Self-insight, Self-concept Clarity, Gullibility, Celebrity Admiration & Compulsive Buying

Hyeyeon Hwang, Bethany Jurs, Lynn E. McCutcheon & Edsen Donato

Compulsive buying is a widespread problem in American society with often devastating consequences. A measure of compulsive buying, along with four measures believed to be related to each other, gullibility, celebrity worship, self-insight, and self-concept clarity, based on previous research, were administered. Results indicated that all five measures were related to each other. Specifically, we found that self-insight and self-concept clarity were positively related to each other (.73, p<.01), and negatively related to gullibility, celebrity worship, and compulsive buying. We also predicted and found that compulsive buying was positively correlated with celebrity worship (.22, p<.01) and gullibility (.15, p<.05). We further predicted that scores on self-insight, self-concept clarity, gullibility, and celebrity worship measures would combine to predict compulsive buying in a stepwise multiple regression analysis. Self-insight proved to be the best predictor of compulsive buying (beta = -.30); addition of the celebrity worship (beta = .16) measure resulted in a total explained variance of 13 %. The discussion focuses on why the other predictors added little to the predictive model. Further validation for the relatively new brief measure of celebrity worship and the importance of the role of psychological assessment in the context of compulsivity were noted.

Introduction:

Compulsive consumer behavior can be defined as repetitive buying that is related to negative feelings. It is conceptualized as a strong urge to buy that is difficult to control and primarily driven by negative emotions (Faber & O‟Guinn, 1992). Lam et al. (2018) considers it a behavioral addiction that can lead to criminal and/or legal problems and estimated its prevalence in the population at about five percent. Furthermore, compulsive buying seems to be on the rise, perhaps based on recent digital transactions and technological advancements that make purchasing easier (Sheruly & Koentary, 2024). The importance of compulsive buying stems from the fact that compulsive buyers often suffer from financial problems, which might lead to depression and anxiety (Faber & O‟Guinn, 1992; Lejoyeux & Weinstein, 2010; Ridgeway et al., 2008). Furthermore, people who suffer from one kind of problematic consumer behavior may be susceptible to other kinds of harmful consumer addictions like alcoholism, obesity, drug use, and even addiction to one‟s favorite celebrity (Chen et al., 2022; Reeves et al., 2012). These harmful effects envelop families, friends, and the public because of increased costs for health care, crime control, and financial and legal entanglements (Faber & O‟Guinn, 1992; Lam et al., 2018; Ridgeway et al., 2008). Moreover, compulsive buying has been linked to gullibility (Hoffman, 2021; Hollingsworth, 2024), excessive celebrity worship (Chen et al., 2022; Reeves et al., 2012), and a lack of self-concept clarity (Reeves et al., 2012). Hence, the onerous impact of this maladaptive condition makes it crucial to investigate the psychological constructs that may predict compulsive buying behaviors.

Self-insight refers to an “understanding oneself in some depth” (APA Dictionary, 2018). It is an awareness of one‟s thoughts, feelings, strengths, weaknesses, and behaviors (Banner et al., 2023; Sutton, 2016; Vazire & Carlson, 2010). It plays a critical role in both mental health and everyday decision-making (Sutton, 2016). “Developing self-insight is crucial for personal and professional growth” (Rasheed et al., 2021, p. 36). Self-insight by leaders is related to several positive outcomes, such as follower satisfaction (Steffens et al., 2021). Research shows that higher levels of self-insight are associated with positive outcomes such as reduced anxiety and depression, and greater self-control (Silvia, 2021). Individuals with high self-insight are more likely to recognize problematic behaviors, like compulsive buying, and take steps

Hyeyeon Hwang, Ph.D. University of Central Missouri, Bethany Jurs, Ph.D. Transylvania University, Lynn E. McCutcheon, Ed.D. North American Journal of Psychology (Contact person najp1999@yahoo.com ) and Edsen Donato, D.Sc., Union Adventist University, Lincoln, NE, (USA)

Keywords: Self-insight, Self-concept clarity, Gullibility, Celebrity admiration, Compulsive buying

Self-insight & Compulsive Buying: 9

to manage such urges. Copious research has been published on the topic of self-insight (see Morin, 2011 for a review). Vazire and Carlson (2010) found that most people have a reasonably accurate idea of who they are, but virtually no one appears to have entirely accurate self-knowledge, and others are nearly clueless about themselves. However, Eurich (2018) claimed that only 10-15 % of adults understand themselves, though 95 % perceive themselves as being self-aware. Such significant discrepancies are probably, in part, caused by different definitions of self-insight, different ways of measuring it, and cultural differences. To put it another way, there are individual differences in the extent to which people have self-insight.

