Compulsive Buying

Is shopping the modern day drug?

Above all, it should be noted that shopping is big business.  Shopping centers employ approximately 8% of the US workforce.  These portion of the workforce helps drive the machine that creates about ½ of each state’s tax revenues and there are currently more malls and shopping centers that US high schools (Farrell, J. 2003, pp. xi-xii).

Seemingly powering this juggernaut of commerce is ever increasing and apparently insatiable appetite of the modern consumer.  Behind the 4x growth in the number of shopping centers and the over 3x growth in retail square footage during the 30-year period of 1970 – 2000, is the fact that Americans (and likely other “civilized” consumers) are consuming goods at twice (2x) the rate as they did in 1950 and ten-time (10x) as just over seventy years ago (Farrell, J. 2003, pp. xii-xiii).  It is also worth noting that this increase in consumption is evidenced across all income levels though not necessarily equally across all segments (Gini, A. 2003, p. 85).  In fact, more severe cases are significantly correlated to a lower the level of income, a greater likelihood of having below-average income and spending a lower percentage of income on sale items, suggesting overall an inability to handle financial issues well (Black, D. 2001, p. 23)

As a ‘counter-statistic’, Americans have a level of production that is currently at approximately 2x that of the same period (1950).  This implies that, we could consume the same amount as in 1950 and work half as much or, as reality has it, work even more to consume over twice as much (Gini, A. 2003 p. 82).  Similarly, in a predictably correlational fashion, the not only has the number of shoppers and shopping centers increased but there has been a sharp increase in the number of new products, particularly in the advertised “must have” category as well as the emergence of the entirely new “disposable” category (Pooler, J. 2003, p. 9). 
As shoppers and products have changed, the relationship that existed between them has also morphed into something new.  With the proliferation of retail venues that profer an ever increasing number of products and categories, the arrival of the “disposable” product should not go unnoticed.  Though without question, many if not most products are very high quality and manufactured to very exacting standards, many products are less durable or are “designed for obsolesce”.  Durability was the characteristic that was promoted while the products of today push a message of convenience.  In a society rampant with such explicit and implicit messages, it is no wonder that the emotional connections to most any product are decreasing (Pooler, J. 2003, p. 10).  Products such as cameras or contact lenses were highly contemplated purchases that were expected to last a significant period of time. 
   

Likely more important than simple the volume of shopping is its intensity…shopping means more than it did in the past.  Previously, people shopped for items that they needed.  Now, such shopping still occurs but it occupies a small fraction of the process.  Studies estimate that as much as 2/3 of consumer purchases are “unnecessary” (Pooler, J. 2003 p.2).  This excess is bought from a want rather than need.  As an additional sign of the times, consumer research has even indicated that over half of all gift purchases are actually gifts for “me” (Pooler, J. 2003, p. 11).

Shopping “used to be” a more utilitarian and logical task in which purchases were planned and for the most part, the consumer focused on “needs”.  Contrasted with the modern shopper for whom it has been estimated that only about 1/3 of purchases are “necessary”, it is clear that unfulfilled desire must play a very much larger role (Pooler, J. 2003, pp. 2, 6).   For example, as Pooler states, “…people have a need for a new pair of pants... but a desire to buy designer-label pants is a want…” (Pooler, J. 2003, p. 22).  Today, brands are power, disposable contacts are the norm and OTUC, “one-time use camera”, are almost always within arms reach.  It is important to note these products are not inferior…in many ways, they are functionally far superior to yesterday’s products, rather, simply illustrative of a pervasive mentality that merits acknowledgement and consideration.  Understanding the mentality that these “wants”, in the minds of individual consumers, are likely felt to be “needs”.  The eye of the would-be beholder is particularly relevant. 
   

By utilizing the “Hierarchy of Needs”, it is possible to shed significant insight into how some of these psychological shifts are occurring.  Developed by noted psychologist Abraham Maslow over 75 years ago, this pyramid of hierarchically ordered needs is fundamental to many issues with psychological affect.  At the base of the pyramid are “basic needs” such as food, shelter and clothing.  Above the basic, physiological level are needs that could be classified as “safety” and would include anything that can provide psychological security and stability.  Above this are “social” needs such as the need for friends and companionship.  Nearing the top of the pyramid are needs under the label of “self-esteem” in which feeling such as pride and respect become important.  Finally, the highest level of needs is characterized as being “self-actualization” needs in which a person has the desire to make the “most” of themselves and to “be” more. 
   

