Received: 7 April 2018 | Revised: 15 August 2018 | Accepted: 20 August 2018

DOI: 10.1002/mar.21159

R E S EARCH AR T I C L E

The tripartite model of aberrant purchasing: A theoryto explain the maladaptive pursuit of consumption

Richard J. Harnish1 | Catherine A. Roster2

1Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania

State University, New Kensington Campus,

New Kensington, Pennsylvania

2Department of Marketing and Information

Decision Sciences, University of New Mexico,

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Correspondence

Richard J. Harnish, Department of Psychology,

The Pennsylvania State University, New

Kensington Campus, 3550 7th Street Road,

Route 780, New Kensington, PA 15068.

Email: rjh27@psu.edu

Funding information

The Pennsylvania State University

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to differentiate maladaptive consumer purchasing

behaviors through the use of a triangular conceptual framework to understand aberrant

purchasing behavior tripartite model of aberrant purchasing (T‐MAP). The T‐MAPmodel

draws upon classic tripartite attitude models as a heuristic to propose how cognitive (i.e.,

self‐regulation), affective (i.e., pain of paying), and behavioral (i.e., acquisitiveness)

components of attitudes may serve to differentiate closely related but distinctive types

of consumers exhibiting aberrant purchasing behaviors, including compulsive buyers,

compulsive collectors, frugalists, and materialists.

Methods: Data were obtained from 500 respondents (n = 495 complete and eligible)

recruited through Prolific Academic who participated in an Internet survey created

and hosted on the Qualtrics survey platform. Measures for assessing the three

triangular aspects of the T‐MAP, self‐regulation, pain of paying, and acquisitiveness,

along with the four aberrant purchasing behaviors, compulsive buying, compulsive

collecting, frugality, and materialism, were measured. Hypotheses were posited for

each of the aberrant purchasing behaviors based on distinctive combinations of the

three attitudinal components.

Results: All four study hypotheses were supported by discriminant function analysis.

Compulsive buyers exhibited lower levels of pain of paying and lower levels of self‐regulation than noncompulsive buyers. Compulsive collectors scored higher on both

pain of paying and acquisitiveness than noncollectors. Frugalists exhibited high levels

of self‐regulation coupled with low acquisitiveness. Materialists scored low on both

self‐regulation and pain of paying but scored high on acquisitiveness.

Conclusions: Collectively, the T‐MAP model differentiates various aberrant consumer

purchasing behaviors that have been identified, but yet to be fully distinguished in the

consumer literature.

K E YWORD S

compulsive buying, compulsive collecting, frugality, materialism

1 | INTRODUCTION

Over the past 30 years, researchers have explored different types of

aberrant purchasing behavior that can be classified into two broad

categories: unrestrained consumption (e.g., compulsive buying,

impulsive buying, compulsive hoarding, compulsive collecting, and

stockpiling) and restrained consumption (e.g., frugality, postmateri-

alism, and tightwadism). However, the delineation among unrest-

rained purchasing behaviors, as well as their restrained counterparts,

is difficult because of the behavioral and psychological similarities

Psychol Mark. 2018;1–14. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1

among the constructs (Bose, Burns, & Garretson Folse, 2013; Müller,

Mitchell, & de Zwaan, 2015). To provide one example, researchers

(e.g., Beatty & Ferrell, 1998; Goldenson, 1984; Rook, 1987) have

defined impulse buying as sudden and persistent urges to buy

something immediately without forethought; while, other research-

ers (e.g., McElroy, Keck, Pope, Smith, & Strakowski, 1994) have

conceptualized compulsive buying in a similar vein—as an over-

powering urge to buy.

Given that there are similarities among unrestrained and restrained

purchasing behaviors in terms of their behavioral and psychological

properties (Bose et al., 2013; Müller et al., 2015), one may wonder if

unrestrained and restrained purchasing behaviors share common

underpinnings, and if so, in what ways do these purchasing behaviors

differ from each other? This study attempts to answer these questions

through a triangular theory of aberrant purchasing behavior. This

tripartite model seeks to explain the nature of aberrant purchasing

behaviors and the associated behaviors identified by researchers.

1.1 | The tripartite model of aberrant purchasing(T‐MAP)

1.1.1 | Three components

The T‐MAP proposes that maladaptive purchasing behavior can

be understood from the perspective of classic attitude models

(e.g., Katz & Stotland, 1959; Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960), which

identifies three components to an attitude. It should be noted that

we are not suggesting that aberrant purchasing behaviors are

attitudes; rather, we are using classic attitude models as a conceptual

framework to help us differentiate the various constructs used to

explain maladaptive purchasing behaviors. That is, we are using

classic attitude models as a heuristic because of the affinity among

psychologists and marketers to think of cognition, affect and

behavior as a trinity (McGuire, 1985) all of which may be used to

examine unrestrained and restrained purchasing behaviors. That is,

aberrant purchasing behaviors begin with cognitive strategies that

facilitate self‐regulation in a purchasing situation. During this

cognitive process, an affective reaction may be made (e.g., liking or

disliking of a product), which in turn generates a behavioral response

(e.g., purchasing).

To explain the heuristic further, according to classic attitude models,

an attitude can be conceived as being comprised of three components: a

cognitive component (i.e., beliefs, thoughts, and attributes about an

attitude object), an affective component (i.e., feelings or emotions linked

to an attitude object), and a behavioral component (i.e., past behaviors or

experiences regarding the attitude object). Applied to our T‐MAP model,

the three attitude components can be perceived as the vectors that form

the vertices of a triangle (Figure 1). In the T‐MAP model, the cognitive

component is self‐regulation, the affective component is pain of paying,

and the behavioral component is acquisitiveness. Because these terms

have been defined differently by various researchers, it may be helpful to

operationalize them now. Self‐regulation is defined as “a sense of

purposive processes” (Carver & Scheier, 2014, p. 3), while pain of paying

is characterized as the reduction of “pleasure derived from consumption”

(Prelec & Loewenstein, 1998, p. 4), and acquisitiveness is described as

the “preference for…and realization that more wealth [goods] can be

had” (Demsetz, 1996, p. 492). The vertex formed by the cognitive

component (i.e., self‐regulation) and the behavioral component (i.e.,

acquisitiveness) is frugality (i.e., high self‐regulation and low acquisitive-

ness). The vertex produced by the cognitive component (i.e., self‐regulation) and the affective component (i.e., pain of paying) is

compulsive buying (i.e., low self‐regulation and low pain of paying). The

vertex created by the affective component (i.e., pain of paying) and the

behavioral component (i.e., acquisitiveness) is compulsive collecting (i.e.,

high pain of paying and high acquisitiveness). Finally, materialism (i.e., low

self‐regulation, low pain of paying, and high acquisitiveness) results from

the combination of the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components.

In the sections that follow, we will first examine the components of

aberrant purchasing—self‐regulation, pain of paying, and acquisitiveness

and then expatiate on how the combination of the components of

aberrant purchasing produce specific types of behavior—compulsive

buying, compulsive collecting, frugality, and materialism.

1.2 | Components of aberrant purchasing

1.2.1 | Self‐regulation

Most researchers tend to use the terms self‐regulation and self‐control interchangeably (Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998) because both

terms imply the self’s ability to “alter its own states and responses”

(Baumeister, 2002, p. 670). Self‐regulation has been defined as one’s

“capacity to plan, guide, and monitor one’s behavior flexibly in the

face of changing circumstances” (J. M. Brown, 1998, p. 62) suggesting

that individuals have the ability to monitor their behavior through

delayed gratification to achieve long‐term goals. Baumeister and

Vohs (2003) proposed that self‐regulation comprises three parts: a

goal, behaviors directed toward the goal, and monitoring of progress

HighLowPain of Paying

Frugality (High Self-Regula�on +

Low Acquisi�veness)

Materialism(Low Pain of Paining + High Acquisi�veness + Low Self-Regula�on)

Affec�ve Dimension

F IGURE 1 Relations between affective, behavioral, and cognitivedimensions and aberrant purchasing [Color figure can be viewed atwileyonlinelibrary.com]

2 | HARNISH AND ROSTER

toward the goal. For example, one may save for a vacation to Europe

(i.e., the goal) by putting aside some of his or her paycheck (i.e.,

behaviors directed toward the goal) until enough money has been

saved to pay for the European vacation (i.e., monitoring progress

toward the goal).

However, not all self‐regulation efforts result in goal attainment.

