensel, PA. Coping with a natural disaster: losses, emotions, and impulsive and compulsive buying. Mark Lett. (2009) 20:45–60. doi: 10.1007/s11002-008-9049-y
50. Faber, RJ, and Christenson, GA. In the mood to buy: differences in the mood states experienced by compulsive buyers and other consumers. Psychol Mark. (1996) 13:803–19. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199612)13:8<803::AID-MAR6>3.0.CO;2-J
51. Müller, A, Mitchell, JE, Crosby, RD, Cao, L, Johnson, J, Claes, L, et al. Mood states preceding and following compulsive buying episodes: an ecological momentary assessment study. Psychiatry Res. (2012) 200:575–80. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.04.015
52. Lee, S-H, and Workman, JE. Compulsive buying and branding phenomena. J Open Innov. (2015) 1:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s40852-015-0004-x
53. Gallagher, CE, Watt, MC, Weaver, AD, and Murphy, KA. “I fear, therefore, I shop!” exploring anxiety sensitivity in relation to compulsive buying. Personal Individ Differ. (2017) 104:37–42. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.023
54. Mattos, CN, Kim, HS, Lacroix, E, Requião, M, Filomensky, TZ, Hodgins, DC, et al. The need to consume: hoarding as a shared psychological feature of compulsive buying and binge eating. Compr Psychiatry. (2018) 85:67–71. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2018.06.010
55. Claes, L, and Müller, A. Resisting temptation: is compulsive buying an expression of personality deficits? Curr Addict Rep. (2017) 4:237–45. doi: 10.1007/s40429-017-0152-0
56. Otero-López, JM, and Pol, EV. Compulsive buying and the five factor model of personality: A facet analysis. Personal Individ Differ. (2013) 55:585–90. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.05.005
57. Shehzadi, K, Ah-mad-ur-Rehman, M, Cheema, AM, and Ahkam, A. Impact of personality traits on compulsive buying behavior: mediating role of impulsive buying. J Serv Sci Manag. (2016) 9:416–32. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2016.95046
58. Sharma, VM, and Klein, A. Consumer perceived value, involvement, trust, susceptibility to interpersonal influence, an intention to participate in online group buying. J Retail Consum Serv. (2020) 52:101946. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101946
59. Saran, R, Roy, S, and Sethuraman, R. Personality and fashion consumption: A conceptual framework in the Indian context. J Fash Mark Manag. (2016) 20:157–76. doi: 10.1108/JFMM-04-2015-0032
60. Jani, D, and Han, H. Personality, social comparison, consumption emotions, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: how do these and other factors relate in a hotel setting? Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. (2013) 25:970–93. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2012-0183
61. Brandes, CM, and Tackett, JL. Contextualizing neuroticism in the hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology. J Res Pers. (2019) 81:238–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.06.007
62. Jeronimus, BF, Riese, H, Sanderman, R, and Ormel, J. Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: A five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2014) 107:751–64. doi: 10.1037/a0037009
63. Vidal-Arenas, V, Bravo, AJ, Ortet-Walker, J, Ortet, G, Mezquita, L, Ibáñez, MI, et al. Neuroticism, rumination, depression and suicidal ideation: A moderated serial mediation model across four countries. Int J Clin Health Psychol. (2022) 22:100325. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2022.100325
64. Wrzus, C, Luong, G, Wagner, GG, and Riediger, M. Longitudinal coupling of momentary stress reactivity and trait neuroticism: specificity of states, traits, and age period. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2021) 121:691–706. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000308
65. Zhang, F, Baranova, A, Zhou, C, Cao, H, Chen, J, Zhang, X, et al. Causal influences of neuroticism on mental health and cardiovascular disease. Hum Genet. (2021) 140:1267–81. doi: 10.1007/s00439-021-02288-x
66. Gale, CR, Hagenaars, SP, Davies, G, Hill, WD, Liewald, DC, Cullen, B, et al. Pleiotropy between neuroticism and physical and mental health: findings from 108 038 men and women in UK biobank. Transl Psychiatry. (2016) 6:e791–1. doi: 10.1038/tp.2016.56
