Ing 11 Fix

Economic Analysis and Policy 64 (2019) 194–220
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Economic Analysis and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eap
Full length article
The importance of personality characteristics and behavioral

constraints for retirement saving
Maria Piotrowska
Wroclaw University of Economics, ul. Komandorska 118-120, 53-345 Wroclaw, Poland
article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: The paper explores the retirement saving habits of well-educated Poles of mobile work-
Received 27 November 2018 ing age. The data on personality characteristics as well as behavioral constraints include
Received in revised form 24 August 2019 personality traits, procrastination, locus of control, pessimism, compulsive buying, and
Accepted 10 September 2019
time perspective. The purpose of the paper is to reveal personality characteristics and
Available online 13 September 2019
behavioral constraints that could be relevant in explaining retirement saving, estimating
JEL classification: the money needed for retirement and having a plan for retirement saving. The research
G41 uses relative weight analysis and mediation analysis. The findings show that procrasti-
nation influences the decision about whether to save for retirement, even if income is
Keywords:
included as a control. This suggests that the procrastination problem makes saving for
Retirement saving
retirement difficult regardless of income. Procrastination is also a significant mediator
Personal traits
Procrastination through which personality characteristics and time perspectives influence retirement
Locus of control saving. Compulsive buying affects retirement saving through two mechanisms, one based
Time perspective on the idea that money is a symbol of power and prestige, and another one which
produces feelings of guilt. Locus of control and future-time orientation are significant in
explaining the decision to plan for retirement. Pessimism influences retirement saving
actions both negatively and positively, depending on how this influence is transmitted.
The findings show various effects of personality and behavior on saving, which can be
used in designing savings and pension schemes.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Economic Society of Australia, Queensland.
1. Introduction
Whether people are poor or not after retirement depends on their accumulated assets (inherited wealth, income of
a spouse, their savings, riskiness of investment strategies) and the amount of their pension (which is affected both by
the design of the pension system and by individual decisions, made in the course of economic activity). If the pension
system does not ensure the maintenance of people’s living standard, as in the case of Poland, they should protect
themselves through retirement savings. Many people, however, are not saving enough money for retirement. Banerjee
(2011) attributed this poor behavior to factors such as lack of education, income, age, gender, and race. Lusardi (2010)
ascribed inadequate savings to low levels of financial literacy. These factors cannot explain why only 21 percent of Poles
with a tertiary level of education and of mobile working age are accumulating wealth for retirement. They are well
educated with at least a mean level of financial literacy, non-poor, and in the best period of their professional careers.
Nonetheless, only 52 percent of them have any plan for retirement saving.
This paper explores the retirement savings habits from a perspective of personality characteristics and behavioral
constraints, including personality traits (the Big Five), pessimism, procrastination, locus of control, compulsive buying,
E-mail address: maria.piotrowska@ue.wroc.pl.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2019.09.001
0313-5926/© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Economic Society of Australia, Queensland.
M. Piotrowska / Economic Analysis and Policy 64 (2019) 194–220 195
and time perspective. The purpose is to reveal personality characteristics and behavioral constraints that could explain
retirement-saving actions of well-educated individuals. The study seeks answers to the following questions: how
important (in terms of relative weights) are personality characteristics and behavioral constraints in explaining: (1)
whether well-educated people save for retirement; (2) whether they have tried to estimate how much money they need
for retirement, and (3) whether they have any plan for retirement saving. This research aims to reveal the personality
traits and behavioral constraints that make saving for retirement on one’s own harder or easier.
Retirement saving is typically analyzed in the context of the life cycle theory of consumption, developed by Modigliani
and Brumberg in the early 1950s. On the other hand, behavioral economists and reputable researchers question this theory
and are interested in how people make money-related decisions in the face of incomplete information, limited cognitive
resources, and biases.
Although over the last three decades, there has been increasing interest in household finances, the relationship between
household finances and personality traits has attracted limited interest in the existing literature. However, even as
the Big Five personality traits are fundamental to understanding personality (John and Srivastava, 1999), research has
not fully explored the Big Five personality profiles of those who actively accumulate wealth for retirement. The Big
Five personality trait taxonomy developed by Costa and McCrae (1992) classifies individuals according to five factors:
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism (emotional instability) and openness to experience. The
psychology literature suggests that the majority of variables used to describe personality traits in the existing literature
can be mapped onto at least one of the Big Five (Almlund et al., 2011). Caliendo et al. (2011), focusing on the Big Five
taxonomy, present an overview of each classification. Extraversion is described as including variables indicating the extent
to which individuals are assertive, dominant, ambitious and energetic; agreeableness as relating to being cooperative,
forgiving and trusting; conscientiousness as encompassing two distinct aspects, being achievement-oriented and being
hard-working; emotional stability (opposite to neuroticism) as relating to self-confidence, optimism and the ability to
deal with stressful situations; and, finally openness to experience as relating to an individual’s creativity, innovativeness,
and curiosity. This paper is aimed at revealing the importance of personality characteristics in explaining behavior related
to retirement saving.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, pessimism is (1) the tendency to see the bad side of things or to expect the
worst in any situation (the definition of ‘‘pessimism’’ from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary); (2) the feeling
that bad things are more likely to happen than good things (the definition of ‘‘pessimism’’ from the Cambridge Business
English Dictionary); (3) emphasizing or thinking of the bad part of a situation rather than the good part, or the feeling
that bad things are more likely to happen than good things, (the definition of ‘‘pessimism’’ from the Cambridge Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus) - see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pessimism. It is a common
opinion that pessimists are never disappointed. However, they can be dissatisfied by their retirement income. Pessimists
tend to underestimate their life expectancy, assuming that they will die much sooner than they actually will. These
misperceptions of survival probabilities lead them to make bad decisions about retirement saving (O’Dea and Sturrock,
2019).
Pessimism may indirectly influence retirement saving and planning through procrastination and locus of control.
Procrastination is negatively associated with optimism (Jackson et al., 2003) and positively with some outcomes of
pessimism, such as anxiety, depression, and stress (Glick and Orsillo, 2015; Beswick et al., 1988). Pessimists tend to have
an external locus of control, or the belief that external factors such as fate or the environment will make things impossible
(Abdullah, 2018). This external locus of control dissuades them from saving and planning for retirement.
Pessimism can also have positive indirect effects on retirement saving actions. As suggested by Palante (1914),
pessimism supposes a basic individualism. It supposes that interiority of sentiment, that return to the self (almost always
painful) that is the essence of individualism. If pessimism is associated positively with individualism, and individualists,
in turn, value financial comfort in their life (Bengtson et al., 2003), pessimistic-oriented individualists are more likely
than optimists to estimate the amount of money they need to live comfortably after retirement and to adopt a retirement
saving plan.
There might be another mechanism through which pessimism encourages saving. Personality Plus (Littauer, 1995)
suggests that pessimistic temperaments can be useful as pessimists’ focus on the negative helps them spot problems
that people with more optimistic temperaments miss. This mechanism may be linked to defensive pessimism, used as a
strategy. Defensive pessimism is made up of not just pessimism (expecting bad things to happen), but also a reflection
(examining why you expect bad things to happen), Gasper et al. (2009). This paper tests the direct and indirect effects of
pessimism on retirement saving behavior.
Steel (2007), reviewing all previous attempts to define procrastination, concluded that procrastination is ‘‘to voluntarily
delay an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay’’ (Steel, 2007, p.66). Sabini and Silver
(1982, p.128) argued that postponement and irrationality are the two key features of procrastination. Akerlof (1991)
modeled procrastinators as overweighting near-term costs and heavily discounting future costs. Planning for retirement
involves near-term actions with distant consequences, and it is easy to put it off. Steel (2007, p.1), concluded that strong
and consistent predictors of procrastination were task averseness, task delay, self-efficacy, and impulsiveness, as well as
conscientiousness and its facets of self-control, distractability, organization, and achievement motivation. This paper tests
the proposition that procrastination could help explain the difficulties that many individuals have in saving adequately
for retirement.
196 M. Piotrowska / Economic Analysis and Policy 64 (2019) 194–220
Locus of control is a psychological concept capturing individuals’ beliefs about the extent to which they control the
events that affect them. Those with an external locus of control generally attribute life’s outcomes to external factors
(e.g. fate, luck, other people, etc.) while those with an internal locus of control believe that much of what happens in
life stems from their own actions. Despite a growing recognition that self-control is important in allowing individuals to
achieve their long-term goals, like financial security in retirement, there is little empirical evidence that links measures
of self-control to economic wellbeing generally. One of the goals of this paper is to contribute to the research on this
relationship by empirically analyzing the link between individuals’ locus of control and their retirement savings behavior.
Compulsive buying is an insatiable urge to purchase luxury goods in an effort to quell negative emotions from
some external stressor (the definition from Benson-Townsend and Silver, 2015, p. 2, based on Faber and O’Guinn, 1992;
Sang-Hee and Yun-Jung, 2012; Workman and Paper, 2010). Compulsive buyers engage in buying mainly for hedonistic
reasons (O’Guinn and Faber, 1989), to relieve negative feelings (O’Guinn and Faber, 1989) while experiencing positive
emotions (Rindfleisch et al., 1997; Roberts et al., 2006); to improve their self- and social image; and to express themselves
(Dittmar, 2007; Escalas and Bettman, 2003; Kukar-Kinney and Ridgway, 2012). Moreover, Bridges and Florsheim (2008)
show that compulsive buying is correlated with arousal and sensation seeking. This form of extreme shopping is also
related to money attitudes, specifically, compulsive buying is positively correlated with money as power-prestige and
money anxiety attitudes (Roberts and Jones, 2001; Benson-Townsend and Silver, 2015). Compulsive buying behavior is
stimulated by internal feelings of anxiety, in which the consumer feels possessed to purchase in an effort to quell angst
(Roberts and Jones, 2001; Yamauchi and Templer, 1982). Benson-Townsend and Silver (2015, p.3-4) pointed out that
‘‘Compulsive buyers gravitate towards items that enhance their status (mostly luxury goods) to improve their lacking
internal confidence’’. Considering the scarcity of empirical evidence on the economic consequences of compulsive buying,
this research tests the relationships between compulsive buying and retirement saving behavior.
Zimbardo’s work (Gonzales and Zimbardo, 1985; Zimbardo, 1990; Zimbardo et al., 1997; Keough et al., 1999; Zimbardo
and Boyd, 1999) has shown that people oriented toward the hedonistic present are self-indulgent pleasure-seekers and
shirk all exacting work. People oriented towards the fatalistic present feel their lives dominated by external forces rather
than by their own actions. They believe that how much or little they have is largely beyond their control. Future-oriented
people show great concern about the consequences of their actions, are self-responsible and super achievers. They are also
ready to put a great deal of effort and ingenuity into their work, as they seek long-term gratification. Zimbardo (1990) tried
to use time perspective indices as predictors of individual behavior. In an experiment where subjects were involved in a
task similar to the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’, he observed that future-oriented individuals cooperated when they found their
behavior convenient to maximize their goals. The present-oriented individuals had the worst performance, as they worked
at random, without any organization, cooperation or consistent projects. This paper explores actions linked to retirement
saving from three factors of time perspective: Future, Present-Hedonistic, and Present-Fatalistic. It is reasonable to assume
that these three factors could produce different effects on retirement saving.
Additionally, the research considers five factors that can influence retirement saving behavior and that serve as controls
in the analyses. These include two demographic controls of age and gender and three economic variables of income,
burden of loan repayment and level of savings.
The empirical analysis in this study is based on data from Poland, a middle-income country. For twenty-eight years,
Poland has experienced the transitional process leading to an advanced market economy. The demographic structure of
the Polish population predicts a declining tendency in the fraction of working-age people. The public pension system
based on obligatory contributions is becoming less and less effective, guarantying only low pensions.
This study is based on a questionnaire survey of 826 individuals in Poland within the age group of 25 to 45 years. The
age range chosen in the research allows us to focus on people of mobile working age when their earnings are rising. These
people should save, according to life cycle theory. All participants have attained a tertiary level of education. Including
only participants graduated from universities allows us to avoid considering education a very important factor, and to
focus on the effects of personality traits and behavioral constraints.
The approach taken to address the research questions includes two methods: the relative weight analysis and the
conditional process analysis. The relative weight analysis allows us to evaluate the importance of personality traits and
behavioral constraints in explaining the given retirement-saving behavior. The conditional process analysis serves as a
modeling strategy undertaken to describe the conditional or contingent nature of the mechanism(s) by which a variable
transmits its effect on another variable, and to test hypotheses about such contingent effects.