Baumeister (2002) argued that self‐regulation fails because: One’s

standards used to define a desired goal do not change; one fails to

monitor the relevant behavior needed to obtain the goal; or one does

not have the capacity to meet the goal. For example, if one is content

to stay home during one’s vacation, then the goal of saving for a

European vacation is moot (i.e., there is no need for self‐regulation).Alternatively, if one has the goal of saving for a European vacation

but fails to monitor savings (and spending), then the goal will not be

attained. Conversely, if one has the goal of saving for a European

vacation and is aware of his or her saving (and spending) habits but

cannot motivate oneself to put aside funds or curtail spending, the

goal will not be reached.

As applied to aberrant purchasing behavior, most individuals

attempt to control their spending because of budget constraints.

However, some individuals make excessive purchases despite a

restricted budget, while other individuals fail to make purchases

despite an unrestricted budget. Thus, for both types of buyers, a

failure to self‐regulate may occur when faced with a purchasing

decision. Rook and Hoch (1985) have identified a number of cognitive

strategies that facilitate self‐regulation in a purchasing situation.

These include delay, bargaining, and guilt. Delay involves efforts to

postpone the purchase (i.e., the individual may say to him or herself

that the item will be on sale next week); while bargaining concerns

the promise of a small reward to delay the purchase (i.e., the

individual may think to him or herself that I can purchase this

inexpensive item if I do not purchase the expensive item now). Guilt

entails a contradiction between shared values and one’s actions that

damages self‐other relationships (Brooke, 1985) and can be used to

delay a purchase (i.e., one can envision explaining to a disappointed

other why funds were expended after a purchase is made). For those

who engage in aberrant purchasing behaviors, these cognitive

strategies may be over‐used (i.e., a purchase is not made when it

should be made) or under‐used (i.e., a purchase is made when it

should not be made).

1.2.2 | Pain of paying

While self‐regulation is a cognitive process (i.e., the capacity to plan,

guide, and monitor one’s behavior), pain of paying is used as the

affective component in our T‐MAP model. Prelec and Loewenstein

(1998) hypothesized that emotions can and do influence purchasing

decisions. In their theory, when individuals are involved in the

moment of choice, they open a mental ledger that associates cost of

the purchase to the benefits of obtaining the good (or service).

Researchers have demonstrated the stronger the link between cost

and benefits, the more likely individuals will pursue the benefits

associated with the costs (Gourville & Soman, 1998; Prelec &

Loewenstein, 1998; Soman & Gourville, 2001). The link is thought to

create a “double‐entry” mental accounting system where “payment

can undermine the pleasures of consumption and, conversely, that

the pain of making payments can be buffered by thoughts of the

benefits that these payments finance” (Prelec & Loewenstein, 1998,

p. 8). As a result, individuals experience pain of paying when deciding

to make a purchase. Some individuals will make excessive purchases

because they experience little pain of paying. Rick, Cryder, and

Loewenstein (2007) call these individuals “spendthrifts.” In contrast,

others will make insufficient purchases because they experience a

great deal of pain of paying. Rick et al. (2007) refer to these

individuals as “tightwads.” However, most individuals will experience

a moderate amount of pain of paying and will be unconflicted (Rick

et al., 2007). Thus, among those who engage in aberrant purchasing

behaviors, the emotion experienced at the time of purchasing may be

overwhelming (i.e., a purchase is not made when it should be made

because of a great deal of pain of paying in the case of tightwads) or

underwhelming (i.e., a purchase is made when it should not be made

because of little pain of paying in the case of spendthrifts).

1.2.3 | Acquisitiveness

Having discussed the cognitive (i.e., self‐regulation) and affective (i.e.,

pain of paying) components of the T‐MAP model, we now turn to the

behavior component—acquisitiveness. Preston and Vickers (2014)

define acquisitiveness as “the desire to acquire and keep goods per

se, above and beyond what appears necessary for one’s own basic

comfort, survival, and success” (p. 127). Like self‐regulation and pain

of paying, acquisitiveness is thought to be normally distributed with

individuals distributed along a continuum (Preston & Vickers, 2014).

At one end of the continuum are “Spartans” who acquire only a

minimal amount of goods, eschew clutter, but place a premium on

their most cherished items (Preston, Muroff, & Wengrovitz, 2009). At

the opposite end of the continuum are “Acquirers” who procure a

vast amount of goods (Preston & Vickers, 2014).

It is thought that negative emotions prompt unrestrained

consumption. For example, anxiety encourages acquisitiveness

(Frost, Steketee, & Tolin, 2011), and can foster a preference for

goods that can be used for safety or control (Raghunathan, Pham, &

Corfman, 2006) while sadness motivates hedonic purchases that

could be used to self‐enhance (Raghunathan et al., 2006). Indeed, in

laboratory studies, participants primed with attractive mates wanted

more conspicuous goods (e.g., luxury goods; Griskevicius et al., 2007),

or having been socially rejected, acquired more identity‐relatedgoods (e.g., university‐branded clothing; Mead, Baumeister, Stillman,

Rawn, & Vohs, 2011). From this study, it seems that for those who

engage in aberrant purchasing behaviors, the desire to acquire may

be irresistible (i.e., a large amount of goods is purchased) or is

unappealing (i.e., only a minimal amount of goods is purchased).

Because our goal is to explore the common underpinnings of

aberrant purchasing behavior through the use of a tripartite model

we will now examine how compulsive buying, compulsive collecting,

frugality, and materialism may be better differentiated by examining

HARNISH AND ROSTER | 3

these aberrant behaviors through the lenses of self‐regulation, painof paying, and acquisitiveness.

1.3 | Types of aberrant purchasing

1.3.1 | Compulsive buying

Compulsive buying has been defined as an excessive and problematic

behavior that recognizes the inherently obsessive (e.g., preoccupation

with buying, repetitive buying) and compulsive (e.g., lack of control

over urges to buy) nature of aberrant purchasing (Christenson et al.,

1994; Ridgway, Kukar‐Kinney, & Monroe, 2008). More formally,

compulsive buying is thought to be “(a) uncontrollable; (b) significantly

distressing, time consuming, or resulting in social or financial

difficulties; and (c) not occurring in the context of a hypomanic or

manic symptoms” (McElroy et al., 1994, pp. 242–243).

Compulsive buying, it is thought, emerges as a response to

irresistible urges that are precipitated by high levels of anxiety and

negative affect, which only can be alleviated by shopping and

completing a purchase. When the purchasing process is complete,

compulsive buyers have noted a temporary reduction in anxiety and

negative affect (Christenson et al., 1994; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989).

However, the alleviation of anxiety and negative affect is short‐lived;compulsive buyers report a return to high levels of anxiety and

negative affect, marked by feelings of guilt, anger, or sadness

(Christenson et al., 1994; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989). The return of high

levels of anxiety and negative affect can trigger additional purchasing

behavior producing a vicious cycle (Harnish & Bridges, 2015).

Compulsive buying has been associated with materialistic values

and materialism (Dittmar, 2005; Harnish & Bridges, 2015; O’Guinn &

Faber, 1989; Richins & Dawson, 1992); narcissisism (Harnish &

Bridges, 2015); irrational beliefs (Harnish & Bridges, 2015); eating

disorders (Black, 2001; Christenson et al., 1994; Ridgway et al.,

2008); and evaluative attitudes related to appearance, fitness and

health, as well as eating disorder risk (Harnish, Gump, Bridges, Slack,

& Rottschaefer, 2018). Additionally, compulsive buyers have re-

ported low levels of self‐esteem and well‐being (Dittmar, Bond,

Hurst, & Kasser, 2014; Harnish, Bridges, Nataraajan, Gump, &

Carson, 2018; Ridgway et al., 2008; Williams, 2012).

Given the various definitions and proposed criteria, compulsive

buyers may score low in self‐regulation and low in pain of paying.

Self‐regulation “is a controlled process that overrides the usual

consequence of an impulse rather than preventing the impulse from

occurring” (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996, p. 2). In addition, recent

research (e.g., Harnish, Bridges, et al., 2018) indicated that

compulsive buyers experience less pain of paying compared with

noncompulsive buyers. According to (Rick 2014, p. 149) “…[S]ome

people may experience too much pain for their own good (e.g.,

because they have been over‐trained to associate spending with pain

or because they are more chronically prone to experience any kind of

pain), and may spend less than they would have spent had they

carefully considered the opportunity costs. Other people may

experience too little pain for their own good, and may spend more

than they would like to spend.”

1.3.2 | Compulsive collecting

Collecting behavior can be conceived to fall along a continuum

(Timpano et al., 2013). At one end of the continuum are individuals

who expend significant resources to acquire consumer goods, while

at the opposite end are those individuals who invest a minimal

amount of resources to acquiring goods (Shaw & Timpano, 2016).