67. Kendler, KS, and Myers, J. The genetic and environmental relationship between major depression and the five-factor model of personality. Psychol Med. (2010) 40:801–6. doi: 10.1017/S0033291709991140
68. Kotov, R, Gamez, W, Schmidt, F, and Watson, D. Linking "big" personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. (2010) 136:768–821. doi: 10.1037/a0020327
69. Lönnqvist, JE, Verkasalo, M, Mäkinen, S, and Henriksson, M. High neuroticism at age 20 predicts history of mental disorders and low self-esteem at age 35. J Clin Psychol. (2009) 65:781–90. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20571
70. Okbay, A, Baselmans, BM, De Neve, JE, Turley, P, Nivard, MG, Fontana, MA, et al. Genetic variants associated with subjective well-being, depressive symptoms, and neuroticism identified through genome-wide analyses. Nat Genet. (2016) 48:624–33. doi: 10.1038/ng.3552
71. Schirmbeck, F, Boyette, LL, Van der Valk, R, Meijer, C, Dingemans, P, Van, R, et al. Relevance of five-factor model personality traits for obsessive–compulsive symptoms in patients with psychotic disorders and their un-affected siblings. Psychiatry Res. (2015) 225:464–70. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.11.066
72. Schmidtke, JI, and Heller, W. Personality, affect and EEG: predicting patterns of regional brain activity related to extraversion and neuroticism. Personal Individ Differ. (2004) 36:717–32. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00129-6
73. Van Os, J, Park, SBG, and Jones, PB. Neuroticism, life events and mental health: evidence for person-environment correlation. Br J Psychiatry. (2001) 40:s72–7. doi: 10.1192/bjp.178.40.s72
74. Norris, CJ. The negativity bias revisited: evidence from neuroscience measures and an individual differences approach. Soc Neurosci. (2019) 16:68–82. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2019.1696225
75. Quinn, MS, Campbell, K, and Keane, MT. Do we “fear for the worst” or “Hope for the best” in thinking about the unexpected? Factors affecting the valence of unexpected outcomes reported for everyday scenarios. Cognition. (2021) 208:104520. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104520
76. Zheng, R, Shou, B, and Yang, J. Supply disruption management under consumer panic buying and social learning effects. Omega. (2021) 101:102238. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2020.102238
77. Lins, S, Aquino, S, Costa, AR, and Koch, R. From panic to revenge: compensatory buying behaviors during the pandemic. Int J Soc Psychiatry. (2022) 68:921–2. doi: 10.1177/00207640211002557
78. Aquino, SD, and Lins, S. Compras excessivas como estratégia de enfrentamento (ceee): propriedades psicométricas iniciais de um novo instrumento. [Excessive shopping as a coping strategy (ESCS): First psychometric properties of a new instrument]. Panel presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Brazilian psychological society, Brasília, DF, Brazil. (2020).
79. Billore, S, and Anisimova, T. Panic buying research: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Int J Consum Stud. (2021) 45:777–804. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12669
80. Rook, DW, and Gardner, MP. In the mood: impulsive buyings’ antecedents In: J Arnold-Costa and RW Belk, editors. Research in consumer behavior. Greenwich: JAI Press (1993). 1–28.
81. Silvera, DH, Lavack, AM, and Kropp, F. Impulse buying: the role of affect, social influence, and subjective wellbeing. J Consum Mark. (2008) 25:23–33. doi: 10.1108/07363760810845381
82. Pacheco, DC, Moniz, AI, Caldeira, SN, and Silva, ODL. “Cannot stop buying”–integrative review on compulsive buying In: A Mesquita, A Abreu, and JV Carvalho, editors. Perspectives and trends in education and technology. Smart innovation, systems and technologies. Singapore: Singapore (2022). 551–60.
83. Alfoqahaa, S. Fear and panic buying behavior associated with the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in Palestine In: B Alareeni and A Hamdan, editors. Explore business, technology opportunities and challenges after the Covid-19 pandemic. ICBT 2022. Lecture notes in networks and systems. Cham: Springer (2023). 1129–44.
