Reducing consumer materialism and compulsive buying through emotional intelligence training amongst Lithuanian students

Big Five Personality Traits and Compulsive Buying: The Mediating Role of Self-Esteem

The inter-relationships between the Big Five personality traits, self-esteem, and compulsive buying are supported by strong empirical evidence. What is yet unknown is to what extent self-esteem can channel the influence of personality traits on compulsive buying. The main objective of this study is to explore the possible mediating role of self-esteem in the link between the Big Five personality traits and compulsive buying. Path analysis results, using a sample of 487 university students, generally confirm the suitability of the proposed model in which self-esteem mediated the effects of the Big Five personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness) on compulsive buying. Moreover, a direct effect of neuroticism and conscientiousness on compulsive buying was found. Finally, based on the finding that self-esteem acts as a necessary filter in the analysis of the five factors-compulsive buying relationship, several action-oriented guidelines for the prevention or intervention of this behavioral problem are suggested.

Update on treatment studies for compulsive buying-shopping disorder: A systematic review

Background and aims

Compulsive buying-shopping disorder (CBSD) is mentioned as an example of other specified impulse control disorders in the ICD-11 coding tool, highlighting its clinical relevance and need for treatment. The aim of the present work was to provide a systematic update on treatment studies for CBSD, with a particular focus on online CBSD.

Method

The preregistered systematic review (PROSPERO, CRD42021257379) was performed in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycInfo databases. Original research published between January 2000 and December 2022 was included. Risk of reporting bias was evaluated with the CONSORT guideline for randomized controlled trials. Effect sizes for primary CBSD outcomes were calculated.

Results

Thirteen studies were included (psychotherapy: 2 open, 4 waitlist control design; medication: 2 open, 3 placebo-controlled, 2 open-label phase followed by a double-blind discontinuation phase; participants treatment/control 349/149). None of the studies addressed online CBSD. Psychotherapy studies suggest that group cognitive-behavioral therapy is effective in reducing CBSD symptoms. Pharmacological studies with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors or topiramate did not indicate superiority over placebo. Predictors of treatment outcome were rarely examined, mechanisms of change were not studied at all. Risk of reporting bias was high in most studies.

Discussion

Poor methodological and low quality of reporting of included studies reduce the reliability of conclusions. There is a lack of studies targeting online CBSD. More high-quality treatment research is needed with more emphasis on the CBSD subtype and mechanisms of change.