A key component of Maslow’s influence is his belief that higher needs cannot be addressed until lower needs are satisfied.  This is especially salient as most people living in “modern” civilized countries have all the more “basic” needs met.  Consequently and with few exceptions, most can spend their days in pursuit of the satisfaction of “higher” needs such as self-esteem and self-actualization.
   

As America or any modern society has evolved, psychologist and philosopher Eric Fromm indicates that society and its members have also evolved to a point at which  “being” is confused with “having” (Gini, A. 2003, p. 84).    Such as materialist possessive mindset will leave vacant the needs at the top of the pyramid and individuals will exhibit feelings associated with not having these innate needs unfulfilled.  Fromm further indicates that much of the symptoms of this empty quest are typical of a “western” mindset and ultimately result in a mentality of “to be much is to have much” (Gini, A. 2003, p. 82).

To have a high standard of life means to enjoy a pleasure intensely and tire of it quickly.
- Simon Patten (Hine, T. 2002 p. 17)

The fact that people, in general, are consuming more, that there are more products and more places to buy them go a long way in describing in somewhat imprecise yet accurate terms that context of modern society.  Maslow’s hierarchy of needs also provides significant insight into the circumstances of the continuing patterns of increasing consumption that indicated a struggle to satisfy a need that cannot be satiated through the mechanism of acquiring things.  At this point, a further differentiation between “needs” and “wants” can be drawn:  a need is often physical and should be satisfied externally; a want is most likely a psychological, internally manifested desire.  In the same way that you could not satisfy a real, physical hunger with psychological fish and chips, attempts to quench a psychological desire with a tangible object are likely short-lived and misguided and will end in psychological frustration.
   

This misguided attempts to assuage one’s highest psychological needs is not unreasonable given the mixed messages in society of which there is a clear emphasis placed upon highly superficial qualities.  Shopping is simply the process whereby one attempts to execute these omnipresent messages.  As a cultural phenomenon, shopping is the procedural execution of economic decision-making.  This decision-making takes places in a sea of in which image and emotion are perhaps more likely to take precedence of narrowly defined economic and functional utility.  The price tag on an item reflects a certain value but the real value is in the eye of the consumer and is the item worth that much to me.  Using economic terms such as opportunity cost and opportunity benefit are especially relevant as a purchase decision hangs in the balance:  “what will my friends think?”, “does it make me more attractive?”, “does it make me happy?” are examples of what goes through the ‘new’ consumer mind.  The fact that a product will do the job is, at best, necessary but not sufficient and, at worst, totally irrelevant.
   

As noted above, the process of shopping along with the acquired resultant booty are a reflection of a changing culture and value system.  “Shopping” is part of a manner by which a person defines who they are.  What is bought, where it came from and the motives define a person for themselves and, probably in large measure, to others as well. Just as important as what, where and why that someone bought something are the ‘facts of omission’: that they did not buy it at a certain store, etc. is as relevant as the ‘facts of commission’.  Consider the following telling examples of self-expression:

• the shopper purchases prominently labeled Pampered Chef cookware in lieu of functionally equivalent store merchandise,

• the man who purchases a Polo sweater with its distinctive logo over the perhaps even pricier/better nondescript brand,

• the person who chooses name-brand drinks when company is expected over the undistinguishable other brand.

While the rationale for purchases are intriguing issues, it is interesting to note that everyone thinks they are good at it (Pooler,J. 2003, p. 4).  This is all the more interesting in light of how one might possibly define “good” or “success”.  Certainly, in the mind of the “above average” or even “good” consumer, it would be a short-lived experience as the satisfaction of a successful hunt only fuels the thirst for additional quarry.  That this ubiquitous activity is seldom relegated to being considered just a “functional” activity in which “functional” products are the goal is consistent with the fact that it is now something of a recreational pursuit in which objects of deep psychological desire are hunted with a relish most often associated with sports participation.

As most activities in which there is the reward, shopping can go “to far”.  For many the allure of shopping can be a bit too much.  The attraction of shiny products, sexy packaging, tempting displays, glamorous advertisements, ever-so-helpful service staff and the extreme ease by which one can proffer payment, it is no wonder that some “over-succumb” to the retail sirens.  Given a society that is behaviorally and cognitively conditioned respond to the stimulus of retail, it is no surprise that some spend beyond their means.  Others may have the means to financially afford the habit but are continue to seek fulfillment in a venue that cannot provide anything else than transitory happiness until the cycle begins again.