The findings show empirical evidence that procrastination is the main internal (linked to personality) factor responsible
for delaying a decision to save for retirement, even when incomes are included. Internal locus of control is another impor-
tant personality characteristic which stimulates saving, indirectly undermining the negative influence of procrastination,
and it is directly responsible for decisions to plan retirement saving. Compulsive buying has a positive influence on saving
for retirement. Two mechanisms can explain this relationship: either money is viewed as a symbol of status, which
enhances the positive effect of compulsive buying, or a feeling of guilt is experienced, which inhibits this effect. Concerning
the second mechanism, the analysis reveals a gender difference. Compulsive buying fosters a lack of self-respect, caused
by feelings of guilt, which is considerably stronger in women than in men, and thus discourages women from saving for
retirement more often than men.
The research determines that people who are critical of others and quarrelsome (antagonists) estimate the money
they need for retirement more often because they are more individualistic. Individualists, in turn, value financial comfort
in their life. The results also indicate that undirected individuals, who are disorganized and careless, exhibit a more
positive attitude to estimating the money they need for retirement and adopting a retirement saving plan. In a situation
of uncertainty, disorganized and careless people expect the worst to happen. Life after retirement is just an example of an
uncertain situation. By making a plan for retirement saving, they reduce their negative response to the said uncertainty.
The results also point out that if well-educated people decide to save by age 45, they follow the life cycle theory.
However, a majority of them postpone this decision.
The findings from the empirical analysis conducted in Poland expand on current knowledge regarding the importance
of personality and behavioral constraints in explaining retirement-saving behavior. The case studies confirm results from
other countries, thereby increasing their robustness, provide evidence for hypotheses proposed in the literature, or show
new aspects of the problem. Therefore, the evidence from the case studies enhances our understanding of the problem.
This study contributes to the research on the behavioral economics of saving by providing an empirical description of
the way that people behave. First, the research deeply explores the relevance of procrastination, revealing its direct and
indirect effects. The results point to procrastination as an important mediator in the relationship between personality and
retirement saving. Second, by including facets of personality, the study shows which of them influence retirement saving
through procrastination and to what extent. Third, this study sheds light on the mechanisms through which compulsive
buying can affect saving for retirement. In the literature, there are no findings on this relationship. Fourth, this study
reveals the indirect effects of personality characteristics (some of the Big Five and pessimism) on retirement saving
behavior. These findings expand on current knowledge regarding such relationships by showing the mechanisms through
which these factors can influence the decisions associated with saving for retirement. Fifth, this study also provides
empirical evidence on the relationships between locus of control and retirement saving behavior. In the literature, there
is almost no empirical research in this field.
The paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, the data, methods, and variable specification are outlined. Section 3
presents the limited evidence linking personal traits and behavioral constraints to retirement-saving actions. The results
with discussion are presented in Section 4. Robustness checks, limitations and further research can be found in Sections 4
and 5. Policy implications are suggested in Section 6. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Section 7.
2. Material and methods
The source of data for this study is a questionnaire survey carried out in Poland in November of 2016. Participants
were 25–45 years of age, of mobile working age. They have attained a tertiary level of education. The overall sample
covers 826 participants. In November of 2016 interviews were carried out with participants using the CAPI (Computer-
assisted personal interviewing) method from a nationwide, random-quota sample with a conscious choice of participants.
Because of the criteria used for selecting the participants (age range, higher education), the appropriate sub-groups are
representative of the respective subpopulations (with respect to marginal distributions) due to age and gender, as well
as voivodship (Poland is divided into 16 administrative units called voivodships) and place of residence (towns, villages).
The survey includes 277 items. All items were developed for the purpose of the research project related to economic
resourcefulness of Polish families (the project was financed by the National Centre for Science).
The characteristics of the participants are as follows. The overall sample (N = 826 participants) covers 59% women and
41% men. The number of children below 18 years of age in the participants’ families is as follows: 49% of the participants
have no children below 18; 28% have one child; 21% have two children. With regard to the place of residence, 24% of the
participants live in villages, 23% in small towns, 19% in medium-sized towns, 24% in big towns and 10% in the capital of
Poland. Considering the sector of employment, 62% of the participants work in private enterprises, 19% in state enterprises
and 10% in the public sector. Regarding the size of the enterprise, the highest fraction of participants (41%) work in
enterprises employing between 11 and 50 people, 21% of the participants work in smaller enterprises employing up to
10 people, and 27% work in enterprises employing between 51 and 500 people. Only 9% of the participants are employed
in large companies with more than 500 employees.
The measurement of the variables is described in Table 1. There are three dependent variables (Ys) describing the
retirement-saving actions: 1. Retirement saving, 2. Having a plan for retirement saving, 3. Estimating the money needed to
live at a satisfying level in retirement; 17 predictors (Xs) covering the facets of personality, behavioral constraints and time
preferences, as well as 5 controls. The items used to construct the predictor measures are adapted from the well-known
measures presented in the literature; for example, the Procrastination test developed by Tuckman (1991); the Locus of
Control Scale developed by Rotter (1966); and the Stanford Time Perspective Inventory-Short form developed by Zimbardo
et al. (1997).
Almost all variables used in the study are based on Likert data (except one dependent variable labeled Retirement saving
measured on a two-point scale, Yes = 1 or No = 0) and four controls: Gender (1 = Female; 2 = Male), Age, Individual
income and Level of savings.
When using Likert data we must consider the controversy regarding the possibility to calculate the mean, the standard
deviation and the correlation, to perform t-tests and to use variables based on this type of data as predictors in a regression.
A typical Likert scale is a 5- or 7-point ordinal scale used by respondents to rate the degree to which they agree or
disagree with a statement. There is an equal number of positive and negative options and one neutral option in the
middle. Numeric values are assigned to each category for the purpose of analysis. In an ordinal scale, responses can be
rated or ranked, but the distance between responses is not measurable. The difference between ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and
‘‘disagree’’, and the difference between ‘‘agree’’ and ‘‘strongly agree’’ are not necessarily equal. On the other hand, in
the case of interval data, the differences between responses can be calculated. How should we analyze Likert data? In
general, there are two contrary standpoints in the discussion on this problem. Some researchers follow the Jamieson
argument (2004) that the response categories have a rank order but the intervals between values cannot be presumed
equal. Since the relevant descriptive and inferential statistics differ for ordinal and interval variables, the consequence
of this approach is that if a wrong statistical technique is used, the researcher increases the chance of arriving at the
wrong conclusion. However, other experts accept Carifio and Perla’s (2008) opinion that if the data have a normal (or
near normal) distribution, parametric tests can be used with Likert-derived ordinal data.
Many researchers are convinced by findings from empirical literature dating back nearly 80 years and carried out by
Norman (2010), one of the world’s leaders in medical education research methodology. When reviewing this controversy
on Likert data, Norman did not focus on assumptions but directly addressed the issue of robustness. He explored
the impact of three characteristics, namely sample size, non-normality, and ordinal-level measurement, on the use of
parametric methods. If Likert ratings are ordinal, which in turn means that the distributions are highly skewed or have
some other undesirable property, then whether or not correlations or regression coefficients can be calculated is a
statistical issue. Norman (2010) stressed that it becomes an issue of robustness. If the distributions are not normal and
linear, there is no ‘‘Central Limit Theorem’’ to provide theoretical confidence. However, there have been a number of
studies that are reassuring. Norman (2010) pointed out that Pearson (1931, 1932a,b), Dunlap (1931) and Havlicek and
Peterson (1976) have all shown, using theoretical distributions, that the Pearson correlation is robust with respect to
skewness and nonnormality. Havlicek and Peterson (1976) did the most extensive simulation study, looking at sample size,
for normal, rectangular, and ordinal scales. They concluded that the Pearson r is rather insensitive to extreme violations
of the basic assumptions of normality and the type of scale. Norman (2010) confirmed these results with some real scale
data. He found that the Pearson correlation, like all parametric tests, is extremely robust with respect to violations of
assumptions. Summarizing the empirical literature survey, Norman (2010) concluded that parametric statistics can be
used with Likert data, with small sample sizes, with unequal variances, and with non-normal distributions with no fear
of coming to the wrong conclusion.
Some researchers (for example Brown, 2011) point out that much of the ordinal/interval confusion arises from the
fact that many authors use the notion of a Likert scale to refer both to the Likert item type (a statement evaluated, for
example, on the five-point scale: Strongly disagree, Disagree, neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree) and to Likert scales (sums
or averages of the results on sets of Likert items). Several papers have shown that Likert scales can indeed be analyzed
effectively as interval scales (Baggaley and Hull, 1983; Maurer and Pierce, 1998; and Vickers, 1999). With regard to Likert
items, Brown (2011, 13) recommended that ‘‘if a researcher presents the means and standard deviations (interval scale
statistics) for individual Likert items, he/she should also present the percent or frequency of people who selected each
option’’.
In general, this paper accepts Norman’s findings that parametric statistics can be used with Likert data with no fear
of coming to the wrong conclusion (Norman, 2010). However, this research also takes into account the recommendations
presented in the literature. When sets of Likert items are grouped to measure the underlying variable, Cronbach’s alpha
is used to provide evidence that the components of the scale are sufficiently intercorrelated (see Table 1). The number of
response categories is five or seven as recommended in the literature. In order to ensure reliable results when applying
a parametric procedure to Likert data, a more stringent alpha level is selected, such as 0.01 instead 0.05 (provided that
the method allows the alpha level to be selected). Descriptive statistics and the percentage of participants who selected
each response category are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
One more problem has to be addressed concerning the measures of the Big Five, which in this study are independent
variables. While Likert scales contain multiple items and are therefore likely to be more reliable than a single item, the
Big Five test averages the facet scores. As a consequence, persons with high scores in relevant facets and low scores
in irrelevant facets could have the same factor score as persons with high scores in irrelevant facets and low scores in
relevant facets. This research tries to avoid this misleading aggregation of the facets. The analysis includes ten facets
developing by Gosling et al. (2003) in their Ten Item Personality Inventory (see Table 1).
Descriptive statistics of the data are presented in Table 2, while the percentage of participants who selected each
response category is described in Table 3 and illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. Table 2 shows two controversial statistics,
the mean and the standard deviation, as well as two statistics recommended for Likert data, the median, and the
mode. Table 2 also presents two statistics, skewness and excess kurtosis, which provide insights into the shape of the
distribution. Skewness is a measure of the symmetry in a distribution. It measures the relative size of the two tails. A
symmetrical, or normal distribution, will have the mean equal to the median, and the skewness equal to 0. Kurtosis is a
measure of the combined sizes of the two tails. The value is often compared to the kurtosis of the normal distribution,
which is equal to 3. Table 2 presents excess kurtosis. With regard to this definition of kurtosis the standard normal
distribution has a kurtosis of zero, positive kurtosis indicates a ‘‘heavy-tailed’’ data distribution (profusion of outliers),
and negative kurtosis indicates a ‘‘light-tailed’’ data distribution (lack of outliers indicating that values are less extreme
than in the normal distribution).
In reality, data points may not be perfectly symmetric, so a rule of thumb seems to be useful.
• If the skewness is between −0.5 and 0.5, the data are fairly symmetrical
Table 1
Measures of variables.
Variable Items
Retirement saving Do you save for retirement in any form other than obligatory
pension contributions (Yes = 1 or No = 0)
Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in You have estimated the money needed to live at a satisfying level in
retirement retirement (scale: 1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
Having a plan for retirement saving You have a plan how to save for retirement (scale: 1 = strongly
disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
Facets of personality by Gosling et al. (2003) – seven point Likert I see myself as:
scale 1 = strongly disagree . . . 7 = strongly agree
Extraversion Gregarious, enthusiastic, optimistic
Antagonism Critical, quarrelsome
Conscientiousness Conscientious, self-disciplined
Neuroticism Anxious, easily upset
Openness Open to new experiences, complex
Introversion Reserved, quite
Agreeableness Sympathetic, warm
Undirectedness Disorganized, careless
Emotional stability Calm, emotionally stable
Not open to experience Conventional, uncreative
Procrastination measured as a mean of two I delay making tough decisions
items adapted from Tuckman (1991); I keep putting off improving my work habits
1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree
Score 1 means weak procrastination
Score 5 means strong procrastination
Cronbach’s α = 0.626
Locus of control measured as a mean of six It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn
items adapted from Rotter (1966); out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow (reverse-scored).