However, distinctions can be made between compulsive collecting

and several related constructs such as acquiring, possessing, and

hoarding (Belk, 1994). For example, hoarding disorder is character-

ized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(DSM‐V) as a difficulty in discarding goods, which results in a

cluttered environment (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Compulsive collectors, in contrast, are more selective than hoarders

(Kron, 1983; Nordsletten & Mataix‐Cols, 2012) and their purchasing

behavior involves acquiring an interrelated set of goods (Belk, 1982;

Kron, 1983), which does not produce clutter that is characteristic of

hoarding (Nordsletten & Mataix‐Cols, 2012). Additionally, compul-

sive collectors seek out items to acquire that add importance to the

set of items in the collection (Belk, 1994). Indeed, compulsive

collecting appears to be addictive such that adding items to a

collection becomes an obsession for the individual (Belk, 1994).

Interestingly, compulsive collectors, when experiencing anxiety, may

attempt to reduce their negative affect by focusing on objects

missing from or included in their collections (Peele, 1985). It is

proposed that by focusing on the collection, the compulsive collector

is able to self‐enhance thereby reducing anxiety associated with

feelings of inadequacy (Belk, 1994). Therefore, it appears that both

compulsive collectors (Belk, 1994) and compulsive buyers regulate

their emotions and self‐enhance through their purchases (Dittmar,

2001; Harnish, Bridges, & Karelitz, 2017).

Given the prior research on compulsive collecting, it may be that

compulsive collectors score high in acquisitiveness and high in pain of

paying. In other words, compulsive collectors acquire a great amount

of goods that are narrowly focused within a category but are

more selective in what is purchased (Kron, 1983; Nordsletten &

Mataix‐Cols, 2012; Shaw & Timpano, 2016) perhaps because they

experience a good deal of pain when paying for an item resulting in

highly selective purchases. That is, compulsive collectors experience

a good deal of pain when paying for an item because they likely

associate the purchase with foregone opportunities to select the

“perfect” item to complete or add to their prized collection.

1.3.3 | Frugality

Frugality has been defined in various ways depending upon cultural,

religious, psychological, and economic perspectives (Goldsmith,

Reinecke‐Flynn, & Clark, 2014). For example, Lastovicka, Bettencourt,

Hughner, and Kuntze (1999) viewed frugality as a “…trait characterized

by the degree to which consumers are both restrained in acquiring and

resourceful in using economic goods and services to achieve longer‐term goals” (p. 88). Others (e.g., Todd & Lawson, 2003) suggested it is a

value orientation, while still others (e.g., Egol, Clyde, Rangan, &

Sanderson, 2010) argued it is a pattern of behavior. Goldsmith et al.

4 | HARNISH AND ROSTER

(2014) differentiated frugal behavior from frugality with the latter

being a trait characterized by one’s values and lifestyle orientation.

Finally, Rick et al. (2007) argued that frugal individuals are different

from tightwads such that frugal individuals feel pleasure when saving.

Although less studied than compulsive buying and compulsive

collecting, a pattern of behaviors has been identified for frugal

individuals. Frugal individuals are less materialistic (Lastovicka et al.,

1999), have lower debt account balances (Nepomuceno & Laroche,

2015), are more price conscious (Lastovicka et al., 1999), are less

susceptible to interpersonal influence (Lastovicka et al., 1999; Pepper,

Jackson, & Uzzell, 2009), are less compulsive in their purchasing

(Lastovicka et al., 1999), are less likely to make hedonic purchases (Park

& Mowen, 2007; Pepper et al., 2009), and are more likely to reuse

goods for other purposes (Albinsson, Wolf, & Kopf, 2010) compared

with their less frugal counterparts. In sum, frugal individuals do not find

acquisitiveness to be enjoyable; rather, their behavior seems to be

motivated by the desire to pay less for goods (Goldsmith et al., 2014).

Given this, frugal individuals may score high in self‐regulation and low in

acquisitiveness. This is because, as noted earlier, self‐regulationprevents the individual from making an impulsive purchasing decision

(Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996), and frugal individuals are less

materialistic (i.e., acquisitive).

1.3.4 | Materialism

Belk (1985) defined materialism as the importance an individual

places on acquiring and possessing material goods. For materialists,

the acquisition of goods is the means to which one achieves

important life goals (Richins & Dawson, 1992). Materialism is

composed of three components: the centrality of acquisitiveness in

one’s life, the use of acquisitions to judge one’s success in life, and

the belief that one’s happiness is dependent upon one’s acquisitions

(Richins, 2013). Prior research has demonstrated that materialists

experience less global life satisfaction (i.e., happiness) than

nonmaterialists (Christopher, Saliba, & Deadmarsh, 2009; Kashdan,

& Breen, 2007; Solberg, Diener, & Robinson, 2003); however, the

acquisition of goods seems to raise materialists’ moods. For

example, Richins (2013) found that materialists experienced more

positive emotions before and immediately after a purchase than

nonmaterialists. Although materialists experience positive mood

due to their purchases, their positive mood state is short‐lived. Ashort time after a purchase, materialists reported more negative

emotions (e.g., fear and anxiety) concerning their purchases than

nonmaterialists (Christopher et al., 2009; Kashdan, & Breen, 2007;

Solberg et al., 2003), suggesting that materialists quickly habituate

to their acquisitions resulting in less satisfaction and pleasure

derived from their possessions (Baumeister, 1991). Because of this,

materialists may need to seek out new acquisitions to increase and

extend a positive mood (Schwartz, 1994). Thus, it appears that

materialists may not be able to effectively self‐regulate their

purchasing behavior. That is, they may not be able to postpone or

defer purchases because they are motivated to reduce their

negative mood states. One way to alleviate such negative affect,

at least temporarily, is through the acquisition of goods. Frost

et al. (2011) found that anxiety precipitates acquisitiveness, while

Raghunathan et al. (2006) found that sadness motivates hedonic

purchases. Supporting this idea, K. W. Brown and Ryan (2004) found

that those who are more mindful (i.e., able to self‐regulate) are less

materialistic than those who are less mindful.

Materialists have been found to have poor money management

skills (Dew & Xiao, 2011) and use fewer money management

strategies than nonmaterialists (Donnelly, Iyer, & Howell, 2012;

Garðarsdóttir & Dittmar, 2012). This is because materialists are less

concerned about borrowing money (Watson, 2003), save less (Troisi,

Christopher, & Marek, 2006), incur more credit card debt (Richins,

2011), and borrow more frequently (Richins, 2011) than nonmateri-

alists. Given their unrestrained purchasing behavior, it may be that

materialists experience little pain of paying when faced with a

purchasing decision. Indeed, Rick et al. (2007) reported a positive

correlation between materialism and pain of paying. As a result,

materialists may score low in self‐regulation, high in acquisitiveness,

and low in pain of paying. Prior research has shown that materialists

quickly habituate to their purchase (Baumeister, 1991) and seek out

additional goods to manage their moods (Schwartz, 1994) without

concern over the debt associate with their purchases (e.g.,

Richins, 2011).

1.3.5 | Goal of the current research

Having discussed the components of the T‐MAP model, it may be

beneficial to restate the goal of the current research before

presenting the hypotheses. Our goal is to explore the common

underpinnings of aberrant purchasing behavior through the use of a

tripartite model in order that compulsive buying, compulsive

collecting, frugality, and materialism may be better differentiated.

These constructs were selected for a number of reasons. First, each

aberrant behavior has significant psychological, interpersonal, and

financial consequences for the individual. Second, each construct

seems to be precipitated by anxiety and a desire to reduce or

eliminate the negative state. Finally, each construct seems to share

common motivational underpinnings associated with failures to:

(a) self‐regulate, (b) experience moderate amounts of pain when

paying for goods (and services), and (c) acquire and keep goods that

are necessary for basic comfort, survival, and success.

1.4 | Hypotheses

1.4.1 | Compulsive buying

Prior research has revealed that compulsive buyers have a lack of

impulse control and repetitively purchase goods (McElroy et al.,

1994; Ridgway et al., 2008) suggesting they may have low levels of

self‐regulation. Additionally, research has suggested that compulsive

buyers experience less pain of paying compared to noncompulsive

buyers (Harnish, Bridges et al., 2018). Based on these findings, we

hypothesized the following:

HARNISH AND ROSTER | 5

H2: Those who score low in self‐regulation and low in pain of

paying will score high in compulsive buying.

1.4.2 | Compulsive collecting

Research has suggested that compulsive collectors acquire a

great deal of goods that are narrowly focused within a category

(Kron, 1983; Nordsletten & Mataix‐Cols, 2012; Shaw & Timpano,

2016), such that their purchasing behavior involves acquiring an

interrelated set of goods (Belk, 1982; Kron, 1983), and that the

items acquired add importance to the collection (Belk, 1994).

Accordingly, for compulsive collectors, the obsessive acquisition

of items may be tempered by the pain they feel when paying for

an item. Because of this, we hypothesized:

H2: Those who score high in acquisitiveness and high in pain of

paying will score high in compulsive collecting.