The idea of more, of ever increasing wealth, has become the center of our identity and our security, and we are caught by it as an addict by his drugs.
- Paul Wachtel (Gini, A. 2003 p. 81)

The idea that shopping can get out of hand does not escape the attention of either popular press such as Essence or more scholarly tomes such as the Journal of Consumer Research or CNS Drugs [Central Nervous System].  “Behind the urge to splure” reads Essence, is often a person who some degree, find that they cannot help themselves.  For some, a certain purchase is simply “merchandise”, even if a bit pricey and fashionable.  For others, it may represent a conscious or unconscious “sense of entitlement” or it may be a form of self-medication that is termed in some circles to be “retail therapy” (Bridgeforth, G. 2004, p. 156).  This so-called therapy is likely caused by the psychological frustration from the lack of lasting fulfillment of pasting attempts to achieve “self-actualization” via shopping as a compensation mechanism.  While a problem in itself, ‘shopping for psychological satisfaction’ may be masking serious issues such as a ‘clinically-qualifying’ depression or just ‘regular’ issues for which shopping is simply a surrogate means to attain a bit of self-esteem through “good shopping”.
Though many in the popular press refer to someone as being a “shopping addict”, it is important to note that there are different types of addiction.  Commonly, when one refers to someone as an “addict”, the mind conjures up the person who is addicted to cocaine, methamphetamines or even alcohol.  These types of addictions are undoubtedly very real and, because of their nature, are referred to as physiological addictions.  The chemicals in the abused substances hyper-stimulate certain receptors in the central nervous system and their prolonged use created a deficit in the body’s production of its endogenous analog.  Such a deficit is augmented by a strong desire for such chemical stimulation as well as certain psychological “needs” or perhaps more accurately, “compunctions”.   If it were the case that shopping was addictive in the same way that drugs are, we might expect to find that purchases of various persons showed little trends in that the same types or categories of items did not construe a consistent purchase incidence.  In actuality, items that tend to be more “emotional” in nature have a distinct tendency for a greater purchase frequency that items with than items with less potential for attachment (Pooler, J. 2003, pp. 24-25).  For example, “duct tape” or “milk” are items that would not be likely to be on a shopping addict’s list whereas items such as jewelry, fashion items or “elegant” undergarments are strong contenders.
Though not quite like a drug addiction, shopping for certain individuals can be maladaptive or pathological in nature.  Though it cannot be deemed a physiological addiction, as we will discuss in more detail later, there are physiological consequences and manifestations of what is otherwise a psychological presentation.   For these individuals, the entire shopping experience is different: to someone who has not experienced it, it would seem almost inconceivable that a person could be “out of control” to the extent that those suffering from compulsive spending disorder report as being.  As Black reports, “…compulsive shoppers often describe their experiences as being enhanced by color, lighting or the odor of stores, as well as the textures of clothing… [with] some even describing the experience as being sexually exciting” (Black, D. 2001, p. 23).  According to these same reports, 83% of compulsive shoppers report that it makes them feel “happy” while 71% indicate a “powerful” feeling.  This feeling persist in the face of the guilt and consequences following their purchases which, in many cases, are either returned or given away and not retained (Black, D. 2001, p. 23).
   

In determining if someone should be fitted with the label layperson’s terms being of a “shopping addict” or a “shop-a-holic”, a key qualifier is the expression of consumer demand that could be considered to be “irrational”.  Such classification must be considered in the context of the consumer’s lifestyle and income.  With this in mind, it is not the object of demand so much as an extreme emotional or otherwise inappropriate level of demand within a ‘reasonable’ framework of acceptability (Pooler, J. 2003, p. 26).  For example, the strong desire of a comparatively wealthy person or perhaps the elite harrier who wants the ‘very latest’ in performance athletic footwear is insufficient to earn such a label.  On the other hand, the individual who is not, by any stretch of the imagination, remotely athletic and whose income in inconsistent with shoe’s whose price exceeds ten hours wages would likely be labeled irrational.  Such information in conjunction with other facts and the overall context would be in line with consideration for such a designation.
   

Another consideration in the determination of the appropriateness of a non-clinical label such as a shopping addict is the overall magnitude of the behavior.  A common behavior is that people, when they feel they have done “a good job” with some task will “self-reward”.  This construct is could generally be termed to be a more benign presentation of the “self-medicating” label often is implemented in regards to a work-related behavior.  This “psychological pat on the back”, whether a alternative compensation mechanism or a pure positive reinforcement of a selected behavior.  Regardless, there is an intuitive level of reasonableness in relation to the magnitude of the reward with the degree of difficulty or relative “greatness” of task achievement.  Depending on a number of factors, one employee may seek self-gratification through treating themselves to lunch while another could give them a license to splurge and run up a disproportionately hefty bill.
   