84. Flight, RL, Rountree, MM, and Beatty, SE. Feeling the urge: affect in impulsive and compulsive buying. J Mark Theory Pract. (2012) 20:453–66. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679200407
85. Arafat, S, Kar, SK, Marthoenis, M, Sharma, P, Hoque Apu, E, and Kabir, R. Psychological underpinning of panic buying during pandemic (COVID-19). Psychiatry Res. (2020) 289:113061. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113061
86. Müller, A, Mitchell, JE, and de Zwaan, M. Compulsive buying. Am J Addict. (2015) 24:132–7. doi: 10.1111/ajad.12111
87. Aydin, D, Selvi, Y, Kandeger, A, and Boysan, M. The relationship of consumers’ compulsive buying behavior with biological rhythm, impulsivity, and fear of missing out. Biol Rhythm Res. (2021) 52:1514–22. doi: 10.1080/09291016.2019.1654203
88. Shoib, S, and Arafat, SY. Behavioural perspectives of panic buying In: SM Arafat, SK Kar, and R Kabir, editors. Panic buying: Perspectives and prevention. Cham: Springer International Publishing (2021). 1–12.
89. Waseem, MA, Waqas, M, Irfan, I, Abdullah, I, and Wajid, N. A cross-sectional study of antecedents and consequence of panic buying behavior: the moderating effect of COVID-19 rumors. INQUIRY. (2022) 59:1126304. doi: 10.1177/004695802211263
90. Donnellan, M, Oswald, F, Baird, B, and Lucas, R. The Mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychol Assess. (2006) 18:192–203. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
91. Lins, S, Aquino, S, and Castro, R. Propriedades psicométricas da Escala Reduzida de Compra por Impulso (4-CI) Para o contexto português [psychometric properties of the reduced impulsive buying scale (4-CI) for the Portuguese context]. Panel presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Brazilian psychological society, Brasília, DF, Brazil. (2020).
92. Faber, RJ, and O’Guinn, TC. A clinical screener for compulsive buying. J Consum Res. (1992) 19:459–69. doi: 10.1086/209315
93. Leite, PL, Rangé, BP, Ribas Junior, RDC, Fernandez, JL, and Silva, ACDO. Validação e aferição de fidedignidade da versão brasileira da Compulsive Buying Scale. Arch Clin Psychiatry. (2012) 39:100–5. doi: 10.1590/S0101-60832012000300006
94. Biernacki, P, and Waldorf, D. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Methods Res. (1981) 10:141–63. doi: 10.1177/004912418101000205
95. Kennedy-Shaffer, L, Qiu, X, and Hanage, WP. Snowball sampling study design for serosurveys early in disease outbreaks. Am J Epidemiol. (2021) 190:1918–27. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab098
96. Dancey, CP, and Reidy, J. Statistics without Maths for psychology. London, UK: Pearson Education (2011).
97. Green, SB. How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivar Behav Res. (1991) 26:499–510. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7
98. MacCallum, RC, Widaman, KF, Zhang, S, and Hong, S. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Methods. (1999) 4:84–99. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
99. Pasquali, L. Técnicas de exame psicológico (TEP) - manual, volume I: Fundamentos das técnicas psicológicas. Conselho Federal de Psicologia: Casa do Psicólogo (2001).
100. Tifferet, S, and Herstein, R. Gender differences in brand commitment, impulse buying, and hedonic consumption. J Prod Brand Manage. (2012) 21:176–82. doi: 10.1108/10610421211228793
101. Ridgway, NM, Kukar-Kinney, M, and Monroe, KB. An expanded conceptualization and a new measure of compulsive buying. J Consum Res. (2008) 35:622–39. doi: 10.1086/591108
102. Azucar, D, Marengo, D, and Settanni, M. Predicting the big 5 personality traits from digital footprints on social media: A meta-analysis. Personal Individ Differ. (2018) 124:150–9. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.018
103. Nunes, MFO, Muniz, M, Nunes, CHSDS, Primi, R, and Miguel, FK. Escala fatorial de socialização: versão reduzida: seleção (2010).