1.4.3 | Frugality

Recent research has indicated that frugal individuals are less

compulsive in their purchases (Lastovicka et al., 1999), are less likely

to make hedonic purchases (Park & Mowen, 2007), and are less

susceptible to interpersonal influence (Pepper et al., 2009) than their

nonfrugal counterparts suggesting that they may have the ability to

self‐regulate their purchasing behavior. Additionally, frugal indivi-

duals are less acquisitive and are more likely to reuse items for other

purposes (Albinsson et al., 2010) than nonfrugal individuals. Based on

these findings, we posited the following:

H3: Those who score high in self‐regulation and low in

acquisitiveness will score high in frugality.

1.4.4 | Materialism

A good deal of research has revealed that materialists use the

acquisition of goods as a means to regulate their moods

(Christopher et al., 2009; Richins, 2013) and become quickly

habituated to their acquisitions (Baumeister, 1991) suggesting

that they may lack the ability to self‐regulate. Other research

has demonstrated that materialists place the acquisition of goods

as the focus of their life and therefore engage in more purchasing

behaviors and obtain more goods than nonmaterialists (Richins &

Dawson, 1992). Additionally, materialists have poor money

management skills (Dew & Xiao, 2011) witnessed by their

borrowing habits; they are less concerned about borrowing

(Watson, 2003), save less (Troisi et al., 2006), and borrow

more frequently (Richins, 2011). As follows, materialists may

experience less pain of paying when faced with a purchasing

decision. Based upon these findings, the following hypothesis

is posited:

H4: Those who score low in self‐regulation, high in

acquisitiveness, and low in pain of paying will score high in

materialism.

2 | METHODS

2.1 | Participants

Data were obtained from 500 respondents through Prolific

Academic (www.prolific.ac) who met the following criteria: were

US citizens, were between the ages of 18 and 40, and English was

their first language. We used only US citizens as the sampling

frame because of potential cultural differences associated with

the various aberrant purchasing behaviors. Respondents partici-

pated for payment. The authors discarded five respondents

because of incomplete data (two participants) or because they

did not indicate being a US citizen (e.g., one respondent was from

Australia, one from Great Brittan, and one from Germany)

resulting in a sample of 495 respondents. The average age of

respondents was 28.70 (SD = 5.72). Of the 495 respondents, 58%

were men, 41% were women, 1% transgendered, and 1%

nonbinary/third gender. Approximately 63% of the respondents

were single (never married), 32% were married, 3% were

divorced, 1% preferred not to say, and <1% were separated. In

all, 17% of the respondents were Catholic, 14% indicated

Protestant, 4% were Jewish, 1% reported Buddhist, and 1% were

Muslim/Islamic, 6% noted “‘other”’ religions, 4% preferred not to

say, and 54% reported no religious affiliation. The majority were

Caucasian (76%), with Asian (8%), African American (7%), Hispanic

(6%), Native American (1%), and “other” (2%) represented.

Approximately half of the respondents (47%) reported an annual

household income of less than $50,000 before taxes in the

previous year. The study was approved by the Institutional

Review Board at the first author’s university, and all consented

to the study.

2.2 | Procedure

As noted earlier, respondents were recruited using Prolific

Academic. Individuals who were registered with Prolific Academic

could view available study titles, the study’s host (i.e., the

principal investigator), the reward, and time allotted for comple-

tion among other information. If respondents were eligible for the

study, they could select the study by clicking on a link for a short

description of the study. Respondents who met the study

requirements and who were interested in participating clicked

on a “Start Now” link that directed them to the survey, which was

housed outside of Prolific Academic. Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com)

was used to create the survey and it was hosted on their servers.

Respondents who completed the survey were each compensated

with a sum of $2.75. On average, respondents took 25 min to

complete the survey.

6 | HARNISH AND ROSTER

2.3 | Measures

2.3.1 | Capacity for Self‐Control Scale (CSCS)

The capacity for CSCS (Hoyle & Davisson, 2016) is a 20‐itemmultidimensional measure that distinguishes between three types of

self‐control: self‐control by inhibition, self‐control by initiation, and

self‐control by continuation. Because we were interested in impulse

control, we used only the self‐control by inhibition subscale

consisting of seven items. Using a 5‐point scale, where 1 = hardly

ever and 5 = nearly always, respondents indicated how frequently a

statement applies to them. An example self‐control by inhibition item

is “I am able to resist temptation.” Higher scores indicate greater

capacity for self‐control.

2.3.2 | Compulsive Collecting Scale

A review of the extant literature revealed no existing scale to

measure collecting. We developed a measure based upon the criteria

identified by Subkowski (2006). Using a 4‐point scale, where 0 = not

at all true of me, 1 = only a little true of me, 2 = somewhat true of me,

3 = very true of me, respondents indicated their agreement on seven

items. The items were: “I seek, select, gather, and store objects that

I find of value”; “Among the objects that I seek, select, gather, and

store, I attempt to add related objects to complete a set”; “The

objects I seek, select, gather, and store are limited to a specific

category of goods (e.g., baseball cards)”; “I am knowledgeable about

the objects I seek, select, gather, and store”; “I am passionate about

the objects I seek, select, gather, and store”; “The act of seeking,

selecting, gathering, and storing objects makes me happy”; and

“I have been seeking, selecting, gathering, and storing objects for a

relatively long time (i.e., not a short‐term fad).” Higher scores indicate

a greater tendency for compulsive collecting.

2.3.3 | Frugality Scale (FS)

The FS (Lastovicka et al., 1999) is a measure of consumer frugality

that assesses to what extent “consumers are both restrained in

acquiring and in resourcefully using economic goods and services to

achieve longer‐term goals” (p. 88). Respondents used a 6‐point scale,where 1 = definitely disagree and 6 = definitely agree to indicate their

agreement with each of the eight items that comprise the FS. An

example item is “If you take good care of your possessions, you will

definitely save money in the long run.” Higher scores indicate a

greater likelihood to engage in short‐term sacrifices in acquisitive-

ness to fulfill longer‐term goals.

2.3.4 | Material Values Scale‐Short Form (MVS‐SF)

To measure materialism, the MVS‐SF (Richins, 2004) was used. The

MVS‐SF consists of 15 items that measures “the importance ascribed

to the ownership and acquisition of material goods” (p. 210).

Respondents indicated their agreement with the items using a

5‐point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. An

example item is “I admire people who own expensive homes, cars,

and clothes.” Higher scores indicate a greater tendency to place

importance on acquiring material goods to achieve life goals.

2.3.5 | Richmond Compulsive Buying Scale (RCBS)

Compulsive buying was measured by the RCBS (Ridgway et al.,

2008), which is a six‐item scale that surmounts shortcomings

associated with older measures of compulsive buying (Ridgway

et al., 2008). Using a 7‐point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and

7 = strongly agree, respondents indicated their agreement on three

obsessive–compulsive buying items (e.g., “My closet has unopened

shopping bags in it,” and three impulse control buying items (e.g., “I

buy things I don’t need”). Higher scores on the RCBS indicate a

greater tendency for compulsive buying.

2.3.6 | Savings Inventory‐Revised (SI‐R)

The SI‐R (Frost, Steketee, & Grisham, 2004) assesses three

dimensions of hoarding behavior: difficulty discarding, clutter, and

acquisition. Because we were interested in acquisitiveness, we used

only the acquisition subscale of the SI‐R (SI‐R‐AS). Using a 7‐pointscale, where 1 = not at all and 7 = very much, respondents indicated

the extent to which they had one of seven thoughts when deciding on

whether to throw something away. An example item is “feel

compelled to acquire.” Higher scores indicate a greater propensity

for acquisition.

2.3.7 | Spendthrift‐Tightwad Scale (STS)

The STS (Rick et al., 2007) is a “measure of individual differences in

the pain of paying” (p. 767). An example item is “Which of the

following descriptions fits you better?” Respondents used an

11‐point scale, where 1 = tightwad – difficulty spending money, and

11 = spendthrift – difficulty controlling money. Higher scores on the STS

indicate more difficulty controlling spending (i.e., less pain of paying).

3 | RESULTS

3.1 | Preliminary analyses: Descriptive statisticsand intercorrelations

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and reliabilities for the

measures used in the study. Inspection of the descriptive statistics

revealed no outliers, and the internal consistency of the measures were

generally good. Intercorrelations among the variables are provided in

Table 2. The CSCS was negatively correlated with all the other

measures except for the FS in which it was positively correlated. The FS

was negatively correlated with all other scales. The MVS‐SF was

correlated with all other measures. The RCBS was correlated with all

the other measures except for the CSCS and FS; the RCBS was

negatively correlated with these measures. The SI‐R‐AS was associated

with the other measures except the CSCS and FS in which it was

HARNISH AND ROSTER | 7

negatively correlated. Finally, the STS was correlated with all other

measures except for the CSCS and FS in which it was negatively

associated.