All in all, though it would be exceeding convenient if there were a blood test to determine if one were an addict, it is simply not the case.  Despite this, there are certain patterns that do fit the criteria for shopping being an addiction.  While there are diagnostic criteria for the determination that an individual is a “shopping addict”, it is quite likely just as useful to define “addictive” behavior as occurring when there is strong irrational desire based upon a perceived need for some stimulus despite, in the long run pathological or maladaptive.  The addict may likely know that the pursuit of such a stimulus is not in their best interests or they may, through ignorance or extreme desire, be blind to the negative consequences of continued consumption.  Defined similarly as being “behavior triggered by internal psychological tension and accompanied by relief and frustration… performed repeatedly despite its negative consequences” by DeSarbo and Edwards in research conducted to more accurately ascertain related psychological factors, either definition seems to adequately capture the intuitive connotation for such an assessment (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, p. 231).

If 10% of the population have a problem and 9 of your friends are OK…Is it YOU?

While it may not, in fact, be “1 in 10”, the incidence of compulsive buying disorder has been estimated to be between 2-8% with the overwhelming majority being female and with a comparatively young (<30 years old) time of onset (Black, D. 2001, p. 21).  Those afflicted with this compulsive shopping disorder are generally affected “around the clock” rather than simply when the urge hits them.  This “pathological preoccupation” with shopping and buying things occurs all the time thought the actual incidence of overspending or emotional spending varies from daily to a few times per year, depending on the individual case (Glatt, M. and C. Cook 1987, p.1257). 

Before plunging headlong into the issue of shopping as an addiction, it is important to differentiate between “compulsive” and “impulsive” spending.  The distinguishing feature between them is the source of the impetus as being internal or external.  Internal motivations such as anxiety or the seeking of increased self-esteem or gratification are the motivations for compulsive spending.  Impulsive spending is differentiated by the stimulus for purchase is being driven by an external mechanism such as a blinking package, prominent placement such as an endcap or a “special”  (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, p. 233).  Such as differentiation is important as it is not uncommon for compulsive buyers to also be impulsive buyers yet there are discernable differences in their psychological makeup.

Clearly, shopping can be addictive and merits attention and possibly intervention.  While there are common sense guidelines to assessing the such behavior as indicated previouly, more standard criteria have been developed to aid both a person in determining that they ought to seek professional help as well as aiding mental health professionals in making a confirmatory diagnosis.  Developed under the assumption that materialism is a pervasive and global human trait, the

Diagnostic Screener for Compulsive Buying Behavior (DSCB) was developed with seven key items:

1. I made only the minimum payments on my credit cards.
2. I wrote a check when I knew I didn’t have enough money in the bank.
3. I felt others would be horrified if they knew of my spending habits.
4. If I have any money left at the end of a pay period, I just have to spend it.
5. I bought things even though I couldn’t afford them.
6. I bought myself something in order to make myself feel better.
7. I felt anxious on days I didn’t go shopping (Kwak, H., G. Zinkman, & M. Crask 2003, p. 166).

These items had an approximate overall reliability of 0.75 and were significant at the p>.05 level.  Despite this, in trials with multiple samples from both the US, represented individualized ‘western’ culture, and South Korea, representing more a community/group-driven eastern culture, the emergence of dimensionality in the data was observed.  In US samples, the premise that the seven test items capture adequately the various psychological tensions and anxieties that a person who suffers from compulsive buying issues is supported without modification.  However, South Korean samples, though supporting the hypothesis this instrument can reliably detect such issues, revealed bi-dimensionality in two constructs of:

1. “Financial outcomes” - (items 1,2 and 3),

1. “Unfettered spending” - (items 4,5 and 6) (Kwak, H. 2004, p. 167).

Such a finding indicates that, in some cultures, consumers may see that an certain issue has different or distinct angles.  For example, either an problem with the financial outcomes of behaviors or the fact that one may not be very restrained in spending is likely seen as the same issue by American consumers.  In essence, the answers may be the same and the result the same but the meaning that a certain culture places upon one factor or another is relevant and only reiterates the changing nature and that interpretation of such instruments cannot be removed from the culture.