Five point Likert scale In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a
Score = 1 means external locus of control coin (reverse-scored).
Score = 5 means internal locus of control Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that
Cronbach’s α = 0.722 happen to me (reverse-scored).
It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an
important role in my life
Sometimes I feel that I do not have enough control over the
direction my life is taking (reverse-scored).
Time preferences – adapted from Zimbardo’s
Stanford Time Perspective Inventory – Short
Form, Zimbardo et al. (1997);
Five point Likert scale
Future It gives me pleasure to think about my past.
Cronbach’s α = 0.695 When I want to achieve something, I set goals and consider specific
means for reaching those goals.
I complete projects on time by making steady progress.
I make lists of things to do.
I keep working at difficult, uninteresting tasks if they will help me
get ahead.
I am able to resist temptations when I know that there is work to
be done
Present-Hedonistic When I have money I like playing and betting.
Cronbach’s α = 0.722 When I go to parties I get drunk.
Present-Fatalistic It does not make sense to worry about the future since there is
Cronbach’s α = 0.607 nothing to do about it anyway.
I do things impulsively and I take decisions at the moment.
I do not make things that are important for me in the future, if they
do not like me now.
I am inclined to lose my self-control if someone provokes me.
(continued on next page)
• If the skewness is between −1 and – 0.5 or between 0.5 and 1, the data are moderately skewed
• If the skewness is less than −1 or greater than 1, the data are highly skewed
Table 1 (continued).
Variable Items
Pessimism I see myself as a pessimist
Five point Likert scale
Compulsive buying adapted from Maraz et al. (2015) You have continued to buy things in spite of the financial and
Five point Likert scale family problems your purchases caused
1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree Your ‘spur of the moment’ or excessive purchases represent at least
Cronbach’s α = 0.777 25% of your wages
You have excessive buying periods accompanied by overwhelming
feelings of generosity
Individual income, measured in Polish currency What is your monthly after-tax income (Choose one of six income
ranges)
Level of savings, measured as a multiplicity of individual monthly What is the level of your household savings (Choose one of seven
income ranges)
Burden of loan repayment, measured on a five Evaluate loan repayment burden for your household, considering
point scale: your household budget
1 = very light burden for your household budget
5 = very heavy burden for your household budget
Age 25–45 years
Gender 1 = Female 2 = Male
This table describes the measurement of the variables used in the relative weight analysis and in Hayes’ conditional process analysis.
None of the variables used in this research has a perfectly normal distribution, meaning that its mean is equal to its
median and both its skewness and kurtosis (measured as excess kurtosis) are equal to 0. However, the data for the majority
of the variables seem to be fairly symmetric. Their skewness is between −0.5 and 0.5 (see Table 2). A few variables –
Openness, Undirectedness, Not open to experience, Future – have moderately skewed distributions with skewness between
−1 and −0.5 or between 0.5 and 1. Only three variables have skewness values less than −1 and one variable has skewness
greater than 1 but not by much (Extraversion with skewness equal to −1.08; Conscientiousness with skewness equal to
−1; Agreeableness with skewness equal to −1.12 and Locus of control with skewness equal to 1.03). Therefore, it is difficult
to see these data as highly skewed, but rather as moderately skewed. The distributions for the majority of the variables
have excess kurtosis between 0 and 1 or between 0 and −1. This means that the extreme values of the distribution for
the majority of the variables are moderately similar to those of a normal distribution. The highest excess kurtosis is equal
to −1.78 for the variable Present-Hedonistic. Its skewness is equal to 0.24 so the data for this variable are fairly symmetric.
Only two variables, Agreeableness and Locus of control, have both skewness and kurtosis greater than 1 or less than −1.
Two methods are used in the paper: the relative weight analysis and the mediation analysis. The first method allows
us to determine the importance of a variable in multiple regression. Multiple regression is either used for prediction or
explanation. When multiple regression is used primarily for predictive purposes, researchers focus on maximizing the
predictive power of the regression model and look for a set of predictors that can explain the largest amount of variance
in a criterion (in the dependent variable). In contrast, when multiple regression is used primarily for explanatory purposes,
researches are interested in examining the contribution of each independent variable to explaining variance in a criterion
relative to other independent variables (Johnson and LeBreton, 2004). The focus is shifted from searching for the most
predictive model to interpreting relationships among variables and the criterion and understanding to what extent each
independent variable drives the dependent variable (Krasikova et al., 2011). Johnson (2000) described a procedure for
deriving relative weights using a variable transformation approach. Johnson and LeBreton (2004, p. 240) defined relative
importance as the proportionate contribution each independent variable makes to R2 , considering both its direct effect
(i.e., correlation with the dependent variable) and its indirect effect when combined with the other variables in the
regression equation.
This method is specially designed to address issues of importance in the case of correlated independent variables (see
the problems with squared betas and product measure weights as measures of relative importance when independent
variables are interrelated; Krasikova et al., 2011). LeBreton and Tonidandel (2008) recommended the use of relative
weights when researchers are seeking to establish relative importance for a large number of independent variables
(e.g., more than 10). Tonidandel et al. (2009) developed a procedure that uses bootstrapping to evaluate the statistical
significance of relative importance weights because the sampling distribution of relative weights is not known. Their
approach relies on evaluating whether the relative weight associated with a particular independent variable is significantly
different from the relative weight produced by an independent variable that is known to be unimportant (i.e., randomly
generated variable). If the independent variable’s relative weight is significantly different from the relative weight
produced by a randomly generated variable, then the independent variable can be said to be meaningful (i.e., contributes
to R2 beyond chance levels).
This research is not aimed at looking for a set of predictors that can explain the largest amount of variance in each
of the three dependent variables. The purpose of the paper is to test whether particular personality characteristics,
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of data, highly educated participants aged 25–45, Poland, 2016.
Source: Own calculations based on the data from the questionnaire survey carried out in Poland in November of 2016.
Variable Mean Median Mode Skewness Kurtosis SD Mini Maxi
Dependent variable
Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement 2.58 3 2 0.12 −0.85 1.06 1 5
Having a plan for retirement saving 2.62 2 2 0.27 −0.84 1.09 1 5
Independent variable
Extraversion 5.58 6 6 −1.08 0.75 1.29 1 7
Antagonism 3.42 3 2 0.21 −1.21 1.78 1 7
Conscientiousness 5.50 6 6 −1.00 0.77 1.25 1 7
Neuroticism 3.41 3 2 0.23 −1.19 1.78 1 7
Openness 5.42 6 6 −0.94 0.64 1.28 1 7
Introversion 3.07 2 2 0.51 −1.02 1.83 1 7
Agreeableness 5.60 6 6 −1.12 1.19 1.18 1 7
Undirectedness 2.83 2 1 0.63 0.88 1.77 1 7
Emotional stability 4.47 5 6 −0.46 −0.86 1.71 1 7
Not open to experience 4.58 5 6 −0.64 −0.38 1.59 1 7
Procrastination 3.30 3.5 4 −0.40 −0.47 0.99 1 5
Locus of control 2.99 3 2.67 1.03 1.66 0.50 1.33 4.83
Future 3.67 3.75 4 −0.58 0.99 0.52 1.37 5
Present-Hedonistic 2.51 2.5 1 0.24 −1.78 1.19 1 5
Present-Fatalistic 3.20 3.25 3 −0.19 −0.16 0.76 1 5
Pessimism 2.71 3 2 0.14 −1.18 1.25 1 5
Compulsive buying 2.97 3 4 −0.20 −0.78 1.01 1 5
Control variable
Individual income 3.24 3 3 0.27 −0.15 0.82 1 6
Level of savings 4.00 4 5 0.05 −0.66 1.56 1 7
Burden of loan repayment 3.09 3 4 −0.25 −0.65 0.93 1 5
Age 35 35 30 −0.01 −1.15 5.82 25 45
Description of variables in Table 1.

SD – standard deviation; Kurtosis as excess kurtosis.
Table 3
Percentage of participants who selected particular scores on seven-, five- and two-point scales measuring the variables of this study.
Variable N Percentage of participants who selected the score (%)
Scores
No = 0 Yes = 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dependent variable measured by a single item
Retirement saving 826 79.4 20.6 – – – – – – –
Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement 826 – – 17.7 30.8 29.5 19.7 2.3 – –
Having a plan for retirement saving 826 – – 15.1 36.8 22.9 21.5 3.6 – –
Independent variable measured by a single item
Extraversion 826 – – 0.4 3.0 4.6 11.9 14.0 42.6 23.5
Antagonism 826 – – 16.3 25.1 9.9 16.9 16.2 13.3 2.7
Conscientiousness 826 – – 0.4 2.8 4.6 11.4 20.2 40.9 19.7
Neuroticism 826 – – 16.3 24.6 11.4 16.0 15.4 13.6 2.8
Openness 826 – – 0.7 2.5 4.8 14.2 19.5 40.0 18.3
Introversion 826 – – 24.2 27.2 9.6 12.0 13.4 10.3 3.3
Agreeableness 826 – – 0.2 2.3 3.5 10.7 17.8 45.5 20.0
Undirectedness 826 – – 30.6 25.7 8.7 12.5 12.3 8.4 1.8
Emotional stability 826 – – 5.7 12.8 9.1 17.6 19.0 27.8 8.0
Not open to experience 826 – – 5.4 8.6 7.1 11.9 21.4 28.9 6.5
Pessimism 826 – – 20.8 28.1 17.6 26.6 6.9 – –
Two dependent variables: Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement and Having a plan for retirement saving as well as one
independent variable, Pessimism, are measured on a 5-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly
agree. The 10 facets of the Big Five are measured on a 7-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = rather disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 =
neutral; 5 = slightly agree; 6 = rather agree; 7 = strongly agree. N = number of participants.
behavioral constraints and time perspectives (the independent variables) are significant in explaining variance in a
particular dependent variable. The independent variables are correlated (see Table 4) and there are 17 of them. Considering
the purpose of the research, the intercorrelations among the independent variables, and the large number of them, a
relative weight analysis is applied.
Two types of regressions are used in the relative weight analysis. First, a logistic regression regresses the variable
Retirement saving (measured on a two-point scale, Yes = 1 or No = 0) on the independent variables presented in Table 1.
Fig. 1. Percentages of participants who selected each score — the independent variables are measured by the mean of the items. From left:
Procrastination; Future (Time preferences); Present-Hedonistic (Time preferences); Present-Fatalistic (Time preferences); Compulsive buying, Locus of control.
Notes: The definitions of the variables are in Table 1. All items are measured on a 5-point scale.
Fig. 2. Percentage of participants who selected each score — the control variables measured by the single item. From the left: Individual income
(after taxes); Level of savings; Burden of loan repayment. Notes: The definitions of the variables are in Table 1.
Second, a multiple regression regresses each of the two other dependent variables (Having a plan for retirement saving
and Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement, both measured on a five-point scale) on the
independent variables.
The regressions include five control variables (see their measures in Table 1): 1. Individual income, 2. Level of savings,
3. Burden of loan repayment, 4. Age and 5. Gender. The findings, presented in the literature review below in Section 3:
Theoretical and empirical motivation, show the significance of these variables in explaining retirement saving behavior.
Not all participants provided information on their incomes and savings and not all participants borrowed loans. Therefore,
the overall sample (826 participants) is divided into three subsamples to include Individual income, Level of savings and
Burden of loan repayment as controls in the regressions in the relative weight analysis. The subsample ‘‘Income’’ includes
647 participants who provided information on their incomes; the subsample ‘‘Savings level’’, covers 416 participants who
informed on their savings; the subsample ‘‘Loan’’ includes 294 participants who borrowed bank loans and could evaluate
the burden of their loan repayment.
In the research, there are four types of models used in the relative weight analysis: a baseline model Mbaseline , as well
as Modelincome , Modelsavings and Modelloans . The baseline model, Mbaseline , is estimated for each of the three dependent
variables (1. Retirement saving, 2. Having a plan for retirement saving, 3. Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying
level in retirement). It is the regression of a particular dependent variable on the 17 independent variables (the personality
Table 4
Pearson correlations between independent variables included in relative weight analysis.