3.2 | Test of hypotheses: Discriminant functionanalysis

3.2.1 | Compulsive buying

To test the first hypothesis that low self‐regulation and low pain of

paying would predict compulsive buying, we conducted a discrimi-

nant function analysis with compulsive buying as measured by the

RCBS as the dependent variable, and self‐regulation as measured by

the CSCS and pain of paying as assessed by the STS as predictor

variables. A total of 495 cases were analyzed. The assumption

of homogeneity of covariance matrices was met, Box’s M = 6.50,

F(3,45656940.73) = 2.15, p = 0.09. All other assumptions were met.

One discriminant function was computed. There was a significant

prediction of compulsive buying by self‐regulation and pain of paying,

χ2(2) = 207.54, p = 0.0005. The squared canonical correlation was

0.34. The discriminant function separated compulsive buyers from

noncompulsive buyers (compulsive buyers, M = 0.74; noncompulsive

buyers, M = −0.71).

According to the structure matrix (Table 3), pain of paying was

correlated with the discriminant function value suggesting that those who

have difficulty controlling spending (i.e., low pain of paying) are more

likely to be compulsive buyers. Self‐regulation was negatively correlated

with the discriminate function value suggesting that those who scored

high in self‐regulation are less likely to be compulsive buyers (Table 4).

A jackknife cross‐validation classification was performed. Overall,

the discriminant function successfully predicted the outcome for 76%

of the cases, with accurate predictions being made for 79% of those

who were not compulsive buyers and 72% of those who were

compulsive buyers (Table 5).

3.2.2 | Compulsive collecting

In our second hypothesis, we posited that high acquisitiveness and high

pain of paying would predict compulsive collectors. To test H2, we

conducted a discriminant function analysis with compulsive collecting,

TABLE 1 Descriptive and reliability information for the study scales

Variables Mean standard deviation Cronbach’s α

Capacity for Self‐Control Scale Inhibition Subscale 24.99 4.99 0.82

Compulsive Collecting Scale 17.11 5.67 0.91

Frugality Scale 47.09 6.48 0.86

Material Values Scale‐Short Form 43.40 10.38 0.87

Richmond Compulsive Buying Scale 15.45 8.36 0.90

Savings Inventory‐Revised Acquisition Subscale 14.78 4.59 0.85

Spendthrift‐Tightwad Scale 14.02 3.93 0.64

TABLE 2 Correlations among the study scales

Variables

Compulsive

CollectingScale

FrugalityScale

Material

Values Scale‐Short Form

Richmond

CompulsiveBuying Scale

Savings Inventory‐Revised AcquisitionSubscale

Spendthrift‐TightwadScale

Capacity for Self‐Control InhibitionSubscale

−0.17** 0.42** −0.35** −0.54** −0.57** −0.53**

Compulsive Collecting Scale – 0.003 0.25** 0.38** 0.39** 0.26**

Frugality Scale – −0.28** −0.37** −0.38** −0.45**

Material Values Scale‐Short Form – 0.45** 0.45** 0.28**

Richmond Compulsive Buying Scale – 0.71** 0.62**

Savings Inventory‐RevisedAcquisition Subscale

– 0.56**

Spendthrift‐Tightwad Scale –

Note. n = 495.

**p < 0.01.

TABLE 3 Structure matrix of compulsive buying

Predictors Discriminant function

Pain of paying 0.889

Self‐regulation −0.754

8 | HARNISH AND ROSTER

measured by the compulsive collecting scale, as the dependent variable,

and acquisitiveness, measured by the SI‐R‐AS, and pain of paying,

assessed by the STS as predictor variables. A total of 495 cases were

analyzed. Box’s M = 6.33, F(3,742699156.1) = 2.10, p = 0.10 indicating

the assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices was met. All

other assumptions were met as well.

One discriminant function was computed. There was a significant

prediction of compulsive collecting by acquisitiveness and pain of

paying, χ2(2) = 40.01, p = 0.0005. The squared canonical correlation

was 0.08. The discriminant function separated compulsive collectors

from noncompulsive collectors (compulsive collectors, M = 0.32;

noncompulsive collectors, M = −0.27).

According to the structure matrix (Table 6), acquisitiveness was

correlated with the discriminant function value suggesting that those

who are motivated to acquire goods are more likely to be compulsive

collectors. Pain of paying also was correlated with the discriminate

function value suggesting that those who experience a great deal of pain

when spending are more likely to be compulsive collectors (Table 7).

A jackknife cross‐validation classification was performed. Overall,

the discriminant function successfully predicted the outcome for

62.2% of the cases, with accurate predictions being made for 69% of

those who were not compulsive collectors and 54% of those who

were compulsive collectors (Table 8).

3.2.3 | Frugality

In H3, we hypothesized that high self‐regulation, and low acquisi-

tiveness would predict frugality. To test this hypothesis, we

conducted a discriminant function analysis with frugality as mea-

sured by the FS as the dependent variable, and self‐regulation as

measured by the CSCS, and acquisitiveness as determined by the

SI‐R‐AS as predictor variables. A total of 495 cases were analyzed.

The assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices was met,

Box’s M = 3.985, F(3,91739687.61) = 1.29, p = 0.27; all other assump-

tions were met.

One discriminant function was computed. There was a significant

prediction of compulsive collecting by self‐regulation and acquisi-

tiveness, χ2(2) = 48.28, p = 0.0005. The squared canonical correlation

was 0.09. The discriminant function separated those who were frugal

from those who were not (frugal participants, M = 0.36; nonfrugal

participants, M = −0.29).

According to the structure matrix (Table 9), self‐regulation was

correlated with the discriminate function value suggesting that those

who self‐regulate are more likely to be frugal. Acquisitiveness was

negatively correlated with the discriminate function indicating that those

who do not acquire goods were more likely to be frugal (Table 10).

A jackknife cross‐validation classification was performed. Overall,

the discriminant function successfully predicted the outcome for 64.2%

of the cases, with accurate predictions being made for 60% of those

who were nonfrugal and 70% of those who were frugal (Table 11).

3.2.4 | Materialism

We proposed in H4 that low self‐regulation, high acquisitiveness, and

low pain of paying would predict materialism. To test this hypothesis,

we conducted a discriminant function analysis with materialism,

TABLE 4 Means and standard deviations of compulsive buying bypredictor

Predictors Type Mean SD

Pain of paying Low 11.92 3.14

High 16.17 3.46

Self‐regulation Low 27.34 4.32

High 22.56 4.45

TABLE 5 Classification table of compulsive buyers

Predicted group membership

Types Noncompulsive buyer Compulsive buyer

Noncompulsive buyer 78.6% 21.4%

Compulsive buyer 27.6% 72.4%

TABLE 6 Structure matrix of compulsive collecting

Predictors Discriminant function

Acquisitiveness 0.996

Pain of paying 0.616

TABLE 7 Means and standard deviations of compulsive collecting

by predictor

Predictors Type Mean SD

Acquisitiveness Low 13.61 4.08

High 16.18 4.78

Pain of paying Low 13.37 3.77

High 14.76 3.99

TABLE 8 Classification table of compulsive collectors

Predicted group membership

Type Noncompulsive saver Compulsive saver

Noncompulsive saver 69.3% 30.7%

Compulsive saver 46.2% 53.8%

TABLE 9 Structure matrix of frugality

Predictors Discriminant function

Self‐regulation 0.982

Acquisitiveness −0.688

HARNISH AND ROSTER | 9

measured by the MVS, as the dependent variable, and self‐regulation,measured by the CSCS, and acquisitiveness, measured by the SI‐R‐AS, and pain of paying, assessed by the STS as predictor variables. A

total of 495 cases were analyzed. Box’s M = 61.67, F

(6,1743633.255) = 10.21, p = 0.0005, indicating the assumption of

homogeneity of covariance matrices was not met. Box’s M test for

homogeneity is notoriously oversensitive to slight heterogeneity and

to small departures from normality; however, small deviations from

homogeneity do not tend to affect the accuracy of classification

(Huberty & Olejnik, 2006).

One discriminant function was computed. There was a significant

prediction of materialism by self‐regulation, acquisitiveness, and pain

of paying, χ2(3) = 93.58, p = 0.0005. The squared canonical correlation

was 0.17. The discriminant function separated those who were

materialists from those who were not (materialists, M = 0.47;

nonmaterialists, M = −0.44).