Additional research by DeSarbo and Edwards published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology in which advanced statistical controls were utilized provide significant additional insights in the both the nature of the problem of compulsive buying and the discernment of the problem itself.  In this research the authors cite numerous previous studies in which the behavior of compulsive buying has been linked to a number of psychological personality characteristics such as:

1. Dependence
2.  Denial
3. Depression
4. Lack of impulse control
5. Low self-esteem
6. Approval-seeking
7. Anxiety
8. Escape coping tendencies
9. General compulsiveness
10. Materialism
11. Isolation
12. Excitement-seeking
13. Perfectionism 

In addition, the factors of family environment, childhood experiences with money and spending, family communication patterns, as well as factors such as the number of credit cards regularly used, degree of credit debt and other compulsive behaviors demonstrated have been identified as potential predictors of compulsive buying activity (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, p. 232).

Of all the factors indicated in assessing the issues that predispose an individual to compulsive buying behaviors, the “escape from anxiety” is most often labeled as the most influential factor.  As multiple studies indicate, “…compulsive buyers react to stress with higher levels of anxiety than do noncompulsive buyers”.   When ‘stressed out’, compulsive shoppers attempt to utilize purchases as a compensation mechanism or as an escape from the anxiety (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, pp. 235, 236).

Additionally, the following significant contributing factors are listed below:
1.    Self-Esteem – Cited as the most common deficiency in those who are compulsive shoppers, it is easy to see how the act of purchasing an item can convey a sense of power and entitlement although it is one that is short-lived (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, p. 236).  This non-durable pleasure serves to enhance the vicious cycle in which the progressive qualities of the “disease” are exhibited.  This cycle is virtually identical to many physiological addictions in which there is desensitization or habituation to a certain level of stimulus:  which each engagement, the person wants/needs a larger “dose” or a greater frequency of stimulation. 
2.    Perfectionism – This trait is frequently associated with invididuals who suffer from addiction and is characterized as being “unrealistic” expectations whose unfulfillability can result in a variety of issues such as depression, anxiety, and self-doubt.  By purchasing, individuals with this trait are seeking to assuage these feelings and, for a short while, they may succeed (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, p. 236).
3.    Impulsiveness – In the scheme of medical or psychological diagnosis, “compulsive buying behaviors” are close relatives of obsessive-compulsive behavioral disorders.  The inability to control impulsive thoughts and/or the related ability to defer gratification are likely important contributors to this behavior (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, pp. 236, 237).  Also, as indicated earlier, there should be a distinction drawn between “compulsive” and “impulsive” buying behaviors in which the stimulation for action is internal or external, respectively.
4.    Locus of Control – Much compulsive buying is likely related to a internal struggle to gain “control” of a confounding and stressful external environment.  When a person chooses to make a purchase, feelings of control are present as the person chooses the object, means, timing, location and, in some cases, the cost of their desires.  This highly controlled situation could likely be contrasted to the context of the balance of their lives in which they are at the whim of others and exert no control and possibly even little influence upon the events and objects in their day.  As such, those who are characterized as being compulsive consumers are likely to view themselves as “being controlled externally” as they have an inability to see themselves from the perspective that they are able to influence their lives internally (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, p. 238).

In addition, addition personality traits such as “excitement seeking”, “approval seeking” or “dependence” issues as well as environmental factors or familial factors are considered to be characteristics that can contribute to or perpetuate cycles of compulsive consumerism.   An example of an environmental factors that are potentially relevant are “isolation” in which the occasion of compulsive buying may provide a social outlet or “materialism” in which ‘keeping up with the Jones’’ becomes a compelling rationale for such spending (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, p. 239).  With regards to familial factors, there are a great many learned behaviors that are internalized as “normal” in the context of the home.  Additionally, most people first experience with money and managing finances come through the context of chores, an allowance and forms of rationed spending.  These early experiences have a significant influence upon adult behaviors as is the case in which children learn that “money is a reward” or perhaps are not taught that saving is a very important part of earning as well as spending (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, pp. 239,240).

One of the ultimate goals of psychology is to understand, predict and influence behavior.  To more fully understand the role that these personality traits, environmental and family or sociological issues plays in the expression of compulsive buying behaviors, DeSarbo and Edwards utilized advanced regression techniques to “tease out” additional insights that would otherwise be “buried” in using simpler techniques. 
T