In terms of measurement, several scales have been developed in an attempt to address individual differences in self-insight (Banner et al., 2023; Eurich, 2018; Morin, 2011; Silvia, 2021; Sutton, 2016; Trapnell & Campbell, 1999). Items from these scales frequently mention the terms „reflection‟ and „self-insight.‟ One such scale is the Insight Scale (IS; Silvia, 2021), a 6-item measure based on a psychometrically sound revision of a longer version (Grant et al., 2002). The IS has been found to correlate negatively with measures of depression, anxiety, stress, neuroticism, and higher levels of conscientiousness (Silvia, 2021).

Self-concept clarity is the extent to which individuals have a consistent and stable understanding of themselves (Campbell et al., 1996; Cui & Fang, 2022). Persons who continually wonder “Who am I?” presumably would lack self-concept clarity. Campbell et al. (1996) found that a measure of self-concept clarity correlated negatively with a measure of neuroticism, and positively with a measure of conscientiousness. Reyes and colleagues (2015) found high self-concept clarity to be associated with positive mental health in a sample of LGBT individuals. Cui and Fang (2022) found that self-concept clarity correlated negatively with scores on a scale to measure admiration for one‟s favorite celebrity. That is, individuals who tended to be uncertain about their self-concept tended to be more strongly attracted to their favorite celebrity. Furthermore, Campbell et al. (1996) found that depression, anxiety, and stress were associated with low self-concept clarity.

The brief form of the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS-7; Szila et al., 2024) was developed to have a psychometrically sound short version of a scale to measure attitude toward one‟s favorite celebrity. Using a longer version of the CAS excessive celebrity admiration has frequently been associated with problematic attitudes such as low self-concept clarity (Cui & Fang, 2022), poor mental health (Collisson et al., 2018; Maltby et al., 2001; Maltby et al., 2011; McCutcheon & Aruguete, 2021) and behaviors, such as impulsive buying (Chen et al., 2022; Reeves et al., 2012; Sheruly & Koentary, 2024) and eating disorders (Aruguete et al., 2014). Furthermore, recent archival research established objective criteria for determining the proportion of participants (in each of the 34 studies) who qualified as celebrity worshippers. The study showed a 20-year trend reflecting an increase in excessive celebrity admiration (McCutcheon & Aruguete, 2021).

Gullibility is an “individual‟s tendency to accept a false premise in the presence of untrustworthiness cues” (Teunisse et al., 2020, p. 409), a blindness to the likelihood of deception. It could be described as a tendency to believe information of questionable veracity, especially when based on false premises (i.e., You have been specially selected…; Unbeatable prices). Individuals high in gullibility are more likely to be influenced by misleading marketing and promotional tactics, making them vulnerable to compulsive consumerism (George et al., 2020), and they typically have a weaker sense of self (George et al., 2020). Furthermore, they tend to believe in paranormal events and show a lack of social awareness (Teunisse et al., 2020). Beltran and colleagues (2024) found that gullibility successfully predicted scores on the Celebrity Attitude Scale.

What these constructs have in common is that excessive amounts of celebrity admiration, gullibility, and compulsive buying seem to be related to negative attitudes and behaviors, whereas low amounts of self-concept clarity and self-insight are also linked to negative attitudes and behaviors, especially anxiety and depression. Further, they all appear to be related to each other. Celebrity worship,

10: Hwang et al.

particularly in its more extreme forms, has been identified as another psychological predictor of compulsive buying (Chen et al., 2022; Reeves et al., 2012). Research has shown that individuals who excessively admire celebrities often lack self-concept clarity and may develop problematic behaviors such as compulsive buying as a way to emulate or feel closer to their favorite celebrity (Cui & Fang, 2022; Reeves et al., 2012). The Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS-7) has been used to measure the intensity of admiration for celebrities and has been found to correlate with several negative outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and impulsive buying behavior (Zsila et al., 2024).