According to the structure matrix (Table 12), self‐regulation was

negatively correlated with the discriminate function value suggesting

that those who self‐regulate are less likely to be materialists.

Acquisitiveness was correlated with the discriminant function value

suggesting that those who acquire goods are more likely to be

materialists. Pain of paying was correlated with the discriminate

function indicating that those who have difficulty controlling

spending were likely to be materialists (Table 13).

A jackknife cross‐validation classification was performed. Overall,

the discriminant function successfully predicted the outcome for

68.7% of the cases, with accurate predictions being made for 77% of

those who were not materialists and 60% of those who were

materialists (Table 14).

4 | DISCUSSION

The goal of the present research was to differentiate maladaptive

purchasing behaviors through the T‐MAP model. The T‐MAP model

draws upon classic tripartite attitude models as a heuristic to

propose how cognitive (i.e., self‐regulation), affective (i.e., pain of

paying), and behavioral (i.e., acquisitiveness) components may serve

to differentiate closely related but distinctive types of aberrant

purchasing behaviors. We found compulsive buyers exhibited lower

levels of pain of paying and lower levels of self‐regulation than

noncompulsive buyers. Compulsive collectors scored higher on both

pain of paying and acquisitiveness than noncollectors. Frugalists

exhibited high levels of self‐regulation coupled with low acquisitive-

ness. Materialists scored low on both self‐regulation and pain of

paying but scored high on acquisitiveness.

Despite the recent attention given to aberrant purchasing

behavior, research on the topic has been hindered by variations in

the operationalization of constructs, and the measures and methods

used to assess the constructs, which make generalizations about the

maladaptive purchasing behaviors difficult. Perhaps because of this,

there does not seem to be an overarching model that differentiates

and integrates various aberrant purchasing behaviors, although there

has been a prior attempt to differentiate various types of “compul-

siveness in the consumer‐marketplace domain” (Nataraajan & Goff,

1992, p. 38). The lack of a model to explicate various types of

maladaptive purchasing behaviors is unfortunate because such a

model or theory might provide a conceptual roadmap that provides

context for prior research on aberrant purchasing behaviors and

directions for future research.

Merton (1968) in criticizing sociological theory stated:

…a large part of what is now described as sociological

theory consists of general orientations toward data,

TABLE 10 Means and standard deviations of frugality by predictor

Predictors Type Mean SD

Self‐regulation Low 23.64 4.55

High 26.66 5.01

Acquisitiveness Low 15.67 4.47

High 13.68 4.50

TABLE 11 Classification table of frugality

Predicted group membership

Types Nonfrugal Frugal

Nonfrugal 59.9% 40.1%

Frugal 30.3% 69.7%

TABLE 12 Structure matrix of materialism

Predictors Discriminant function

Acquisitiveness 0.987

Self‐regulation −0.647

Pain of paying 0.546

TABLE 13 Means and standard deviations of materialism by

predictor

Predictors Type Mean SD

Pain of paying Low 13.08 3.45

High 14.99 4.17

Self‐regulation Low 26.36 4.71

High 23.53 4.88

Acquisitiveness Low 12.95 3.24

High 16.73 4.99

TABLE 14 Classification table of materialism

Predicted group Membership

Types Nonmaterialist Materialist

Nonmaterialist 76.9% 23.1%

Materialist 40.0% 60.0%

10 | HARNISH AND ROSTER

suggesting types of variables which theories must some-

how take into account, rather than clearly formulated,

verifiable statements of relationships between specified

variables. We have many concepts but fewer confirmed

theories; many points of view, but few theorems, many

“approaches” but few arrivals … (p. 52).

Merton’s criticism could be applied to theories surrounding

maladaptive purchasing behaviors. We have many concepts, many

points of view, but few theories that consolidate segregated hypotheses

and findings. The T‐MAP model attempts to provide a conceptual

framework for differentiating and integrating various types of aberrant

purchasing behavior. Although some may question the need for a such

model, the aphorism, “There is nothing as practical as a good theory”

(Lewin, 1943, p.118) holds true for the study of aberrant purchasing

behavior. As viewed from this perspective, the T‐MAP model shows

promise in differentiating various types of aberrant purchasing

behaviors, integrating prior research on various types of aberrant

purchasing behaviors and providing direction for future research on

aberrant purchasing behaviors.

4.1 | Managerial implications

Research on various forms of aberrant purchasing behavior has

explored how marketers could exploit such individuals by targeting

them with time‐pressure tactics, by emphasizing to them that quantities

are limited, by presenting them with in‐store displays that prompt

impulse buying, by providing them with doting service that raises their

self‐esteem, or by offering them easy credit. Shoham and Makovec

brenčič (2003) and Gupta (2013) noted that such practices raise serious

ethical issues for marketers. From our point of view, because individuals

who engage in aberrant purchasing behavior have deficits (or an

overabundance) in self‐control, pain of paying, and acquisitiveness that

results in serious psychology, interpersonal, and financial consequences,

such practices that specifically target them should be avoided because

marketers are taking advantage of vulnerable populations. Moreover,

such marketing practices that exploit these vulnerable populations carry

the risk of inducing or fostering the prevalence of compulsive buying,

compulsive collecting, frugality, and materialism. Research is needed to

determine to what extent such marketing practices pose a risk for these

vulnerable populations, and what types of intervention programs might

be effective in assisting these vulnerable populations in identifying and

resisting marketing practices that target them.

5 | LIMITATIONS

Despite the success of the T‐MAP model in differentiating compulsive

buying, compulsive collecting, frugality, and materialism, questions

remain concerning how well the model explains the underpinnings of

aberrant purchasing behavior. Such questions, however, are typical for

a first attempt at developing a theory or model to differentiate and

integrate various constructs. Nevertheless, as the T‐MAP model

becomes refined, it will be important to address its potential

shortcomings. For example, although self‐regulation has been shown

to inhibit, override or alter consumption behaviors (Baumeister, 2002),

might there be other cognitive factors that moderate its role in

purchasing decisions? Recent research conducted by Nepomuceno and

Laroche (2017) suggests that focusing on long‐term goals reduces

short‐term consumption. Additionally, it may be necessary to identify

the exact mechanism involved in self‐regulation so that the T‐MAP

model successfully differentiates other aberrant purchasing behaviors

beyond those currently examined. For example, executive attention or

the ability to control attention, inhibitory control, and affective

regulation have been shown to affect impulse control (Hofmann,

Friese, & Roefs, 2009) and these components of self‐regulation may

make independent or combined contributions in aberrant purchasing

behavior. To illustrate, acquisitive buyers (Bose et al., 2013) exhibit

extreme control over items purchased in a chosen product category

(i.e., they think about the purchase and are very selective in the

product purchased despite having large quantities of items in the

product category). In such cases, acquisitive buyers may possess high

executive attention, high inhibitory control, and high affective

regulation while an impulse buyer may possess low executive

attention, low inhibitory control, and low affective regulation.

Although pain of paying appears to be a good proxy for the affect

consumers may experience when faced with a purchasing decision,

other specific emotions could be used in the T‐MAP model. For

example, Richins (1997) has proposed a Consumption Emotion Set

(CES) that reflects consumers’ emotional reactions in purchasing

situations. Using the CES, it may be possible to identify the specific

emotion or emotions evoked by aberrant purchasing behavior. For

instance, because compulsive buyers experience anxiety before a

purchasing episode, they may feel higher levels of positive affect (e.g.,

contentment, peacefulness, and joy) compared with noncompulsive

buyers either in a purchasing situation or immediately after. On the

other hand, frugalists may experience higher levels of negative affect

(e.g., discontent, worry, and sadness) compared with nonfrugalists

when faced with a purchasing decision. Additionally, the valence

associated with an emotion may not be sufficient to fully differ-

entiate aberrant purchasing behaviors. For examples, Noseworthy,

Di Muro, and Murray (2014) argued that consumers take into

account both the valence of their emotions and the arousal

associated with their emotional state such that those in a positive

mood make purchasing decisions that are congruent with the valence

and arousal of their current emotions (e.g., happy consumers may

make hedonic purchases to feel pleasure, fun or enjoyment) but the

process differs when they are in a negative mood (e.g., highly anxious

consumers may make utilitarian purchases to feel calm).

Acquisitiveness was used as the behavioral component in the

T‐MAP model but related constructs might yield different results. For

example, Belk (1984) argues that materialism is a multidimensional

construct consisting of two subdimensions: possessiveness and

nongenerosity. Possessiveness has been defined as “the inclination

and tendency to retain control or ownership of one’s possessions”

(Belk, 1983, p.514). Thus, possessiveness or ownership of products

HARNISH AND ROSTER | 11

may determine different types of aberrant purchasing behaviors.