he basic idea behind regression analysis is to plot a line which represents the extent to which a certain factor or group of factors can explain the variance of measurable behaviors within a sample group.  More basic regression techniques such as linear regression utilize a formula of y=mx+b in which y is the expected behavior  and x is the independent variable in which there it is posited there will be a influence y.   In its most basic forms, variables are “lumped together” and one can determine only is a certain combination significantly influences the outcome.  In more intermediate approaches, differing variables can be accounted for by there relative contribution to the outcome.  In the more advanced data manipulations, technology enables the rapid assessment of various combinations or “clusters” of variables can be examined in order to more fully account for the observed sample variability. 
It was such an approach, “clusterwise constrained and unconstrained step-wise regression analysis”, that was employed by DeSarbo and Edwards to predict the maximum likelihood of compulsive buying by grouping specific combinations of these factors which each iteration testing for deviations in outcome as various factors or groups of factors are included or omitted.  Results from this manipulation confirm the difference between “compulsive” buying in which the behavioral stimulation is more due to internal psychological factors and “impulsive” buying in which key drivers are more externally biased. 
In this analysis, the study revealed the key predictors of compulsive buying to be self-esteem, dependence and anxiety.  For impulsive buying, factors yielding statistically significant influence were determined to be denial, isolation, approval seeking and coping.  Additionally, “impulsiveness” as a personality trait factor displayed a significant degree of influence over internally- and externally-driven compulsive buying behaviors (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, p. 248).

Though the assessment devices that can shed insight on such psychological concepts as are indicated above, when utilized by a trained technician, can provide a more “clinical” means by which compulsive buying issues can be gauged, many of the same indices are often incorporated in to what might be termed “user-friendly field assessment quizzes”.    Such a screening tool may be especially helpful as a guide to help one self-determine if there is a potential likelihood of an issue that may need merit professional assistance.  An example of this type of quiz is given below:

1.    Do you hide purchases from your partner to avoid a fight?
2.    Are there garments in your closet from seasons past that still have tags on them?
3.    Do you “forget” about purchases made and then find yourself without the money to pay for them when the bill arrives at the end of the month?
4.    Have you consolidated your credit card debt or rolled it into a refinance?
5.    Do you travel at the drop of a hat and take additional trips before past trips are paid for?
6.    Do you tap into “emergency” savings regularly to make ends meet?
7.    Are you unable to contribute the maximum to your 401(k) because you need extra dollars to pay your bills?
8.    Have you withdrawn from or made loans against your 401(k)? (Bridgeforth, G. 2004, p. 158)

Though these “yes or no” questions are relatively unsophisticated, they can provide significant insight into the issues identified by Kwak, et al., such as the emphasis on financial outcomes, unrestrained spending and activities that might be suggestive of behavioral patterns as opposed to single incidents.

Grappling with the Gray Area… A Continuum Approach to Pathology

One of the key features of this “disease” is that, like many psychological issue, it typically begins almost unnoticed and gradually progresses.  The initial cycle is likely to begin even innocuously yet the behavior of spending is reinforced by the association of the positive feeling that one has shortly after the purchase.  Though this seems reasonable, there is a pronounced tendency on behalf of most people if not medical professionals are well to see illness in terms of a dichotomous perspective.  While this is a convenient method, it is indeed too convenient to model the reality of a continuum-approach to this issue.  Further, there are traits that seem to predispose one to compulsive spending such as personality or familial factors.  Additionally, there are factors such as stress at work or home which appear to be more circumstantial in nature in that they temporarily create a disproportionate impact on perceptions leading up to the behaviors in question (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, p. 235).
Additionally, as with many psychological issues, it is often difficult to discern which occurred first, the behavior which was reinforced through a “reward” or the personality trait or predisposing factor which “led” one to exhibit the behavior that was later reinforced.  Though one cannot in every case discern and separate with certainty the causative from the correlational factors.  By using more sophisticated techniques and carefully thought out testing instruments, it is possible to speak with greater (though seldom certain) confidence about causation.  For example, the following is an excerpt from DeSarbo and Edward that speaks to familial environmental factors:

Parents of those in the internal compulsive [“impulsive”] buying group tended to not encourage children to save and were more likely to buy them whatever they wanted.  This suggests that extreme compulsive buyers were not deprived of possessions; and their behavior reflects a component… in which the child does not learn to delay gratification.  Such compulsive buyers lack impulse control, buy whenever the buying urge strikes, and are unable to resist the urge to spend…  [another] variable concerns whether the compulsive buyers were given an allowance as children – those in the impulsive [external] buying group were more likely to have received an allowance, suggesting that they come from families that not only did not deny them anything but also provided money to spend as they liked.  Combined with finding that those in the internal compulsive buying group were less likely to receive money as a reward, this may reflect a general proclivity to spend without regard to financial situation…. [and] a tendency to use their credit irrationally… (DeSarbo, W. and E. Edwards 2004, p. 250).
Such a findings are typical and reflect just one factor.  Is this one factor enough to “tip” a person into taking the first steps what what will eventually become a compulsive buyer?  Such research is always more useful in explain past behavior yet a salient point is that there are “multiple paths” to a particular destination.  The accumulation of what could be aptly labeled “risk factors” only increases the likelihood that a certain behavior or pattern of behaviors will be exhibited.  Despite this, there are no guarantees: some individuals who are “loaded” do not develop the behavior while others who seem “normal” face a lifetime of struggle over the issue.
   