M. Piotrowska / Economic Analysis and Policy 64 (2019) 194–220

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15 X16 X17
X1 1
X2 −.216*** 1
X3 .328*** −.199*** 1
X4 −.220*** .402*** −.210*** 1
X5 .375*** .333*** .480*** −.176*** 1
X6 −.228*** .517*** −.200*** .445*** −.267*** 1
X7 .363*** −.455*** .443*** −.314*** .611*** −.315*** 1
X8 −.173*** .447*** −.331*** .483*** −.279*** .475*** −.337*** 1
X9 .414*** −.373*** .448*** −.430*** .516*** −.317*** .624*** .315*** 1
X10 0.056 .094*** −.048 .084** −.024 .155*** .032 .156*** .195*** 1
X11 0.105*** .017 .077** .067 .147*** .041 .133*** .098*** .183*** .348*** 1
X12 −0.002 .220*** .011 .319*** −.025 .293*** −.088** .244*** −.068 .119*** .167*** 1
X13 .458*** −.211*** .349*** −.322*** .337*** −.195*** .422*** −.289*** .512*** .141** .098*** .045 1
X14 .423*** −.110*** .338*** −.138*** .308*** −.028 .332*** −.124*** .366*** .099*** .132*** .135*** .526*** 1
X15 −.419*** .167*** −.222*** .141*** −.356*** .163*** −.300*** .188*** −.311*** .034 −.077** .025 −.367*** −.399*** 1
X16 .473*** −.344*** .334*** −.184*** .434*** −.222*** .489*** −.213*** .430*** −.009 .061 .018 .482*** .392*** −.408*** 1
X17 .331*** −.091*** .309*** −.152*** .262*** −.004 .303*** −.123*** .374*** .146** .110** .169*** .565*** .453*** −.296*** .350*** 1
Independent variables: X1-Procrastinaton; X2-Extraversion; X3-Antagonism; X4- Conscientiousness; X5- Neuroticism; X6- Openness; X7-Introversion; X8- Agreeableness; X9-Undirectedness; X10-
Emotional stability; X11-Not open to experience; X12- Future; X13- Present-Hedonistic; X14-Present-Fatalistic; X15- Locus of control; X16- Pessimism; X17- Compulsive buying.
Measures of independent variables from Table 1.
**Denotes a correlation significantly different from zero at the 5% level; N = 826.
***Means a correlation significantly different from zero at the 1% level; N = 826.
203
traits and behavioral constraints) and two controls: Age and Gender. The baseline model, Mbaseline , is estimated for the
data from the overall sample (826 participants). Modelincome is the regression of a particular dependent variable on the
17 independent variables, two controls, Age and Gender, and, additionally, on one more control named Individual income.
Modelincome is estimated for the subsample ‘‘Income’’ (647 participants). Modelsavings is the regression of each of the two
dependent variables (Having a plan for retirement saving and Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in
retirement) on the 17 independent variables, two controls, Age and Gender, and, additionally, on the control named Level
of savings. Modelsavings is estimated for the subsample ‘‘Savings level’’ (416 participants). Modelloans is the regression of
each of the three dependent variables on the 17 predictors, two controls, Age and Gender, and, additionally, on the control
named Burden of loan repayment. Modelloans is estimated for the subsample ‘‘Loan’’ (294 participants) – see Tables 5, 7
and 8.
The second method used in this research is mediation analysis. The search for mediation effects is based on conditional
process analysis (Hayes, 2013a). Mediation analysis is used to quantify and examine the direct and indirect pathways
through which an antecedent variable X transmits its effect on a consequent variable Y through an intermediary M:
X→M→Y is a causal chain of events. Conceptual models for mediation analysis are presented in Fig. 3. This research
uses three models, model 4, 6 and 7, for the Hayes Process v.3.3 as described in Hayes (2013b). Fig. 3 presents the basic
model 4: X→M→Y. Model 6 has two or more mediators in the sequence: X→M1 →M2→ · · · →Mk→Y. Model 7 has one
mediator, like in model 4, and one moderator W which enhances or inhibits the relationship between X and M. Model 7
looks as follows:
Fig. 3. Statistical model 4 in the Hayes Process. Indirect effect of X on Y through M = ab. Direct effect of X on Y = c’.
Source: Hayes (2013b). Model Templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved on March 22, 2018, from http:
//www.personal.psu.edu/jxb14/M554/specreg/templates.pdf.
3. Theoretical and empirical motivation
This literature review presents the theoretical and empirical studies motivating the connections made in the models
that need to be explained. The review covers four groups of studies. The first one refers to the life cycle theory of consump-
tion, while the others show the relationships between retirement-saving behavior and personality characteristics (Big5
and pessimism), behavioral constraints (procrastination and compulsive buying), locus of control, and time perspective.
The life cycle theory of consumption, developed by Modigliani and Brumberg in the early 1950s noted that one of the
most important motives for putting money aside was the need to provide for retirement. Young people will save so that
when they are retired, they will have money to spend. Deaton (2005) stressed that one of the oldest challenges to the
life-cycle hypothesis is the question of whether the data really support the fact that people save when they are young
and run down their assets when they are old. Banks et al. (1998) showed that saving for retirement seems to start only
in middle-age and to be insufficient to prevent a sharp fall in consumption at retirement. The life cycle theory recognized
that the presence of children postpones saving for retirement, though this was given less attention than it deserved.
Deaton (2005) pointed out that the most fundamental challenge to the life-cycle model has been directed at its basic
underlying assumption, that people make rational, consistent, intertemporal plans, and act as if they are maximizing a
utility function. Behavioral economists have identified many anomalies and paradoxes over the years. They describe cases
in which people do not act (optimally) in their own interests.
The literature, which focuses on the relevance of personality traits for household finance, shows that some personality
characteristics have already been identified as important determinants of aspects of individual and household finances.
Brown and Taylor (2011) found that personality traits such as extraversion and openness to experience exert relatively
large influences on household finances in terms of the levels of assets and debt held. In contrast, personality traits
such as conscientiousness and neuroticism appear to be unimportant in influencing the levels of unsecured debt and
financial assets. With respect to types of debt and assets held, the results of their empirical analysis suggest that openness
to experience does not appear to influence the probability of having national savings but is found to increase the
probability of holding stocks and shares, a relatively risky type of financial asset. Duckworth and Weir (2011) show that
conscientiousness is associated with more retirement saving, while agreeableness is associated with less. Schäfer (2016),
using the data for Germany (SOEP), found that personality traits only seem to influence retirement savings if the individual
has scores further away from the average of the specific trait.
There is a considerable lack of studies that would examine the relationship between retirement saving behavior and
personality traits. This study is aimed to contribute to filling this gap.
Research on the relationship between pessimism and saving behavior is rare. Guariglia (2001) uses the British
Household Panel Survey (BHPS) to ascertain whether households save in order to self-insure against uncertainty. The
findings support a statistically significant relationship between earnings variability and household saving, with households
saving more if they are pessimistic about their future financial situation.
Pessimists can be discouraged to save and to plan for retirement because of their low expectations of survival. Heimer
et al. (2015), based on their life-cycle model with subjective mortality beliefs, find that pessimism about survival to
older age, combined with optimism at old age can explain both under-saving for retirement and slow decumulation of
wealth after retirement. Empirical evidence confirms that pessimism is associated with high mortality (Maruta et al.,
2000; Brandon et al., 2009). Kalemli-Ozcan and Weil (2010) point out that in an environment with high mortality rates,
a pessimist who saved up for retirement would face a high risk of dying before he or she could enjoy his/her planned
leisure.
Pessimism can have the positive indirect effect on retirement saving behavior if it is associated with individualism
defined by Palante (1914) as a psychological and moral attitude, a form of sensibility, a personal sensation of life and
a personal will to life. Palante (1914) emphasizes that individualism is or tends to be anti-social: if it is not so from
the start, it later and inevitably becomes so. Sentiment of the profound uniqueness of the ego, desire for originality and
independence, individualism cannot help but provoke the sentiment of a silent struggle between the individual self and
society. In this spirit Bengtson et al. (2003, p.183) construct the items measuring individualism/collectivism. These items
are used in this research. One of them refers to financial comfort (enough to have the things you really want in life).
Pessimism can also have a positive and indirect influence on retirement saving behavior if it takes the form of defensive
pessimism. Studies in both academic and social domains outline an anticipatory strategy called ‘‘defensive pessimism’’,
in which a negative outlook is associated with good outcomes (Norem and Cantor, 1986a,b). Although the thought of
negative outcomes may arouse anxiety, it may also move defensive pessimists into action. Their fears may motivate them
to exert extra effort and think about and plan for the upcoming event (Showers and Ruben, 1990). Due to a deficit of
studies about the indirect effects of pessimism on retirement saving behavior, this research intends to fill this gap.
Considering the influence of behavioral constraints, there is very little empirical research to confirm or refute the idea
that procrastination has a meaningful effect on financial security in retirement. In household finance, researchers have
suggested procrastination as one of several possible explanations for why default options (such as auto-enrollment into
401(k) plans) have such a powerful effect on behavior (Beshears et al., 2009). Brown and Previtero (2016) show that
procrastinators take longer to sign up for 401(k) plans, contribute less, are more likely to stick with default portfolio
allocations, and are more likely to choose a lump sum over an annuity as a payout option, especially when the lump sum
is more salient.
There is almost no literature linking locus of control to savings behavior. One study that directly investigates the
relationship between perceptions of control and savings behavior is research developed by Chatterjee et al. (2011). They
find that, among primary earners in their 30 s and 40 s, higher self-efficacy (locus of control) is related to greater wealth
creation and a higher propensity to hold financial assets. Cobb-Clark et al. (2016) expand on the work of Chatterjee et al.
(2011) and show that households with an internal reference person save more both in terms of levels and as a percentage
of their permanent incomes. Households with an internal reference person and average net worth hold significantly less
financial wealth, but significantly more pension wealth, than otherwise similar households with an external reference
person.
Research testing the link between compulsive buying and retirement saving is rare or non-existing. There is very little
empirical research on the economic consequences of compulsive buying. Unger et al. (2018) give saving money as an
example of long-term goals when they cite the opinion of Hoch and Loewenstein (1991) that buying is an imminent
battle between conflicting long-term goals and short-term goals. Achtziger et al. (2015) shows that compulsive buying
leads to debt out of control. There are some studies on compulsive buying and money attitudes (Hanley and Wilhelm,
1992; Roberts and Jones, 2001; Yurchisin and Johnson, 2004; Watson, 2009; Benson-Townsend and Silver, 2015). Benson-
Townsend and Silver (2015), uses a money attitudes measure named the Klontz Money Script Inventory (Klontz, 2012).
This measure consists of money avoidance, money worship, money status, and money vigilance. Benson-Townsend and
Silver (2015, p. 3) summarizing the findings of Klontz (2012), Klontz et al. (2011) conclude that ‘‘Money avoiders associate
money with negative feelings such as fear, disgust, or anxiety. Money worshippers, in contrast, associate money with
extremely positive feelings including a better life, and viable solutions to their dilemmas. Individuals who associate money
with status are very materialistic and use their wealth to impress others and demonstrate dominance. Finally, for money
vigilance, money must be saved, while finances are kept secret from the knowledge of others’’. Benson-Townsend and
Silver (2015), in their research, found that compulsive buying was positively related only to money worship and money
status.
There are two literature surveys on the associations between compulsive buying and temperament/personality traits
published before 2010 (Claes and Müller, 2010) and between 2010 and 2016 (Claes and Müller, 2017). The first survey
shows that compulsive buying is driven by neuroticism (anxiety, negative affectivity) and the absence of self-regulation,
effortful control or conscientiousness. The second one adds to these causes a high level of emotional instability and
negative urgency (prevention focus) as well as perseverance and premeditation. Roberts et al. (2014) focus on low
self-esteem as an important cause of compulsive buying, while Dittmar (2005) on materialism.
Horváth and Adıgüzel (2018), investigating how much different hedonistic motivations for shopping contribute to
compulsive buying, found that gratification seeking, idea shopping and role-play are the key hedonic motivators in
developed countries (Netherlands and Germany), while adventure-seeking is the main motivation in emerging markets
(Turkey and Russia). Unger et al. (2018) investigate compulsive buying from a time perspective. Considering three cultural
settings (German, Ukrainian, and a Chinese student-sample) they found that a high Past-Negative, a high Present-Fatalistic,
and a high Present-Hedonistic Perspective fosters compulsive buying tendencies.