104. John, OP, Robins, RW, and Pervin, LA. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press (2010).
105. Miao, M, Jalees, T, Qabool, S, and Zaman, SI. The effects of personality, culture and store stimuli on impulsive buying behavior: evidence from emerging market of Pakistan. Asia Pac J Mark Logist. (2020) 32:188–204. doi: 10.1108/APJML-09-2018-0377
106. DeYoung, CG. Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. (2010) 4:1165–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00327.x
107. Hisler, GC, Krizan, Z, DeHart, T, and Wright, AG. Neuroticism as the intensity, reactivity, and variability in day-to-day affect. J Res Pers. (2020) 87:103964. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103964
108. de Freitas Melo, C, de Almeida, AMB, Lins, SLB, de Aquino, SD, Costa, IM, and Morais, JCC. Giving meaning to the pandemic: what do Brazilians think about the new coronavirus? Trends Psychol. (2021) 29:395–413. doi: 10.1007/s43076-021-00078-y
109. Lieberoth, A, Lin, SY, Stöckli, S, Han, H, Kowal, M, Gelpi, R, et al. Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey. R Soc Open Sci. (2021) 8:200589. doi: 10.1098/rsos.200589
110. Roy, D, Tripathy, S, Kar, SK, Sharma, N, Verma, SK, and Kaushal, V. Study of knowledge, attitude, anxiety & perceived mental healthcare need in Indian population during COVID-19 pandemic. Asian J Psychiatr. (2020) 51:102083. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102083
111. Yamada, Y, Ćepulić, DB, Coll-Martín, T, Debove, S, Gautreau, G, Han, H, et al. COVIDiSTRESS global survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak. Sci Data. (2021) 8:3. doi: 10.1038/s41597-020-00784-9
112. Longua, J, DeHart, T, Tennen, H, and Armeli, S. Personality moderates the interaction between positive and negative daily events predicting negative affect and stress. J Res Pers. (2009) 43:547–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.006
113. Maples, J, Miller, JD, Hoffman, BJ, and Johnson, SL. A test of the empirical network surrounding affective instability and the degree to which it is independent from neuroticism. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. (2014) 5:268–77. doi: 10.1037/per0000019
114. Arafat, SM, Kar, SK, Menon, V, Alradie-Mohamed, A, Mukherjee, S, Kaliamoorthy, C, et al. Responsible factors of panic buying: an observation from online media reports. Front Public Health. (2020) 8:1–6. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.603894
115. Oerlemans, WG, and Bakker, AB. Why extraverts are happier: A day reconstruction study. J Res Pers. (2014) 50:11–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.02.001
116. Hutz, CS, and Nunes, CHSS. Escala Fatorial de Neuroticismo. São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo (2001).
117. Pavot, W, Diener, ED, and Fujita, F. Extraversion and happiness. Personal Individ Differ. (1990) 11:1299–306. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90157-M
118. Im, H, Kim, NL, and Lee, HK. Why did (some) consumers buy toilet papers? A cross-cultural examination of panic buying as a maladaptive coping response to COVID-19. J Consum Aff. (2022) 56:391–413. doi: 10.1111/joca.12426
119. Helson, R, and Kwan, VSY. Personality development in adulthood: the broad picture and processes in one longitudinal sample In: S Hampson, editor. Advances in personality psychology, vol. 1. Abingdon: Routledge (2000). 77–106.
120. Roberts, BW, Walton, KE, and Viechtbauer, W. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. (2006) 132:1–25. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
121. Srivastava, S, John, OP, Gosling, SD, and Potter, J. Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: set like plaster or persistent change? J Pers Soc Psychol. (2003) 84:1041–53. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1041
122. Terracciano, A, McCrae, RR, Brant, LJ, and Costa, PT. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of the NEO-PI-R scales in the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. Psychol Aging. (2005) 20:493–506. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.20.3.493
123. Wundrack, R, Asselmann, E, and Specht, J. Personality development in disruptive times: The impact of personal versus collective life events. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. (2021) 15:e12635. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12635
124. Rook, D. W., and Hoch, S. J. Consuming impulses. Advances in Consumer Research, 12:23–27. Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6351/
125. McElroy, SL, Phillips, KA, and Keck, PE. Obsessive compulsive spectrum disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. (1994) 55:33–53.