Based on our literature review we propose the following hypotheses:

1. All five measures will be related to each other as proposed in the preceding paragraphs. Specifically, we expect to find Insight and self-concept clarity to be positively related to each other, and negatively related to gullibility, celebrity worship, and compulsive buying. We expect compulsive buying to be positively correlated with celebrity worship and gullibility.

2. Scores on the Insight Scale, Self-concept Clarity Scale, Gullibility Scale, and the Celebrity Attitude Scale -7 will combine to significantly predict compulsive buying in a stepwise multiple regression analysis.

Method:

Participants

We recruited 217 participants from three universities located in Missouri, Nebraska, and Kentucky. Of these, 14 participants failed to complete one or more of the study measures or failed the attention check on the CAS-B7 and were removed from subsequent analyses. The final sample comprised 203 participants: 131 females, 71 males, and one who did not respond. The mean age for the total sample was M = 20.62, SD = 5.26. Most participants were White (n = 138) while 18 participants reported their race as Black, 13 as Asian, 23 as Hispanic, 3 as Native American, and 7 as other or preferred not to answer. One did not respond. A minimal amount of course credit was awarded to each participant. An a priori 95% power analysis was conducted using G*Power3 (Faul et al., 2007) for correlations demonstrating at least a small effect size (d=.3). Results show an alpha of .05 requires a total sample of 135 participants. In addition, a minimum sample size of 129 is needed to achieve 95% power for a fixed model linear multiple regression with 4 predictive factors with at least a small effect size (d=.15) at an alpha of .05. Our sample size exceeded these minimums for both analyses.

Measures

Self-concept Clarity (SCC; Campbell et al., 1996). The Self-concept Clarity scale is a 12-item measure of the extent to which persons have a unified, clear idea of who they are. The items are responded to on a Likert-type scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Sample items include: “My beliefs about myself often conflict with one another, ‟‟ reverse scored), ”I spend a lot of time wondering about what kind of person I really am,” (reverse scored), and ‟‟In general, I have a clear sense of who I am and what I am.‟‟ High scores suggest a person who has a clear self-understanding. The SCC has been found to correlate .61 with a measure of self-esteem, -.50 with measures of neuroticism, and .14 with a measure of private self-consciousness. Test-retest with a four-month interval was .79 and .70. Alpha in the Campbell study was .86, whereas Alpha in the present study was .88.

Short Form Insight Scale (IS; Silvia, 2021). The Short Form Insight Scale is a six-item measure of the extent to which persons understand their attitudes and behaviors. Respondents are shown a Likert scale with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Sample items include “I‟m often confused about the way that I really feel about things” (reverse scored), “My behavior often puzzles me” (reverse scored), and “I usually know why I feel the way I do.” High scores suggest a respondent who has good insight into her

Self-insight & Compulsive Buying: 11

or his attitudes and behaviors. The IS has been found to correlate negatively with a brief measure of depression, anxiety, and stress, negatively with a measure of neuroticism, and positively with a measure of conscientiousness (Silvia, 2021). A slightly longer version of the IS has also been found to correlate with a measure of self-awareness (Sutton, 2016). Alphas in the two parts of the Silvia study were .83 and .82. Banner et al. (2023) found an alpha of .80. Alpha in the present study was .88.

Gullibility Scale (GS; Teunisse et al., 2020). This 12-item Likert-type scale was developed to measure one‟s tendency to believe information that appears to be untrustworthy. Respondents are shown a scale with 1 = very untrue and 7 = very true. Sample items include “I‟m pretty poor at working out if someone is tricking me” and “My friends think I „m easily fooled.” High scores suggest a person who is gullible. Scores on this scale are unrelated to measures of social desirability, trust, and cognitive ability. High scorers were more likely to respond to email scams than those who earned low scores. A more recent study showed that GS scores predicted a behavioral measure of gullibility (George et al., 2020), while another study showed that gullibility was positively correlated to the Celebrity Attitude Scale (Beltran et al., 2024). In the Teunisse studies, alphas ranged from .88 to .95, and test-retest reliability with a 12-week interval was .80. Alpha in the present study was .90.