That is, for fixated buyers, possessiveness may motivate purchasing

behavior because of low product‐need‐fit (i.e., “the extent to which

one product fulfills the need associated with a given product

category”; Akbar, Mai, & Hoffmann, 2016, p. 4217), while for the

postmaterialist, possessiveness may motivate nonpurchasing beha-

vior because of high product‐need‐fit (i.e., ownership of one item in a

product category is sufficient).

Another limitation of the T‐MAP model is materialism was the

only aberrant purchasing behavior we theorized as comprising a

cognitive, affective, and behavioral component (i.e., all three

components). The T‐MAP model indicated that materialists experi-

ence low self‐regulation, low pain of paying, and high acquisitiveness.

For the T‐MAP model to be comprehensive in differentiating

aberrant purchasing behaviors, it will need to explain how high

self‐regulation, high pain of paying, and low acquisitiveness predicts a

construct that is opposite of materialism (e.g., postmaterialism or

simplicity). Additionally, there may be other factors at play with

materialism (and postmaterialism) that can influence how materi-

alists (and postmaterialists) behave in purchase situations. For

example, materialists experienced more negative emotions when

thinking about products compared to nonmaterialists (Richins, 2013).

This is because materialists may habituate to their purchases more

quickly than nonmaterialists and therefore have to make additional

acquisitions to increase and extend a positive mood (Schwartz, 1994).

As noted earlier, materialism was the only aberrant purchasing

behavior in which all three components of the T‐MAP model was tested.

If, according to the T‐MAP model, materialists exhibit low pain of paying

and low self‐regulation as do compulsive buyers, compulsive buyers also

should score high on acquisitiveness. If this is the case, the T‐MAP model

fails to differentiate between them. Future research on the T‐MAPmodel

will need to address this shortcoming as well.

Finally, the current research has several methodological limita-

tions that should be acknowledged. Because we used a cross‐sectional design, it is important to note that it is difficult to make

causal inferences among the variables. It also should be noted that

the current findings are based on a western, educated, industrialized,

rich, and democratic society sample (i.e., a WEIRD sample; see

Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010, for a review), and as such, the

findings may not generalize to other cultures.

6 | CONCLUSION

The results of the current study make a useful contribution to our

understanding of aberrant purchasing behaviors that have been

identified but have yet to be fully differentiated in the literature. The

T‐MAP model successfully differentiated compulsive buying, compul-

sive collecting, frugality, and materialism. Although the T‐MAP model

is not without its shortcomings, it is a first attempt to provide a

conceptual roadmap that delineates and integrates various aberrant

purchasing behaviors. As such, the T‐MAP model shows promise in

differentiating various types of aberrant purchasing behaviors,

integrating prior research on various types of aberrant purchasing

behaviors and providing direction for future research on various

types of aberrant purchasing behaviors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded by an internal research development grant by

The Pennsylvania State University. We thank K. R. Bridges for

comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

ORCID

Richard J. Harnish http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5612-4385

REFERENCES

Akbar, P., Mai, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2016). When do materialistic consumers

join commercial sharing systems? Journal of Business Research, 69,

4215–4224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.003

Albinsson, P. A., Wolf, M., & Kopf, D. A. (2010). Anti‐consumption in East

Germany: Consumer resistance to hyperconsumption. Journal of

Consumer Behavior: An International Research Review, 9, 412–425.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.333

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual

of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.

Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York, NY: Guilford.

Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self‐control failure,

impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer

Research, 28, 670–676. https://doi.org/10.1086/338209

Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self‐regulation failure: An

overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1207/

s15327965pli0701_1

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Self‐regulation and the executive

function of the self. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of

self and identity (2nd ed., pp. 180–197). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Beatty, S. E., & Elizabeth ferrell, M. (1998). Impulse buying: Modeling its

precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74, 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/

S0022‐4359(99)80092‐XBelk, R. W. (1982). Acquiring, possessing, and collecting: Fundamental

processes in consumer behavior. In R. F. Bush, & S. D. Hunt (Eds.),

Marketing theory: Philosophy of science perspectives (pp. 185–190).

Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Belk, R. W. (1983). Worldly possessions: Issues and criticisms. In

R. P. Bagozzi, & A. M. Tybout (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research

(pp. 514–519). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

Belk, R. W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to

materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of

happiness. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp.

291–297). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material

word. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 265–280. https://doi.org/10.

1086/208515

Belk, R. W. (1994). Collectors and collecting. In S. Pearce (Ed.), Interpreting

objects and collections (pp. 317–326). New York, NY: Routledge.

Black, D. W. (2001). Compulsive buying disorder: Definition, assessment,

epidemiology, and clinical management. CNS Drugs, 15, 17–27.

Bose, M., Burns, A. C., & Garretson Folse, J. A. (2013). My fifty shoes are all

different! Exploring, defining, and characterizing acquisitive buying.

Psychology & Marketing, 30, 614–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20632

Brooke, R. (1985). What is guilt? Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,

16, 31–46.

12 | HARNISH AND ROSTER

Brown, J. M. (1998). Self‐regulation and the addictive behaviors. In W. R.

Miller, & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors (2nd ed.,

pp. 61–73). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Fostering healthy self‐regulation from

within and without: A self‐determination theory perspective. In P. A.

Linley, & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 105–124).

New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2014). Self‐regulation of action and affect.

In K. D. Vohs, & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self‐regulation:Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed, pp. 3–21). New York, NY:

Guildford Press.

Christenson, G. A., Faber, R. J., de Zwaan, M., Raymond, N. C., Specker,

S. M., Ekern, M. D., … Eckert, E. D. (1994). Compulsive buying:

Descriptive characteristics and psychiatric comorbidity. Journal of

Clinical Psychiatry, 55, 5–11.

Christopher, A. N., Saliba, L., & Deadmarsh, E. J. (2009). Materialism and well‐being: The mediating effect of locus of control. Personality and Individual

Differences, 46, 682–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.003

Demsetz, H. (1996). Rationality, evolutions, and acquisitiveness. Economic

Inquiry, 34, 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1996.

tb01390.x

Dew, J., & Xiao, J. J. (2011). The financial management behavior scale:

Development and validation. Journal of Financial Counseling and

Planning, 22, 43–59.

Dittmar, H. (2005). Compulsive buying—A growing concern? An examina-

tion of gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as

predictors. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 467–491. https://doi.org/

10.1348/000712605X53533

Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Hurst, M., & Kasser, T. (2014). The relationship

between materialism and personal well‐being: A meta‐analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 879–924. https://

doi.org/10.1037/t00741‐000Dittmar, H. (2001). Impulse buying in ordinary and “compulsive”

consumers. In E. U. Weber, & J. Baron Loomes (Eds.), Conflict and

tradeoffs in decision making (pp. 110–135). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Donnelly, G., Iyer, R., & Howell, R. T. (2012). The big five personality traits,

materialistic values and financial well‐being of self‐reported money

managers. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 1129–1142. https://doi.

org/10.106/j.joep.2012.08.001

Egol, M., Clyde, A., Rangan, K., & Sanderson, R. (2010). The new consumer

frugality: Adapting to the enduing shift in U.S. consumer spending and

behavior. Retrieved from https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/

file/The_New_Consumer_Frugality.pdf

Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., & Grisham, J. (2004). Measurement of compulsive

hording: Saving inventory‐revised. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42,

1163–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.07.006

Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., & Tolin, D. F. (2011). Comorbidity in hoarding

disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 28, 876–884. https://doi.org/10.

1002/da.20861

Garðarsdóttir, R. B., & Dittmar, H. (2012). The relationship of materialism

to debt and financial well‐being: The case of Iceland’s perceived

prosperity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 471–481. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.12.008

Goldenson, R. M. (Ed.). 1984). Longman’s dictionary of psychology and

psychiatry. New York, NY: Longman.

Goldsmith, R. E., Reinecke flynn, L., & Clark, R. A. (2014). The etiology of

the frugal consumer. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21,

175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.11.005

Gourville, J. T., & Soman, D. (1998). Payment depreciation: The

behavioral effects of temporally separating payments from

consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 160–174. https://

doi.org/10.1086/209533

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., &

Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous

consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85–102. https://doi.

org/10.1037/0022‐3514.93.1.85Gupta, S. (2013). A literature review of compulsive buying – A marketing

perspective. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 14, 43–48.

Harnish, R. J., & Bridges, K. R. (2015). Compulsive buying: The role of

irrational beliefs, materialism, and narcissism. Journal of Rational‐Emotive and Cognitive‐Behavior Therapy, 33, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.

1007/s10942‐014‐0197‐0Harnish, R. J., Bridges, K. R., & Karelitz, J. L. (2017). Compulsive buying:

Prevalence, irrational beliefs, and purchasing. International Journal of

Mental Health and Addiction, 15, 993–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s11469‐016‐9690‐2Harnish, R. J., Bridges, K. R., Nataraajan, R., Gump, J. T., & Carson, A. E.