Zimbardo and Boyd (2008) predicted numerous associations between time perspectives and financial behaviors, such
as saving and spending money; however, there has not been much research in this area. The role of time perspective in
financial choices is severely understudied. Studies conducted by Maison and Sekścińska (2014), and Sekścińska (2014)
show that there is an important role for time perspectives in explaining people’s saving and investing preferences. The
link between the propensity to take risk and time perspectives has been confirmed in numerous studies (Henson et al.,
2006; Keough et al., 1999; Zimbardo et al., 1997). Overall, research in this area reveals that more future-oriented and
less present-oriented individuals display fewer risky behaviors. There has been very little research conducted to test the
association between present-fatalistic time perspective and household financial behavior. Rodermund (2012) found that
individuals with this time perspective appeared to be less likely to save money. The results confirmed the premise that
such individuals are anchored in the present, and thus would have no real need or desire to save money for the future.
The literature findings show that the controls included in this research, i.e. age, gender, income, burden of bank loans
and level of savings, can have an important influence on retirement saving behavior. The life cycle theory of consumption
as well empirical evidence on retirement planning indicate that age is a significant predictor of saving tendencies (Bassett
et al., 1988; Grable and Lytton, 1997; Stawski et al., 2007; Hira et al., 2009; Moorthy et al., 2012).
In 2010 the European Commission researched the intra-household sharing of resources. In the summary of the findings
(EU-SILC 2010 Module on intra-household sharing of resources, 2012, p.41) some gender differences are shown. In many
countries both men and women consider themselves to be the main decision-maker in the couple. Women tend to be the
main decision-maker over everyday shopping in all countries but especially in the Czech Republic, Malta, Slovakia, Poland,
and the UK. Low-income couples are less likely than higher-income ones to share decision-making over the use of savings,
borrowing money or purchasing expensive consumer durables. Differences in the income of partners appear to have less
of an influence over decision-making arrangements than the level of income as such. Couples with higher education are
more likely to adopt shared decision-making than those with a lower level. Regarding gender differences, the literature
findings show that women are disproportionately affected by compulsive buying and the percentage ranges from 70% to
90% (Hanley and Wilhelm, 1992; Black et al., 1998). Compulsive buying is one of the behavioral constraints considered
in this research and, therefore, gender influence on the relationship between compulsive buying and retirement saving
is worth investigating. There is one more field in which gender can have a significant effect. Gender can influence the
relationship between personality and retirement saving decisions. Kesavayuth et al. (2016), for example, using British
data, found that certain personality characteristics affect the well− being of female retirees, while for males personality
does not matter in how they cope with retirement. Duckworth and Weir (2011) show that wife’s conscientiousness is a
much more significant influence on couple wealth than any other characteristic of the wife except her education.
The literature points out that income is significantly related to retirement planning behavior (Hira et al., 2009; Lai
et al., 2009; Stawski et al., 2007; Moorthy et al., 2012).
Considering this research, the results from the field experiment carried out by Goda et al. (2013) are interesting. The
field experiment was conducted with employees of the University of Minnesota. Compared to the national population,
these workers were more highly educated and they can contribute to a tax-deferred Voluntary Retirement Plan (VRP).
The experiment tested the effect of providing employees with age-specific projections of the additional retirement income
they could get if they were to make additional contributions to a VRP. One of the participant groups, the so-called income
group, received the ‘‘income treatment’’ brochure with information on age-specific projections of how the additional
contributions would increase retirement income. To measure the effect on saving, the project used two main outcome
measures: (1) whether an employee made any change in his VRP contribution within six months of receiving the brochure;
and (2) the change in the amount of contributions for all employees. The results showed that the ‘‘income treatment’’ had
a statistically significant effect on the likelihood that workers would change their contributions and on the amount of
their contributions. Compared to the control group, the income group reported less difficulty finding information about
how much to save for retirement and being better informed about retirement planning than they were six months prior.
They also reported being more certain about their expected retirement income and more satisfied with their financial
condition. The findings also showed that the effect of the income treatment on retirement saving was significantly reduced
by a difficulty in paying bills, a strong preference for living ‘‘pretty much for today’’, and a tendency to procrastinate.
Burden of loan repayment is included in the studies on retirement planning as one of three items measuring the
potential conflicts in retirement planning (The cost of financial loan obligations, Greninger et al. (2000)). Moorthy et al.
(2012) found that the potential conflict was negatively related to retirement planning behavior. The field experiment
carried out by Goda et al. (2013), mentioned above, revealed that a difficulty in paying bills reduces the effect of income
on retirement saving.
Lusardi (2003, p.19) noted that in 2001 Retirement Confidence Survey, which collected information on American
workers’ retirement planning and saving, the relationship between retirement planning and the amount of savings was
found. Ameriks et al. (2003) showed that people who planned accumulated more wealth. This research tests whether a
higher level of savings encourages people to plan (to estimate the money needed) for retirement and whether the level
of savings, used as a control in the regression, inhibits the effects of psychological constructs on planning for retirement.
This literature review shows that there is a limited number of empirical studies that offer findings on the influences
of personality traits and behavioral constraints and time perspective on retirement saving behaviors, and there is room
and need for such research. New findings may be used to help overcome biases and develop simple, sometimes low-cost,
and effective investor education and financial literacy initiatives, as a report prepared by the International Organization of
Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development International Network
on Financial Education (IOSCO and OECD, 2018), suggests.
4. Results and discussion
The relative weights presented in Tables 5, 7 and 8 show the importance of the independent variables in explaining
three retirement saving actions: (1) Retirement saving (Table 5); (2) Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level
in retirement (Table 7); and (3) Having a plan for retirement saving (Table 8). The relative weights reflect the direct effects
of the independent variables. Each of the saving actions is explained by Modelbaseline , Modelincome , and Modelloans and the
last two actions, additionally, by Modelsavings .
The R2 values are low for all models but this research aims to examine the contribution of each independent variable
to explaining variance in each criterion relative to other independent variables. Hence, these low R2 values do not prevent
us from evaluating the importance of each independent variable in explaining the dependent variable in comparison to
other independent variables. The low R2 values simply mean that the independent variables considered in this research
(e.g. personal traits, behavioral constraints and time preferences) do not exhaust the list of possible predictors. The
literature suggests other predictors, for example, goal clarity, potential conflict in retirement planning, and attitude toward
retirement (Hira et al., 2009; Lai et al., 2009; Stawski et al., 2007; Moorthy et al., 2012) as well as experiences of old
parents and older siblings (Lusardi, 2003), which are not of interest in this study. Therefore, the predictive power of the
regression models used in the relative weight analysis is low. However, this research is not focused on maximizing the
predictive power of the regression models. The models are used to examine the contribution of personality characteristics,
behavioral constraints, and time perspectives to explaining variance in a particular dependent variable (each of the three
saving actions) relative to other independent variables. It is therefore crucial to know whether the relative weight of the
independent variable maintains its statistical significance when controls are included and if the models are estimated for
samples that do not include the same participants. The statistical significance of relative importance weights is evaluated
using the bootstrapping procedure developed by Tonidandel et al. (2009).
The results of the relative weights analysis (see Table 5) confirm the idea that procrastination has a meaningful effect
on financial security in retirement. The findings show that Procrastination has a direct, negative effect on Retirement saving.
The relative weights for Procrastination are statistically significant in all three models describing Retirement saving even
when Individual income and Burden of loan repayment are included as controls.
As expected, Individual income has a positive impact on Retirement saving (see Model1income in Table 5), but if Individual
income is included in Model1income there is almost no change in the relative weight value for Procrastination (0.217∗∗∗ and
0.205∗∗∗ in Model1baseline and Model1income respectively). This suggests that the procrastination problem makes saving for
retirement difficult regardless of income. Procrastination is a behavioral constraint that influences the saving decisions
made by people with different levels of income. Higher income is associated with lower procrastination only to a minor
extent (Pearson correlation is equal to −0.115∗∗∗ ).
The impact of Burden of loan repayment on Retirement saving is negative, as expected (see Model1loan in Table 5). If this
control is included in Model1loan the relative weight value for Procrastination decreases (from 0.217∗∗∗ in Model1baseline to
0.176∗∗ in Model1loan ). This finding suggests that people who have to repay their loans, and must therefore make certain
decisions in limited time, experience the procrastination problem to a lesser extent. Nevertheless, procrastination is still
an important obstacle for their saving for retirement.
Apart from the relative weight analysis, mediation models are used to find the direct effects (which should confirm
the results of the relative weight analysis) and indirect effects of the independent variables through mediators.
By applying mediation models this research can better explain Steel’s suggestion that conscientiousness, locus of
control, and compulsive buying are predictors of procrastination, with conscientiousness having the strongest effect (Steel,
2007, p.1). Procrastination appears to be a mediator through which almost all facets of personality influence retirement
saving. All indirect effects of personality facets on Retirement saving, except Emotional stability, are statistically significant,
while their direct effects are insignificant (see Table 6).
The results from the mediation analysis point to procrastination as a mediator in the relationship between the
personality facets and retirement saving. Undirectedness, Neuroticism, Antagonism, and Introversion make the Procrasti-
nation’s influence on Retirement saving stronger. Their negative indirect effects (−0.1224; −0.1069; −0.1008; −0.0946,
respectively — see Table 6) show that these facets of personality make retirement saving more difficult because they
escalate procrastination. Undirectedness has the strongest negative indirect effect (−0.1224), which means that it is the
most important obstacle among all personality traits.
Table 5
Relative weights of independent variables and controls in models for Retirement saving, highly educated participants aged 25–45,
Poland, 2016.
Dependent variable → Retirement saving (scale yes = 1, no = 0)
Model1baseline Model 1income Model 1loans
Independent variable ↓ Overall sample N = 826 Subsample ‘‘Income’’ N = 647 Subsample ‘‘Loans’’ N = 294
Rescaled relative weight
Extraversion .007 .017 .013
Antagonism .008 .007 .012
Conscientiousness .040 .046 .070
Neuroticism .018 .029 .016
Openness .006 .006 .026
Introversion 0.41 .043 .028
Agreeableness .021 .018 .047
Undirectedness .014 .013 .015
Emotional stability .006 .007 .010
Not open to experience .009 .002 .006
Procrastination .217*** (−) .205*** (−) .176** (−)
Locus of control .041 .022 .013
Future .032 .032 .007
Present-Hedonistic .052 .033 .016
Present-Fatalistic .016 .012 .010
Pessimism .043 .025 .032
Compulsive buying .108*** (+) .064 .148** (+)
Control variable ↓
Age .319*** (+) .224*** (+) .194** (+)
Gender .002 .004 .003
Individual income – .192*** (+) –
Burden of loan repayment – – .159** (−)
Rsq.O .137 .175 .193
Logistic regressions estimated on the data from the survey carried out in Poland in November of 2016. Application of relative
weight analysis to logistic regression in Tonidandel and LeBreton (2010). ‘‘–’’ means that a given control (Individual income, Level of
savings, Burden of loan repayment) is not included in the regression. (−) means the negative impact of a given independent variable
on Retirement saving, while (+) means the positive impact of a given independent variable on Retirement saving. The number of
bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals is equal to 5000. Rsq.O - logistic analog to Rsq.
**Denotes a relative weight significantly different from zero at the 5% level.
***Means a relative weight significantly different from zero at the 1% level.
Table 6
Direct and indirect effects of independent variables on Retirement saving, Procrastination as a mediator, highly educated participants aged 25–45,
Poland, 2016.
Independent variable Effects of an independent variable
Direct effect of an Indirect effect of an independent variable on R-squared
independent variable on Retirement saving through Procrastination
Retirement saving (Procrastination is a mediator)
Extraversion Insignificant .0883** .0468***
Antagonism Insignificant −.1008** .1076***
Conscientiousness Insignificant .0849** .0484***
Neuroticism Insignificant −.1069** .1410***
Openness Insignificant .0923** .0520***
Introversion Insignificant −.0946** .1317***
Agreeableness Insignificant .0729** .0300***
Undirectedness Insignificant −.1224** .1710***
Emotional stability Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant
Not open to experience Insignificant −.0351** .0111***
Locus of control Insignificant .3944** .1755***
Future Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant
Present-Hedonistic Insignificant −.1876** .2098***
Present-Fatalistic Insignificant −.3044** .1793***
Pessimism Insignificant −.1802** .2235***
Compulsive buying .3401** −.2101** .1098***
Results of Hayes’ conditional process analysis.