126. Hoyer, WD, MacInnis, DJ, and Pieters, R. Consumer behavior. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning Nacional (2016).
127. Lins, S, Poeschl, G, and Eberhardt, A. Identificando os factores de influência da compra por impulso em adolescentes portugueses. Anál Psicol. (2016) 34:147–63. doi: 10.14417/ap.920
128. Napoli, J, Dickinson, SJ, Beverland, MB, and Farrelly, F. Measuring consumer-based brand authenticity. J Bus Res. (2014) 67:1090–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.06.001
129. Reed, A, and Forehand, MR. Identity-based consumer behavior. Int J Res Mark. (2012) 29:310–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.08.002
130. Otero-López, JM, Santiago, MJ, and Castro, MC. Big five personality traits, coping strategies and compulsive buying in Spanish university students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:821. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020821
131. Specht, J, Egloff, B, and Schmukle, SC. Stability and change of personality across the life course: the impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the big five. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2011) 101:862–82. doi: 10.1037/a0024950
132. Best, RD, Cruitt, PJ, Oltmanns, TF, and Hill, PL. Neuroticism predicts informant reported cognitive problems through health behaviors. Aging Ment Health. (2021) 25:2191–9. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2020.1839857
133. Junça-Silva, A, and Silva, D. How is the life without unicorns? A within-individual study on the relationship between uncertainty and mental health indicators: the moderating role of neuroticism. Personal Individ Differ. (2022) 188:111462. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111462
134. Lahey, BB. Public health significance of neuroticism. Am Psychol. (2009) 64:241–56. doi: 10.1037/a0015309
135. Lin, J, Li, L, Pan, N, Liu, X, Zhang, X, Suo, X, et al. Neural correlates of neuroticism: a coordinate-based meta-analysis of resting-state functional brain imaging studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2023) 146:105055. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105055
136. Liu, W, and Lin, J. The role of meditation in college students' neuroticism and mental health. Transl Neurosci. (2019) 10:112–7. doi: 10.1515/tnsci-2019-0019
137. Ormel, J, Jeronimus, BF, Kotov, R, Riese, H, Bos, EH, Hankin, B, et al. Neuroticism and common mental disorders: meaning and utility of a complex relationship. Clin Psychol Rev. (2013) 33:686–97. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003
138. Zhang, F. Neuroticism In: BJ Carducci, CS Nave, JS Mio, and RE Riggio, editors. The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. New York: John Wiley & Sons (2020)
139. Catal’an, N. Reliability, population classification and weighting in multidimensional poverty measurement: A Monte Carlo study. Soc Indic Res. (2019) 142:887–910. doi: 10.1007/s11205-018-1950-z
140. Dunn, TJ, Baguley, T, and Brunsden, V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. (2014) 105:399–412. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12046
141. Revelle, W, and Condon, DM. Reliability from α to ω: A tutorial. Psychol Assess. (2019) 31:1395–411. doi: 10.1037/pas0000754
143. Flora, DB. Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. (2020) 3:484–501. doi: 10.1177/2515245920951747
144. Hayes, AF, and Coutts, JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Commun Methods Meas. (2020) 14:1–24. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
145. Peters, GY. The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity: why and how to abandon Cronbach’s alpha and the route towards more comprehensive assessment of scale quality. (2018).
146. Rammstedt, B, and Beierlein, C. Can’t we make it any shorter? The limits of personality assessment and ways to overcome them. J Individ Differ. (2014) 35:212–20. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000141
147. Trizano-Hermosilla, I, and Alvarado, JM. Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol. (2016) 7:769. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
148. Gosling, SD, Rentfrow, PJ, and Swann, WB. A very brief measure of the big five personality domains. J Res Pers. (2003) 37:504–28. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
149. Ludeke, SG, and Larsen, EG. Problems with the big five assessment. Personal Individ Differ. (2017) 112:103–5. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.042
150. Marot, T, and Lins, SLB. Evidências preliminares de validade de versão reduzida da escala de compra por impulso de Rook e Fisher. Suma Psicológica. (2021) 28:112–9. doi: 10.14349/sumapsi.2021.v28.n2.6
151. Wielkiewicz, R. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis of the Mini-IPIP with a multi-institutional sample of first-year college students. (2015). Available at: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/93.