Also complicated a “diagnosis” is the very nature of the issue:  there are no set cut-offs to determine if some is or is not a compulsive shopper.  This complicates matters as the illness is progressive and it is a slippery slope to determine the extent to which compulsivity is a problem.  The line is typically drawn with specific reference to the individual’s life circumstances and the overall context and the consequences of the behavior.  While such a flexible diagnosis makes it possible to treat a wide range of degrees of affliction, it also delays the decision of a person to get help until the problem is “obvious” and there the likely to be significant personal and financial costs in “cleaning up the mess”.
    Another complication of a “diagnosis” is the frequent incidence of comorbid conditions for which the less than responsible use of money is a frequent symptom.  For example, many bipolar individuals have “money issues”.  These issues may manifest themselves as compulsive spending habits and often accompany “grand schemes” in which a positive outcome is virtually assured.  If one were to be treated utilizing only psychological models and not the medical model for which lithium is highly effective in approximately 70% of bipolar cases, there is a great likely hood that one would be simply treating the symptoms and not the underlying cause.  Similarly, depression is a common issue for which symptoms often include poor self-esteem and the individual may seek to self-medicate by spending in order to gain some transient relief.  Seeking relief by spending from bi- or uni-polar depression and other issues can in effect create “issues on issues”, thus emphasizing the importance of seeking professional assistance when issues such as these arise… without help, more often than not, they only grow and will eventually be discovered when the problem becomes too big to be ignored.
Four Theoretical Approaches to Rational Behavior
   

Like many disciplines, there seems to be an initial predisposition for a singular philosophy for addressing an issue.  As any student in a general survey psychology course can attest, the best outcome is achieved either by an integrated approach or by a single approach chosen after seeing the problem through the lens of an open mind in order to best choose the most efficacious treatment plan.  Such is the case with compulsive spending in which there four distinct approaches to addressing the likely personality and psychological culprits.
    Perhaps the most straight forward approach is to realize that as compulsive shopping is a “behavior” the behavioristic school is a good place to begin.  Behaviorism has its roots in the methods of Pavlov and Skinner and posits that exhibited behaviors are the function of “what works” for an given individual.  Learning or conditioning occurs within the context of the pairing a stimulus and a response.  The response is classified as either a reward or a punishment and is either negative (taking something away… not the application of punishment) or positive (introducing some element into a situation… not necessarily the application of a “good” thing).  Utilizing this framework, behaviorists analyze situations in order to discern what the operational parameters are in terms of reward and punishment.  In doing so, the behaviorally-biased psychologist would seek to re-pair the act of splurging with the longer term negative consequences that inevitable follow rather than the short-term pleasure.  By doing so, the individual should theoretically be able to implement behavioral avoidance strategies for the punishments that would follow compulsive buying.
   

Alternatively, the cognitive approach would also likely be quite appropriate.  One of the more common devices this discipline utilizes is to assist the patient in exploring where they have made “cognitive errors”.   A cognitive error is simply a “mistake in thinking”.  As an example, one approach would be to ask a patient to utilize a pro/con chart with any purchase over some predetermined cost. By using such a method, the client is “forced” to consider their motivations and to confront potential faulty logic before the purchase is made.  A cognitive theorist would likely focus on the idea of “need” versus “want” and would work with the client to reconcile these issue.
   

Much of the compulsive buying also arises out of psychological conflict between wants and needs and early childhood or familial issues.  Such conflict inevitably causes feeling of guilt, low-self esteem and increased levels of anxiety which serve to fuel the vicious cycle.  Psychoanalysis, as a discipline within the psychology, is well suited to ferreting out “real” motivations and the rationale for certain behaviors.  Begun by Freud, psychoanalysts posit that much of what happens in the brain goes unnoticed by conscious thought.  Much like the proverbial iceberg in which most of it actually lies under the surface, the unconscious mind influences our conscious decisions in ways which we are unaware.  In the unconscious is are the hypothetical structures of the id, ego and the superego in which each wants its own agenda fulfilled and is often in conflict. 
   