**Denotes the effect significantly different from zero at the 5% level.
***Means a R-squared significantly different from zero at the 1% level.
Openness, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness undermine the influence of Procrastination. Their indirect
effects on Retirement saving are positive (0.0946; 0.0883; 0.0849; 0.0729, respectively — see Table 6). These traits, espe-
cially openness, help in retirement saving. With regard to the findings of Duckworth and Weir (2011) that agreeableness
is associated with less retirement saving, this analysis finds more precisely that, although agreeableness does contribute
indirectly to retirement saving, its indirect effect (0.0729) is the weakest compared to the positive indirect effects of other
personality facets (see Table 6).
Considering Locus of control, its direct effect is insignificant in the mediation analysis (its relative weight is also
insignificant — see Table 5), while its indirect influence through Procrastination occurred to be strong. Procrastination
is a mediator in the relationship between Locus of control and Retirement saving (see Table 6). Internal locus of control
erodes the procrastination effect. The indirect effect of Locus of control (0.3944, see Table 6) is the strongest compared to
the indirect effects of other variables considered in Table 6.
Procrastination is also a mediator in the relationships between present orientation (both Present-Hedonistic and Present-
Fatalistic) and Retirement saving (see Table 6). Present orientation increases the procrastination effect and indirectly
reduces retirement saving, especially if the Present-Fatalistic influence is strong. The findings confirm the results of Jackson
et al. (2003) that procrastination is predicted by high levels of fatalism, rather than hedonism.
Procrastination mediates the influence of Pessimism on Retirement saving (see Table 6). Only this indirect effect of
Pessimism is statistically significant, while the direct effect of Pessimism is insignificant both in the relative weight analysis
(Table 5) and in the mediation analysis (Table 6).
The results of the mediation analysis for the overall sample of the participants confirm that Procrastination is a
mediator through which Compulsive buying influences Retirement saving indirectly (indirect effect = −0.2101) by fostering
Procrastination (see Table 6). Compulsive buyers tend to delay making tough decisions.
To test for gender differences in the indirect effects of a particular psychological trait, behavioral constraint, or time
perspective on the retirement saving decision, model 7 was used with Gender as the moderator. However, no gender
differences were found. For each causal chain of events (with Gender as the moderator) the index of moderated mediation
was statistically insignificant.
Returning to compulsive buying, both the mediation analysis (Table 6, Procrastination as a mediator, direct effect of
Compulsive buying = 0.3401) as well as the relative weight analysis (Table 5) reveal a positive direct effect of Compulsive
buying on Retirement saving (the relative weights of Compulsive buying are equal to 0.108∗∗∗ in Model1baseline and 0.148∗∗
in Model1loans in Table 5 ). The influence of compulsive buying is not self-explanatory. The positive direct effect indicates
that people who buy compulsively save for retirement more often. What are the mechanisms through which compulsive
buying has a positive influence on retirement saving decisions? Do these mechanisms foster or inhibit this influence? The
mediation analysis will test several causal chains of events to find answers to these questions.
To begin with, the literature findings indicate that compulsive buyers buy mostly luxury goods to enhance their
status (Benson-Townsend and Silver, 2015). For many people, money is a status symbol. Status consumption has been
described as a ‘‘form of power that consists of respect, consideration, and envy from others and represents the goals of
a culture’’ (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton, 1981, p.39). Consumers demonstrate their social power by displaying
their material wealth because wealth is the best indicator of modern society (Bell, 1998). Does this attitude to money
explain the positive influence of compulsive buying on retirement saving? By testing the following causal chain of events
we can find the answer to this question:
↑Compulsiv e buying →↑Status consumption→↑Material status→↑Retirement sav ing
where: Status consumption is measured on a 5-point Likert scale by two items adapted from Eastman et al. (1999): (1) I
would buy a product just because it has status; (2) I would pay more for a product if it has status; (Cronbach’s α = 0.663);
Material status is measured by the item: Please, evaluate your material situation in comparison to the others who live in the
same area on a scale from 1 = your material situation is strongly worse to 5 = your material situation is strongly better.
Model 6 in the Hayes Process shows that the indirect effect of Compulsive buying on Retirement saving through two
mediators Status consumption and Material status in sequence is equal to 0.0262 and is statistically significant (bootLLCI
= 0.0085 and bootUCCI = 0.0503). These two mediators play an important role because the direct effect of Compulsive
buying on Retirement saving is still positive (0.1614) but statistically insignificant (LLCI = −0.0393 and ULCI = 0.3622).
The positive indirect effect suggests that compulsive buyers for whom money is a status symbol decide to save for
retirement because retirement savings in any form different than obligatory pension contributions enhance their social
status. Therefore, compulsive buyers, who associate money with status, decide to save for retirement.
However, there can be another mechanism which inhibits the positive influence of Compulsive buying on Retirement
saving. It can be linked to a feeling of guilt after spending money on oneself. The feeling of guilt fosters a lack of self-respect.
A considerable deficit of self-respect may discourage saving for retirement. This mechanism may be more characteristic
of women than men. According to Pahl (1990), leisure spending in marriage is often considered as an entitled indulgence
for males and an unessential indulgence for females. Thus women may feel more guilty when making purchases for
themselves because they must buy goods for both the home and their children (Benson-Townsend and Silver, 2015).
The moderated mediation analysis applied to the following causal chain of events confirms the mechanism based on
the Lack of self-respect as a mediator and Gender as a moderator (model 7 in the mediation analysis):
↑Compulsiv e buying →↑Lack of self − respect →↓Retirement sav ing

↑
Gender
where: Lack of self-respect is measured on a 5-point Likert scale by the item: I feel I do not have much to be proud of
(adapted from Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale, Rosenberg (1965)); Gender (F = 1; M = 2)
The conditional effects of the focal predictor (Compulsive buying) at values of the moderator (Gender) are positive and
statistically significant: 0.6185 (LLCI = 0.5504, ULCI = 0.7165) for women and 0.4027 (LLCI = 0.2881; ULCI = 0.5174) for
men, respectively. The indirect effects: Compulsive buying → Lack of self-respect → Retirement saving are negative and
statistically significant, and the indirect effect is stronger for women than men: −0.2726, (BootLLCI = −.03935; BootULCI
= −.01646) for women, and −0.1775 (BootLLCI = −0.2778, BootULCI = −0.0976) for men, respectively. Finally, the index
of moderated mediation (the difference between conditional indirect effects) is statistically significant: index = 0.0951,
BootLLCI = 0.0232; BootUlCI = 0.1783).
The moderated mediation analysis shows that Compulsive buying fosters the Lack of self-respect considerably stronger
in women than in men. This result is in accordance with the literature, which indicates that women feel more guilty when
making purchases for themselves than men (Benson-Townsend and Silver, 2015), As a consequence, the mechanism in
which a lack of self-respect is produced by feelings of guilt discourages women from saving for retirement more often
than it does men.
There may be another reason for the significant importance of Compulsive buying in the regression of Retirement saving
(Model1baseline in Table 5). Compulsive buying may be a mediator through which some psychological constructs influence
Retirement saving. In this context, personality traits and time perspectives will be considered.
First, compulsive buying may be a mediator through which personality traits (the Big Five) influence retirement saving.
A review of literature on the relationship between the Big Five and compulsive buying shows that Compulsive buying is
positively related to Neuroticism (all reviewed studies, Claes and Müller, 2017, Table 1) and negatively to Conscientiousness
and Agreeableness (only two studies carried out in Pakistan report positive correlations with Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness, Shahjehan et al., 2012; Cheema et al., 2014). Based on the literature findings, the following causal chains
of events are tested (model 4 in the mediation analysis):
↑Neuroticism →↑Compulsiv e buying →↑Retirement sav ing
The direct effect of Neuroticism on Retirement saving is negative and statistically significant (direct effect = −0.1705; LLCI
= −0.2723, ULCI = −0.0687), while the indirect effect through Compulsive buying is positive (indirect effect = 0.0279;
BootLLCI = 0.0034, BootULLCI = 0.0566).
Considering the equivocal findings in the literature regarding the sign of the correlation coefficient between Consci-
entiousness and Compulsive buying (Claes and Müller, 2017, Table 1), the effects of Conscientiousness are tested in the
mediation analysis (model 4):
↑Conscientiousness →↓Compulsiv e buying →↓Retirement sav ing
The direct effect of Conscientiousness on Retirement saving is positive and statistically significant (direct effect = 0.2852;
LLCI = 0.1288, ULCI = 4417), while the indirect effect through Compulsive buying is negative (indirect effect = −0.0197;
BootLLCI = −0.0466, BootULLCI = −0.0007). These results confirm the negative influence of Conscientiousness on
Compulsive buying.
However, the opposite signs of the direct and indirect effects (in model 4 in the mediation analysis mentioned above)
in these two causal chains of events demand careful consideration. This can be explained by two mechanisms through
which compulsive buying influences retirement saving. In one mechanism money is viewed as a status symbol while the
other mechanism produces a lack of self-respect. The involvement of these two mechanisms can be evaluated by the
findings from model 6 (two mediators in sequence) in the mediation analysis.
The negative direct effect of Neuroticism on Retirement saving (−0.1705 in model 4) can be explained by the mechanism
that fosters a lack of self-respect. The following causal chain of events confirms the involvement of this mechanism
(indirect effect = −0.0266; BootLLCI = −0.0424, BootULCI = −0.0111; model 6):
↑Neuroticism →↑ Compulsiv e buying →↑ Lack of self − respect →↓ Retirement sav ing
The positive indirect effect of Neuroticism on Retirement saving (0.027 in model 4) indicates the use of the mechanism in
which money is viewed as a status symbol:
↑Neuroticism →↑ Compulsiv e buying →↑ Status consumption →↑ Material status →↑ Retirement sav ing
(indirect effect = 0.0038; BootLLCI = 0.0011, BootULCI = 0.0074, model 6).
The mediation analysis (model 6 below) also confirms that the positive direct effect of Conscientiousness on Retirement
saving (0.2852 in model 4) can be explained by the Lack of self-respect:
↑Conscientiousness →↓ Compulsiv e buying →↓ Lack of self − respect →↑ Retirement
sav ing (indirect effect = 0.0348; BootLLCI = 0.0118, BootULCI = 0.0436, model6)
while the negative indirect effect of Conscientiousness on Retirement saving (−0.0197 in model 4) is associated with
viewing money as a status symbol:
↑Conscientiousness →↓ Compulsiv e buying →↓ Status consumption →↓ Material

status →↓ Retirement sav ing (indirect effect = −0.0031; BootLLCI = −.0066, BootULCI = −
0.0009, model6)
Considering Agreeableness, no statistically significant indirect effects of this personality trait on Retirement saving through
Compulsive buying were found.
The direct and indirect effects of Present-Hedonistic and Present-Fatalistic time perspectives on Retirement saving are
tested using mediation analysis (model 4 in the first step and model 6 with mediators in sequence in the second step).
The results from model 4 in the mediation analysis are as follows:
↑Present − Hedonistic (Present − Fatalistic) → ↑Compulsiv ebuying →↑Retirementsav ing

The direct effects of Present-Hedonistic as well as Present-Fatalistic on Retirement saving are negative and statistically
significant (for Present-Hedonistic, direct effect = −0.4616; LLCI = −0.6411, ULCI = −0.2820, and for Present-Fatalistic,
direct effect = −0.3977; LLCI = −0.6503, ULCI = −0.1451), while the indirect effects of both time perspectives through
Compulsive buying are positive (for Present-Hedonistic indirect effect = 0.1958; BootLLCI = 0.0989, BootULLCI = 0.3035,
and for Present-Fatalistic the indirect effect = 0.1494; BootLLCI = 0.0375, BootULLCI = 0.2777). The positive indirect
effects from model 4 confirm that both time perspectives foster compulsive buying tendencies, as found by Unger et al.
(2018).
To explain the opposite signs of direct and indirect effects in model 4 (in the mediation analysis mentioned above)
model 6 is used in the mediation analysis (mediators in sequence) to test the following causal chains of events, which
include the two aforementioned mechanisms, one involving money as a status symbol and the other fostering a lack of
self-respect.
The negative direct effects of both time perspectives on retirement saving in model 4 (−0.4616 for Hedonism and
−0.3977 for Fatalism) are associated with the mechanism that fosters a lack of self-respect (model 6):
↑Hedonism/Fatalism →↑ Compulsiv e buying →↑ Lack of self − respect →↓ Retirement sav ing
These two aforementioned causal chains of events (model 6) produce statistically significant negative indirect effects
(indirect effect = −0.0352; BootLLCI = −0.0637, BootULCI = −0.0141 for Hedonism, whereas for Fatalism indirect effect
= −0.0878; BootLLCI = −0.1389, BootULCI = −0.0465), which explains why both time perspectives have a negative
influence on retirement saving when compulsive buying fosters a lack of self-respect.