152. Cooper, AJ, Smillie, LD, and Corr, PJ. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale. Personal Individ Differ. (2010) 48:688–91. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.004
153. George, D, and Mallery, P. IBM SPSS statistics 27 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Abingdon: Routledge (2021).
155. Kahneman, D, and Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. (1979) 47:263–91. doi: 10.2307/1914185
156. Tversky, A, and Kahneman, D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain. (1992) 5:297–323. doi: 10.1007/BF00122574
157. Rudert, SC, and Janke, S. Following the crowd in times of crisis: descriptive norms predict physical distancing, stockpiling, and prosocial behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Group Process Intergroup Relat. (2022) 25:1819–35. doi: 10.1177/13684302211023562
158. Vieira, L, and Aquino, S. Audience perceptions of news media on the Covid-19 pandemic: relations among media credibility, subjective well-being, and fear of missing out. Braz J Res. (2022) 18:36–63. doi: 10.25200/BJR.v%n%.Y.14987
159. Cheon, BK, Melani, I, and Hong, YY. How USA-centric is psychology? An archival study of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based on origins of study samples. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. (2020) 11:928–37. doi: 10.1177/1948550620927269
160. Muthukrishna, M, Bell, AV, Henrich, J, Curtin, CM, Gedranovich, A, McInerney, J, et al. Beyond Western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) psychology: measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychol Sci. (2020) 31:678–701. doi: 10.1177/0956797620916782
161. Rad, MS, Martingano, AJ, and Ginges, J. Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (2018) 115:11401–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1721165115
162. Naeem, M. Understanding the customer psychology of impulse buying during COVID-19 pandemic: implications for retailers. Int J Retail Distrib Manag. (2021) 49:377–93. doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-08-2020-0317
163. Soto, CJ, and John, OP. The next big five inventory (BFI-2): developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2017) 113:117–43. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000096
164. Ashton, MC, and Lee, K. The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. J Pers Assess. (2009) 91:340–5. doi: 10.1080/00223890902935878
165. Mowen, JC, Park, S, and Zablah, A. Toward a theory of motivation and personality with application to word-of-mouth communications. J Bus Res. (2007) 60:590–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.007
166. András, K, and Sikos, T. Panic buying in hungary during Covid-19 disease. Theory Methodol Pract. (2020) 17:53–65. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21264.76800
167. Ling, T, Hoh, G, Ho, C, and Mee, C. Effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on social behaviours: from a social dilemma perspective. Technium Soc Sci J. (2020) 7:312–20. doi: 10.47577/tssj.v7i1.423
168. Ngunjiri, N. COVID-19 pandemic and the panic buying psychology. (2020). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340581851_COVID-19_Pandemic_and_the_Panic_Buying_Psychology.
169. Singh, CK, and Rakshit, P. A critical analysis to comprehend panic buying behaviour of Mumbaikar’s in COVID-19 era. Stud Indian Place Names. (2020) 40:44–51.
Keywords: Big Five, impulsive buying, compulsive buying, panic buying, consumer psychology, COVID-19, consumer behavior, hoarding behavior
Citation: Aquino SD and Lins S (2023) The personality puzzle: a comprehensive analysis of its impact on three buying behaviors. Front. Psychiatry. 14:1179257. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1179257
Edited by:
Edna Grünblatt, University of Zurich, SwitzerlandReviewed by:
Ilaria Cataldo, University of Trento, ItalyRavi Philip Rajkumar, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), India
Jon Grant, The University of Chicago, United States
Copyright © 2023 Aquino and Lins. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Samuel Lins, c2FtdWVsbGluc0BmcGNlLnVwLnB0