Using the example of compulsive buying, a psychoanalyst might hypothesize that there are unresolved childhood conflicts in which the client is expressing through the egotistical acquisition of material goods.  Such actions while gratifying to the ego for a little while only reappear later as increasingly unsatisfied frustrations.
   

Another common approach to therapeutic intervention is the use of combined disciplines.  Perhaps the most common of these is a cognitive-behavioral approach in which individuals are essentially taught to “rethink” issues and to consider the reward system that is in place when compulsive spending occurs.
    In addition, in the modern tradition of pharmaceutical intervention, there does appear to be some physiological basis for compulsive buying.  Utilizing the approach the “compulsive buying” is a close relative of obsessive-compulsive disorders as well as the fact of frequent cormorbidity with depression, there has been some success in attenuating the symptoms of “shopping addicts” by the use of the latest class of anti-depressants, serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRI’s) (Black, E. 2001, pp.17, 25).  Sertonin is a key neurotransmitter that has a tremendous effect on mood, sexual behavior and general body functioning. Success treating compulsive buying with SSRI’s could have be due to the effectiveness of the agent on the cormorbid condition of depression which, upon relief, the patient did not need the “boost” that shopping provided. 
    Finally, the use of an integrated approach which utilizes both a medical model as well as psychological paradigms may be especially useful as a consequence of the nearly 60% of those exhibiting signs of compulsive spending also presented with symptoms of other personality disorders.  In addition in one study, nearly 100% of first-degree relatives of those diagnosed with compulsive spending disorder have had incidences of major depression, over half had alcohol-related issues in their family backgrounds and about 15% indicated a family history of anxiety-related disorders (Black, E. 2001, p.22).  Due to the varied efficacy of particular disorders, some treatment disciplines may be more effective than others in relieving either the compulsive spending or the accompanying disorder. 

Shopping as a Pill

    Many have likened modern shopping and society’s extreme bias to consumption as a modern day drug.  This so-called panacea is especially made for all the unfilfilled that accumulates  over a lifetime of overindulgence and entitlement.  The only real problem with this is that it is only a temporary solution that only results in greater frustration as desire fuels desire.  Is shopping the modern day drug?  The answer is a resounding “yes”… but, it need not be.
    Like drugs, when used for the right reasons and in the right quantities, shopping can have a therapeutic effect, connecting the payment for society’s best efforts with a process in which money is exchanged for the best efforts of others.  Also like drugs, they can become addictive… as Fromm so aptly stated that is possible to confuse “being” with “having”.  When this occurs, misplaced motivations lead on to psychological and financial ruin, much as would any other drug or substitute for a real inner state of fulfilling the highest needs of man.
Shopping, like most things, when done moderation is a valid means of both the physical acquisition of goods as well as a source of psychological pleasure.  By focusing solely on the “purchase” one can missing the pleasure in the “trip”; likewise, by focusing only on process, the functionality of the activity is lost.  When an activity can be conducted in moderation in conjunction with an emotionally enjoyable process and an objectively satisfactory outcome, shopping becomes a benign if not outright edifying part of the human experience, yet, like all other human activity, quite subject to perversion.

Works Consulted

Black, D. (2001).  “Compulsive Buying Disorder:  Definition, Assessment, Epidemiology and Clinical Management”.  CNS Drugs (15),1, pp. 17-27.

Bridgforth, B. (2004, August).  “When Shopping is a Sickness”.  Essence. pp. 154 -158.

DeSarbo, W. & E. Edwards. (1996). “Typologies of Compulsive Buying Behavior: A Constrained Clusterwise Regression Approach”.  Journal of Consumer Psychology (5), 3, pp.231 – 262.

Farrell, J. (2003).  One Nation Under Goods.  Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Gini, A. (2003).  The Importance of Being Lazy: In Praise of Play, Leisure and Vacations.  Taylor & Francis Group:  New York & London.
Pooler, J. (2003). Why We Shop:  Emotional Rewards and Retail Strategies.  Praeger: West Port, Connecticut, USA.

Glatt, M. & C. Cook. (1987).  Pathological Spending as a Form of Psychological Dependence”.  British Journal of Addiction (82), pp. 1257 – 1258.

Hine, T. (2002)  I Want THAT!:  How We All Became Shoppers.  HarperCollins: New York, New York.

Kwak, H., G. Zinkman & M. Crask. (2003, Summer).  “Diagnostic Screener for Compulsive Buying: Applications to the USA and South Korea”.  The Journal of Consumer Affairs (37), 1, pp. 161 – 169.