The Celebrity Attitude Scale- Brief (CAS-7; Zsila et al., 2024) consists of two subscales. Healthy (3 items) is reflected in agreement with items like “It is enjoyable just to be with others who like my favorite celebrity.” A second level of celebrity worship (unhealthy, 4 items) is characterized by more intensely personal and borderline pathological items like “I share with my favorite celebrity a special bond that cannot be described in words.” The response format for the CAS-7 is a 5-point scale, ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). High scores indicate a strong attachment to one‟s favorite celebrity. We used an eighth item, “When something good happens to my favorite celebrity, I feel bad about it,” as an attention check since it makes little sense and is almost a direct contradiction of one of the other seven items. The CAS-7 is based on the seven psychometrically best items derived from the 23-item Celebrity Attitude Scale (Zsila et al., 2024). Previous studies have established the reliability and convergent and external validities of the 23-item CAS (e.g., Griffith et al., 2013, Hitlan et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2024; & see Brooks, 2018, for a review). For example, Reeves et al. (2012) found that the CAS correlated

.18 with compulsive buying and -.26 with concept clarity. Zsila et al. (2024) found a significantly positive relationship between CAS-7 scores and scores on depression, anxiety, and stress. McCutcheon et al. (submitted) also found a significantly positive relationship between CAS-7 scores and scores on depression, anxiety, and stress, as well as a positive correlation between CAS-7 scores and scores on a measure of pathological concern for others. Typical alphas for the 23-item CAS total scale range from .84 to .94 (Flint et al., 2022; Grabbe et al., 2022; & Jia et al., 2023). Zsila et al. (2024) found a total alpha of .88 for the CAS-7 in Hungary, Ahadi et al. (2025) found a total alpha of .86 in Iran, and McCutcheon et al. (submitted) found alphas of .80 for healthy and .78 for the unhealthy subscales. Alpha in the present study was .87.

We combined all three items adapted from one measure of impulsive consumer purchasing (Ridgeway et al., 2008), and two from another (Faber & O‟Guinn, 1992), and named it the Richmond Purchasing Scale (RPS). We wanted a five-item scale to provide a greater separation of scores and a greater probability of detecting significant correlation with other measures. A sample item from the former measure is „‟I buy things I don‟t need,‟‟ and a sample item from the latter is „‟I buy things even though I can‟t afford them”. We used a Likert-type scale with 1 = strongly disagree, and 7 = strongly agree. High scores indicate a person who is an impulse buyer. We chose all three items from the Ridgeway scale. They loaded between .70 and .83 on a single factor, and in three separate studies the alpha reliability ranged from

.78 to .84. The Ridgeway scale was found to correlate low with a measure of social desirability, high with other measures of compulsive buying and actual purchasing behavior, and high with measures of depression, anxiety, and stress (Ridgeway et al., 2008). The two items chosen from the Faber scale were selected partly because they tapped ideas not covered by the Ridgeway Scale. The average factor coefficient for the total seven-item scale was .79. The Faber scale was also related positively to measures of

12: Hwang et al.

depression and anxiety. Cronbach alpha for the Faber scale was .95 (Faber & O‟Guinn, 1992). Alpha in the

Richmond Purchasing Scale in the present study was .86.

Procedure

After obtaining permission from the Institutional Review Boards, the Brief Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS-B7), Richmond Purchasing Scale (RPS), Insight Scale (IS), Gullibility Scale (GS), and Self-concept Scale (SCC) were administered to all participants in random orders to negate the possibility of a systematic order effect. We deleted data based on failure to complete the questionnaire or failure in the attention check. Participants were debriefed after completion of the experiment.

Results:

Table 1 presents the basic results for the hypotheses in this study design.

Table 1 Means (SDs), and zero-order correlations for the study variables