The positive indirect effects of both time perspectives on retirement saving through compulsive buying in model 4 are
associated with the mechanism in which money is viewed as a status symbol:
↑Hedonism/Fatalism →↑ Compulsiv e buying →↑ Status consumption →↑ Material status →↑ Retirement sav ing
These causal chains of events produce statistically significant positive indirect effects (indirect effect = 0.107; BootLLCI
= 0.0039, BootULCI = 0.0206 for Hedonism, whereas for Fatalism indirect effect = 0.0134; BootLLCI = 0.0042, BootULCI
= 0.0262), which explains why both time perspectives have a positive influence on retirement saving when compulsive
buying is associated with money as a status symbol.
The results of the mediation analysis show that Compulsive buying is the mediator in the relationships between
personality traits, such as Neuroticism and Conscientiousness, and Retirement saving, as well as in the relationships between
two time perspectives, Present-Hedonistic and Present-Fatalistic, and Retirement saving. These findings also confirm that
there are two mechanisms through which compulsive buying influences retirement saving, one in which money is
considered a status symbol, and another one in which the feeling of guilt fosters a lack of self-respect.
Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement is influenced directly by two facets of personality:
Antagonism and Undirectedness (see Table 7).
Antagonism is defined as being critical and quarrelsome (see Table 1). The opposite to Antagonism is Agreeableness. The
relative weight of Antagonism is statistically significant in all four models (Table 5). The relative weight value for this
personality facet is almost the same in Model 2baseline and Model 2loans and higher but less significant in Model 2savings ,
(15,62∗∗∗ ; 15.96∗∗∗ , 22.99∗∗ , respectively — see Table 5).
The mediation analysis (model 4) reveals two mechanisms through which Antagonism influences Estimating the money
needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement – one mechanism is based on Individualism/Collectivism and the other one
on Compulsive buying.
To begin with, individuals who are more critical and quarrelsome are more oriented towards individualism (Pearson
correlation between Antagonism and Individualism/Collectivism = 0.265∗∗∗ ). Individualists appreciate financial comfort in
their life (see Bengtson et al., 2003, p.183, Values in life) and therefore decide to estimate the money they need to live at
a satisfying level in retirement more often than do people oriented towards collectivism.
Table 7
Relative weights of independent variables and controls in models for Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement, highly
educated participants aged 25–45, Poland, 2016.
Dependent variable → Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement
(scale: 1 = strongly disagree. . . 5 = strongly agree)
Model 2baseline Model 2income Model 2savings Model 2loans
Independent variable ↓ Overall sample Subsample ‘‘Income’’ Subsample ‘‘Savings level’’ Subsample ‘‘Loans’’
N = 826 N = 647 N = 416 N = 294
Rescaled relative weight
Extraversion 3.47 5.92 .82 1.39
Antagonism 15.62*** (+) 16.97*** (+) 22.99** (+) 15.96** (+)
Conscientiousness 1.79 1.26 1.38 .92
Neuroticism 8.17 3.97 5.77 5.19
Openness 2.38 1.49 2.04 3.30
Introversion 6.04 5.25 4.32 6.90
Agreeableness 4.47 3.51 5.65 3.54
Undirectedness 13.11*** (+) 12.90*** (+) 5.28 10.98
Emotional stability 2.59 1.91 5.00 1.40
Not open to experience .78 1.05 .54 1.53
Procrastination 1.66 2.09 2.79 1.18
Locus of control 7.09 2.48 12.65 6.54
Future 4.79 8.36** 2.89 1.94
Present-Hedonistic 2.62 2.71 1.34 2.24
Present-Fatalistic 3.88 5.46 7.54 2.08
Pessimism 4.65 2.22 3.89 8.09
Compulsive buying 5.70 5.37 3.95 6.75
Age 11.09 7.95 8.42 13.03
Gender .10 0.15 .27 0.13
Individual income – 8.977*** (+) – –
Level of savings – – 2.46 –
Burden of loan repayment – – – 7.91
R-squared .16 .18 .21 0.20
Multiple regressions estimated on the data from the survey carried out in Poland in November of 2016. Rescaled weights (scaled as a percentage of
predictable variance) for every independent variable in the model was developed by LeBreton and Tonidandel (2008). ‘‘–’’ means that a given control
(Individual income, Level of savings, Burden of loan repayment) is not included in the regression. (−) means the negative impact of a given independent
variable on Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement, while (+) means the positive impact of a given independent variable
on Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement. The number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals
is equal to 5000; Rsq – R-squared.
The results from the mediation analysis (model 4) confirm the following causal chain of events:
↑Antagonism →↑ Indiv idualism/Collectiv ism →↑ Estimating the money needed to liv e at a satisfying lev el in retirement
where: Individualism/Collectivism is measured on a 5-point Likert scale by five items (adapted from Bengtson et al., 2003,
p.183, Values in life) - Something that I value in life is 1) financial comfort (enough to have the things I really want in life);
(2) respect and recognition from other people (reverse-scored); (3) friendship (reverse-scored); (4) family life (reverse-scored);
(5) adventures, new challenges, long journeys; 5 = Individualism and 1 = Collectivism; Cronbach’s α = 0.746.
The direct effect of Antagonism on Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement is positive
and statistically significant (direct effect = 0.1306; LLCI = 0.0897, ULCI = 0.1715). The indirect effect through Individ-
ualism/Collectivism is also positive and statistically significant (indirect effect = 0.0158; BootLLCI = 0.0047, BootULCI =
0.0283).
The second mechanism is based on Compulsive buying. Individuals who are more critical and quarrelsome are often in
conflict with others and experience stress. Compulsive buying is a means to escape negative emotions. Compulsive buyers
estimate the money they need to continue their habit in retirement more often than non-compulsive buyers. The results
from the mediation analysis (model 4) confirm this causal chain of events:
↑Antagonism →↑ Compulsiv e buying →↑ Estimating the money needed to liv e at a satisfying lev el in retirement
The direct effect of Antagonism on Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement is positive and
statistically significant (direct effect = 0.1327; LLCI = 0.0912, ULCI = 0.1742). The indirect effect through Compulsive
buying is also positive and statistically significant (indirect effect = 0.0137; BootLLCI = 0.0002, BootULCI = 0.0282).
The relative weight analysis shows that Undirectedness is an important personality facet in explaining both Estimating
the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement (see Table 7; the relative weight of Undirectedness is equal to
Table 8
Relative weights of independent variables and controls in models for Having a plan for retirement saving, Highly educated participants aged 25–45,
Poland, 2016.
Dependent variable → Having a plan for retirement saving (scale: 1 = strongly disagree. . . 5 = strongly agree)
Model 3baseline Model 3income Model 3savings Model 3loans
Independent variable (predictor) ↓ Overall sample Subsample ‘‘Income’’ Subsample ‘‘Savings level’’ Subsample ‘‘Loans’’
N = 826 N = 647 N = 416 N = 294
Extraversion 7.52 6.20 2.61 2.79
Antagonism 5.60 6.11 8.92 6.56
Conscientiousness 2.44 1.15 .87 2.25
Neuroticism 1.61 1.80 1.72 1.55
Openness 2.97 2.66 1.09 3.46
Introversion 5.35 5.19 4.01 9.11** (+)
Agreeableness 7.35 6.82 5.38 2.02
Undirectedness 7.76*** (+) 7.90** (+) 4.48 5.47
Emotional stability .28 .30 .54 .76
Not open to experience .57 .28 2.23 1.96
Procrastination 7.62 6.93 13.10 7.86
Locus of control 12.76*** (+) 6.02** (+) 20.25*** (+) 9.31
Future 11.18*** (+) 11.06** (+) 3.93 11.67** (+)
Present-Hedonistic 2.71 2.39 1.30 2.24
Present-Fatalistic 1.78 1.56 4.83 1.24
Pessimism 1.56 1.78 1.98 1.34
Compulsive buying 3.66 2.40 1.09 1.98
Age 16.39*** (+) 12.15** (+) 20.45*** (+) 11.54** (+)
Gender .88 .59 .30 0.25
Individual income – 16.70** (+) – –
Level of savings – – .89 –
Burden of loan repayment – – – 16.59** (−)
R-squared .15 .17 .21 .19
Multiple regressions estimated on the data from the survey carried out in Poland in November of 2016. Rescaled weights (scaled as a percentage
of predictable variance) for every independent variable in the model was developed by LeBreton and Tonidandel (2008). ‘‘–’’ means that a given
control (Individual income, Level of savings, Burden of loan repayment) is not included in the regression. (−) means the negative impact of a given
independent variable on Having a plan for retirement saving, while (+) means the positive impact of a given independent variable on Having a plan
for retirement saving. The number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals is equal to 5000; Rsq – R-squared.
13.11∗∗∗ in Model2baseline and 12.90∗∗∗ in Model2income ) and Having a plan for retirement saving (see Table 8; the relative
weight of Undirectedness is equal to 7.76∗∗∗ in Model3baseline and 7.90∗∗ in Model3income ).
Undirectedness is defined as being disorganized and careless (see Table 1). The opposite to Undirectedness is Conscien-
tiousness. The mediation model can explain why undirected individuals, who are disorganized and careless, show a more
positive attitude to Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement and Having a plan for retirement
saving. In an uncertain situation, disorganized and careless people may expect the worst to happen. Life after retirement is
just an example of an uncertain situation. By making a plan for retirement saving, these people may reduce their negative
response to the said uncertainty. The results from the mediation model confirm these suggestions. The following causal
chains of events is tested (model 4):
↑Undirectedness →↑Hav ing a plan for retirement sav ing →↓ Negativ e response to uncertainty
where: Negative response to uncertainty is measured on the 5-point Likert scale by an item adapted from the Uncertainty
Response Scale developed by Greco and Roger (2002): When a situation is uncertain, I generally expect the worst to happen.
The direct effect of Undirectedness on Negative response to uncertainty is positive (0.2048; LLCI = 0.0.1651, ULCI =
0.2444), while the indirect effect through Having a plan for retirement saving is negative (−0.0136; BootLLCI = −0.0246,
BootULCI = −0. 0057)
Making a plan for retirement savings requires estimating money for retirement. The mediation analysis confirms the
following causal chain of events (model 4):
↑Undirectedness →↑ Estimating the money needed to liv e at a satisfying lev el in retirement →↑ Hav ing a plan for
retirement sav ing
The indirect effect of Undirectedness on Having a plan for retirement saving through Estimating the money needed to live at
a satisfying level in retirement is positive (0.0922; LLCI = 0.0.0649, ULCI = 0.1193
To confirm the robustness of these two aforementioned causal chains of events, the following model 6 (two moderators
in sequence) is tested:
↑Undirectedness →↑ Estimating the money needed to liv e at a satisfying lev el in retirement →↑ Hav ing a plan for
retirement sav ing →↓ Negativ e response to uncertainty
The results from the abovementioned model 6 confirm the positive direct effect of Undirectedness on Negative response
to uncertainty (direct effect = 0.2002; LLCI = 0.1599, ULLCI = 0.2406) as well as the negative indirect effect through
two moderators in sequence, Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement and Having a plan for
retirement saving, (indirect effect = −0.0165; BootLLCI = −0.0263, BootULCI = −0.0075).
Interestingly, people who are critical of others declare more often that they estimate the money needed for retirement.
Similarly, individuals who are disorganized and careless show a more positive attitude to having a plan for retirement
saving and estimating money for retirement. However, antagonists as well as disorganized and careless individuals decide
to save for retirement less often since antagonism and undirectedness encourage procrastination and indirectly reduce
retirement saving (see — the indirect effects of Antagonism and Undirectedness in the mediation analysis in Table 6). How
can this inconsistency between planning/estimating and deciding to save for retirement be explained?
This inconsistency suggests that both antagonists and disorganized and careless individuals may have too wide a
perspective on the future. When they obtain projections of how much money they will need for retirement, the number
typically is very large — many of them are undoubtedly shocked at the hefty sum of money they will need for retirement.
One might feel that such a huge amount of money is surely unattainable, leading him or her to assume that any attempts
to save would be futile (Knoll, 2010). A narrowing of the perspective may help antagonists as well as disorganized and
careless individuals to save by allowing them to recognize that saving large sums of money for retirement may not be as
daunting as it seems. Read et al. (1999) suggested that narrow bracketing can make one’s goals seem more manageable.