(2018). The impact of money attitudes and global life satisfaction on

the maladaptive pursuit of consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 35,

189–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21079

Harnish, R. J., Gump, J. T., Bridges, K. R., Slack, F. J., & Rottschaefer,

K. M. (2018). Compulsive buying: The impact of attitudes toward

body image, eating disorders, and physical appearance invest-

ment. Psychological Reports, https://doi.org/10.1177/003329411

8789042

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in

the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135. https://doi.org/

10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Roefs, A. (2009). Three ways to resist

temptation: The independent contributions of executive attention,

inhibitory control, and affect regulation to the impulse control of

eating behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45,

431–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.013

Hoyle, R. H., & Davisson, E. K. (2016). Varieties of self‐control and their

personality correlates. In K. D. Vohs, & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.),

Handbook of self‐regulation: Research, theory, and applications (3rd ed.,

pp. 396–413). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Huberty, C. J., & Olejnik, S. (2006). Applied MANOVA and discriminant

analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kashdan, T. B., & Breen, W. E. (2007). Materialism and diminished well‐being: Experiential avoidance as a mediating mechanism. Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 521–539.

Katz, D., & Stotland, E. (1959). A preliminary statement to a theory of

attitude structure and change. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a

science (3, pp. 423–475). New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill.Kron, J. (1983). Home‐psych: The social psychology of home and decoration.

New York, NY: Potter.

Kuhl, J., & Fuhrmann, A. (1998). Decomposing self‐regulation and self‐control: The volitional components inventory. In J. Heckhausen, &

C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self‐regulation across the lifespan

(pp. 15–49). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S., & Kuntze, R. J. (1999).

Lifestyles of the tight and frugal: Theory and measurement. Journal of

Consumer Research, 26, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/209552

Lewin, K. (1943). Psychology and the process of group living. Hournal of

Social Psychology, 17, 113–131.

McElroy, S. L., Keck, P. E., Jr., Pope, H. G., Jr., Smith, J. M., & Strakowski, S. M.

(1994). Compulsive buying: A report of 20 cases. Journal of Clinical

Psychiatry, 55, 242–248.

McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey, & E.

Aronson (Eds.), Hnadbook of social psychology (3rd ed., 2, pp. 233–346).

New York, NY: Random House.

Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., Rawn, C. D., & Vohs, K. D.

(2011). Social exclusion cause people to spend and consume

strategically in the service of affiliation. Journal of Consumer Research,

37, 902–919. https://doi.org/10.1086/656667

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: The

Free Press. (enlarged edition)

HARNISH AND ROSTER | 13

Müller, A., Mitchell, J. E., & de Zwaan, M. (2015). Compulsive buying. The

American Journal on Addictions, 24, 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/

ajad.12111

Nataraajan, R., & Goff, B. G. (1992). Manifestations of compulsiveness in

the consumer‐marketplace domain. Psychology & Marketing, 9, 31–44.

https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220090105

Nepomuceno, M. V., & Laroche, M. (2015). The impact of materialism and

anticonsumption lifestyles on personal debt and account balances.

Journal of Business Research, 68, 654–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jbusres.2014.08.006

Nepomuceno, M. V., & Laroche, M. (2017). When materialists intend to

resist consumption: The moderating role of self‐control and long‐termorientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 467–483. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s10551‐015‐2792‐0Nordsletten, A. E., & Mataix‐Cols, D. (2012). Hoarding versus collecting:

Where does pathology diverge from play? Clinical Psychology Review,

32, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.12.003

Noseworthy, T. J., Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2014). The role of arousal

in congruity‐based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research,

41, 1108–1126. https://doi.org/10.1086/678301

O’guinn, T. C., & Faber, R. J. (1989). Compulsive buying: A phenomen-

ological exploration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 147–157.

https://doi.org/10.1086/209204

Park, S., & Mowen, J. C. (2007). Replacement purchase decisions: On the

effects of trade‐ins, hedonic versus utilitarian usage goal, and tightwadism.

Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6, 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb/212

Peele, S. (1985). The meaning of addiction: Compulsive experience and its

interpretation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Company.

Pepper, M., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2009). An examination of the values

that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours.

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 126–136. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1470‐6431.2009.00753.xPrelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: Mental

accounting of savings and debt. Marketing Science, 17, 4–28. https://

doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.1.4

Preston, S. D., Muroff, J. R., & Wengrovitz, S. M. (2009). Investigating the

mechanisms of hoarding from an experimental perspective. Depression

and Anxiety, 26, 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20417

Preston, S. D., & Vickers, B. D. (2014). The psychology of acquisitiveness. In S.

D. Preston, B. Knutson, & M. L. Kringelbach (Eds.), Interdisciplinary science

of consumption (pp. 127–145). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Raghunathan, R., Pham, M. T., & Corfman, K. P. (2006). Informational

properties of anxiety and sadness, and displaced coping. Journal of

Consumer Research, 32, 596–601. https://doi.org/10.1086/500491

Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience.

Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/

209499

Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties

and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31,

209–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/383436

Richins, M. L. (2011). Materialism, transformation expectations, and

spending: Implications for credit use. Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing, 30, 141–156.

Richins, M. L. (2013). When wanting is better than having: Materialism

transformation expectations, and product‐evoked emotions in the

purchase process. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1–18. https://doi.

org/10.1086/669256

Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for

materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation.

Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1086/

209304

Rick, S. I. (2014). Tightwads, spendthrifts, and the pain of paying: New insights

and open questions. In S. D. Preston, M. L. Kringelbach, & B. Knutson

(Eds.), The interdisciplinary science of consumption (pp. 147–159).

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Rick, S. I., Cryder, C. E., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Tightwads and

spendthrifts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 34, 767–782. https://doi.

org/10.1086/523285

Ridgway, N. M., Kukar‐Kinney, M., & Monroe, K. B. (2008). An expanded

conceptualization and a new measure of compulsive buying. Journal of

Consumer Research, 35, 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1086/591108

Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14,

189–199. https://doi.org/10.1086/209105

Rook, D. W., & Hoch, S. J. (1985). Consuming impulses. Advances in

Consumer Research, 12, 23–27.

Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective and

behavioral components of attitudes. In M. J. Rosenberg, & C. I. Hovland

(Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among

attitude components. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism. New cultural

dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Kagitcibasi, C., S. C.

Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method,

and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shaw, A. M., & Timpano, K. R. (2016). An experimental investigation of the

effect of stress on saving and acquiring behavior tendencies: The

role of distress tolerance and negative urgency. Behavior Therapy, 47,

116–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2015.10.003

Shoham, A., & Makovec brenčič, M. (2003). Compulsive buying behavior.

The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.

1108/07363760310464596

Solberg, E. G., Diener, E., & Robinson, D. (2003). Why are materialists

less satisfied? In T. Kasser, & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Psychology and

consumer culture (pp. 29–48). Washington, DC: American Psycholo-

gical Association.

Soman, D., & Gourville, J. T. (2001). Transaction decoupling: How price

bundling affects the decision to consume. Journal of Marketing

Research, 38, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.1.30.18828

Subkowski, P. (2006). On the psychodynamics of collecting. The Interna-

tional Journal of Psychoanalysis, 87, 383–401. https://doi.org/10.1516/

4UMF‐YF9G‐FVFR‐JM09

Timpano, K. R., Broman‐Fulks, J. J., Glaesmer, H., Exner, C., Rief, W.,

Olatunji, B. O., … Schmidt, N. B. (2013). A taxometric exploration

of the latent structure of hoarding. Psychological Assessment, 25,

194–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029966

Todd, S., & Lawson, R. (2003). Towards an understanding of frugal

consumers. Australasian Marketing Journal, 11, 8–18. https://doi.org/

10.1016/S1441‐3582(03)70131‐1Troisi, J. D., Christopher, A. N., & Marek, P. (2006). Materialism and

money spending disposition as predictors of economic and personality

variables. North American Journal of Psychology, 8, 421–436.

Watson, J. J. (2003). The relationship of materialism to spending

tendencies, saving and debt. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24,

723–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2003.06.001

Williams, A. D. (2012). Quality of life and psychiatric work impairment in

compulsive buying: Increased symptom severity as a function of

acquisition behaviors. Comprehensive Psychiatry: The Journal of

Psychopathology, 53, 822–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.

2011.11.001

How to cite this article: Harnish RJ, Roster CA. The tripartite

model of aberrant purchasing: A theory to explain the

maladaptive pursuit of consumption. Psychol Mark. 2018;

1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21159

14 | HARNISH AND ROSTER