This notion can be the goal for further study.
Returning to the results of the relative weight analysis, Having a plan for retirement saving is influenced directly by Locus
of control (the relative weights are as follows 12.76∗∗∗ in M3baseline ; 6.02∗∗ in M3income ; 20.25∗∗∗ in M3savings - see Table 8)
as well as by Future (the relative weights are almost the same in three models: 11.18∗∗∗ , 11.06∗∗ , 11.67∗∗ in Ma3baseline ,
M3income and M3loans , respectively – Table 8). The findings suggest that future-oriented individuals with internal locus of
control make a plan for retirement saving more often than do present-oriented individuals with external locus of control.
The last psychological characteristic considered in this research is Pessimism. The relative weight analysis shows that
this characteristic does not directly influence retirement saving behavior. The relative weights in Tables 5, 7 and 8 occurred
to be insignificant.
On the other hand, the mediation analysis reveals significant negative and positive indirect effects.
Let us first look at the negative indirect effects of pessimism. Pessimism fosters Procrastination because pessimism
leads to anxiety and depression (MacLeod et al., 1997), which are positively associated with procrastination (Glick and
Orsillo, 2015; Beswick et al., 1988). Pessimism, therefore, indirectly discourages individuals from saving for retirement
throughProcrastination (see Table 6).
Pessimism can also negatively influence Having a plan for retirement saving through Locus of control (1 = external. 5
= internal) which is a statistically significant independent variable in the regression of the dependent variable Having a
plan for retirement saving (see Table 5). Pessimism lowers the internal locus of control (Pearson correlation = −0.408).
Individuals with low internal locus of control make a plan for retirement saving less often. The mediation analysis (model
4) confirms these relationships:
↑Pessimism →↓ Internal locus of control →↓ Hav ing a plan for retirement sav ing
The indirect effect of Pessimism is negative and statistically significant (indirect effect = −0.0521; BootLLCI = −0.0843;
BootULCI = −0.0234).
There are also positive indirect effects of Pessimism. Pessimism may influence Estimating the money needed to live
at a satisfying level in retirement indirectly through Antagonism. Pessimism can be associated with Antagonism (Pearson
correlation = 0.334∗∗∗ ). As Palante (1914) pointed out pessimism is accompanied by a tendency towards egoistic isolation,
which can be experienced by antagonists.
The positive and statistically significant indirect effect of Pessimism confirms the following causal chain of events
(model 4):
↑Pessimism →↑ Antagonism →↑ Estimating the money needed to liv e at a satisfying lev el in retirement
The indirect effect of Pessimism through Antagonism is equal to 0.0619 (BootLLCI = 0.0402, BootULCI = 0.0854).
The results from model 6 confirm the aforementioned findings and the mechanism based on Individualism/Collectivism.
Pessimists are more often critical and quarrelsome (Pearson correlation = 0.334∗∗∗ ) and are more often individualists
(Pearson correlation = 0.335∗∗∗ ) who value financial comfort in their life (Bengtson, 2002). Therefore they more often
estimate the money they need to live at a satisfying level in retirement.
↑Pessimism →↑ Antagonism →↑ Indiv idualism/Collectiv ism →↑ Estimating the money needed to liv e at a satisfying
lev el in retirement
In this causal chain of events the indirect effect is positive and statistically significant (indirect effect = 0.0041; BootLLCI
= 0.0005, BootULCI = 0.0088), which confirms the existence of such relationships.
Pessimism can also foster Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement as well as Having a plan
for retirement saving through Undirectedness. The positive indirect effects of Pessimism are confirmed by the following
mediation analysis (model 4):
↑ Pessimism →↑ Undirectedness →↑ Estimating the money needed to liv e at a satisfying lev el in retirement
→↑ Hav ing a plan for retirement sav ing
The indirect effect of Pessimism on Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement through
Undirectedness is equal to 0.0761 (BootLLCI = 0.0466, BootULCI = 0.1057) while the indirect effect of Pessimism on Having
a plan for retirement saving is equal 0.0652 (BootLLCI = 0.0361, Boot ULCI = 0.0953).
The positive indirect effects of Pessimism on Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement (as
well as on Having a plan for retirement saving) can be explained by a mechanism based on the defensive pessimism
strategy. Pessimism fosters Undirectedness (Pearson correlation = 0.430∗∗∗ ). Undirectedness increases Negative response
to uncertainty (Pearson correlation = 0.313∗∗∗ ). Defensive pessimism (Gasper et al., 2009) induces undirected people
to reflect on how to reduce their Negative response to uncertainty (anxiety about retirement). They may conclude that
estimating money for retirement and making a plan for retirement saving are good solutions. The results from model 6
confirm the following causal chains of events:
↑Pessimism →↑ Undirectedness →↑ Estimating the money needed to liv e at a satisfying lev el in retirement
→↑ Hav ing a plan for retirement sav ing →↓ Negativ e response to uncertainty
The indirect effect of Pessimism on Negative response to uncertainty is negative and statistically significant (indirect effect
= −0.0064; BootLLCI = −0.0119, BootULCI = −0.0020; with Undirectedness as the first mediator).
Considering the controls (see Tables 5, 7 and 8), a higher level of Individual income encourages Retirement saving,
Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement as well as Having a plan for retirement saving. A higher
Burden of loan repayment discourages Having a plan for retirement saving. Both results confirm the findings presented in
the literature (Hira et al., 2009; Lai et al., 2009; Stawski et al., 2007; Moorthy et al., 2012; Goda et al., 2013). The Level of
savings occurred to be insignificant in all models in Tables 7 and 8.
The relative weight analysis shows that there is no direct effect of gender. Gender is not statistically significant in
any model (see Tables 5, 7 and 8). There is no gender difference in retirement-saving actions among highly educated
Poles. This result confirms the European Commission findings (2012) that couples with higher education are more likely
to adopt shared decision-making. However, the moderation analysis reveals that Compulsive buying fosters a Lack of self-
respect considerably stronger in women than in men. This result is consistent with previous literature suggesting that
women feel more guilty when making purchases for themselves than do men (Benson-Townsend and Silver, 2015). It also
indirectly confirms the findings of the European Commission (2012) that women tend to be the main decision-makers
over everyday shopping in all countries, Poland in particular, as well as the findings that women are disproportionately
affected by compulsive buying (Hanley and Wilhelm, 1992; Black et al., 1998). The results from the moderated mediation
analysis show that gender is not a moderator in the relationships between personality characteristics (as well as behavioral
constraints, and time perspectives) and retirement saving.
Age is statistically significant in all models estimated for Saving for retirement and Having a plan for retirement saving,
while it is insignificant in each model for Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement (see Tables 5,
7 and 8). When people become older, they decide more often to save for retirement and to plan how to do it.
Returning to the life cycle theory, the findings show that 20 percent of well-educated participants of mobile working
age (25–45 years) who save for retirement behave consistently with this theory. They decide to save for retirement more
frequently when they are getting older. However, 80 percent of the participants behave irrationally and they do not save
for retirement even when their incomes are growing.
5. Robustness checks
This research checks the robustness of the findings by testing the significance of particular psychological constructs in
the models estimated by data from the overall sample and three subsamples (named ‘‘Income’’, ‘‘Loans’’ and ‘‘Savings
level’’). Each subsample partially covers a different group participants. A psychological construct is recognized as
statistically significant in explaining one of the retirement-saving actions if its relative weight maintains significance in
the models even if controls are included.
The relative weight of procrastination is statistically significant in each model for Retirement saving (Table 5), similar
to Age in models for Retirement saving and Having a plan for retirement saving (Tables 5 and 8, respectively) as well as
antagonism in models for Estimating the money needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement (Table 7). Locus of control
and future orientation occur to be significant independent variables in three models for Having a plan for retirement saving
(Table 8). The relative weights of compulsive buying are statistically significant in two models for Retirement saving
(Table 5). Moreover, the direct effect of compulsive buying on retirement saving is confirmed by the results of Hayes’
conditional process analysis. (Table 6). Undirectedness is statistically significant in two models for Estimating the money
needed to live at a satisfying level in retirement (Table 7) as well as in two models for Having a plan for retirement saving
(Table 8).
The results from model 4 in the mediation analysis are tested in model 6 with two or three mediators in sequence.
6. Limitations and further research
The limitations of this research come from the measurement of the variables. The measures are based on the
perceptions of the participants; therefore, they are subjective. The study uses cross-sectional data, which do not allow
for analysis of changes over time (no longitudinal data are available in this area). Given that the personality of an adult
hardly changes, the cross-sectional data are valuable in the analysis of the influence of personality traits and behavioral
constraints on retirement saving actions for people in the age group between 25 and 45 years.
Although including only well-educated participants in the mobile-working age was intentional, such a choice limits
interpretation of the findings to this group. Further study could cover the overall adult population.
The problem of too broad a frame in reference to retirement saving is worth investigating thoroughly.
7. Policy implications
Procrastination and problems with self-control are responsible for the internal struggle described by Thaler and Shefrin
(1981) as a conflict between a ‘‘farsighted planner’’ and a ‘‘myopic doer’’. The planner’s main concern is utility over the
lifetime, while the doer is only concerned with the present. In order to save adequately for retirement, the planner must
manage the doer by creating incentives to act less myopically or by setting up rules that preclude short-sighted behavior.
An automatic individual retirement account could allow individuals whose employers do not offer retirement plans
to remove the procrastination and self-control problems from their decision-making. Even without employer-matched
contributions, employees enrolled in automatic individual retirement accounts can reap the benefits associated with
retirement savings via payroll deduction.
One reason why self-control and procrastination issues impede saving for retirement is hyperbolic discounting. By
showing how saving modest amounts now can accumulate substantial amounts over time, policymakers can urge young
workers to think about saving in a way that they may not have done on their own. Potential savers should experience
the incentive to save. If they are not future-oriented they do not plan how to save for retirement.
The findings suggest that antagonists as well as disorganized and careless individuals can experience the problem with
too broad a frame. They should receive information that if they shift from a broad frame to a narrow one, in which small,
incremental savings goals are emphasized, the task of saving for retirement may seem within reach, and therefore, more
worthwhile.
8. Conclusions
This research identifies the personality characteristics and behavioral constraints that are important for highly
educated, non-poor individuals of mobile working age in their decisions on retirement saving and retirement planning.
The analysis of multiple psychological concepts reveals that many internal factors linked to personality influence an
individual’s decision on retirement saving and retirement planning. This study reveals the mechanisms through which
these factors can transfer their effects on retirement saving and planning.
To a great extent, procrastination influences the decision about whether to save for retirement, even if income is
included as a control. This suggests that the procrastination problem makes saving for retirement difficult regardless of
income. Procrastination is a significant mediator through which personality characteristics and time preferences influence
the decision to save for retirement. Individuals who are undirected (disorganized, careless), neurotic, antagonistic (critical
to others, quarrelsome), and introvert are more likely to procrastinate. They more frequently postpone their decision on
retirement saving. Present orientations also increase the procrastination effect and indirectly reduce retirement saving,
especially if the effect of present-fatalistic is strong.
This research reveals both direct and indirect effects of compulsive buying on retirement saving. The positive direct
effect indicates that people who buy compulsively save for retirement more often. This positive direct effect can be
enhanced if compulsive buyers consider money as a status symbol; they decide to save for retirement because retirement
savings in any form different than obligatory pension contributions enhance their social status. On the other hand,
compulsive buyers, who feel guilty after spending money on themselves, foster a lack of self-respect. The considerable
deficit of self-respect discourages compulsive buyers from saving for retirement. Compulsive buying fosters a lack of
self-respect considerably stronger in women than in men. As a consequence, the mechanism based on the feeling of guilt
discourages female compulsive buyers from saving for retirement more often than male compulsive buyers.
Compulsive buying and a lack of self-respect are mediators through which neuroticism reduces, and conscientiousness
intensifies retirement saving.
Present time perspectives, both hedonistic and fatalistic, have a positive influence on retirement saving and foster
compulsive buying, but only when compulsive buyers view money as a status symbol.
On the subject of estimating the money needed for retirement, it is known that people who are more critical and
quarrelsome (antagonists) are more oriented towards individualism, and individualists, in turn, appreciate financial
comfort in their life. Therefore they decide to estimate the money they need to live at a satisfying level in retirement
more often than do people oriented towards collectivism.
Undirected individuals, who are disorganized and careless, exhibit a more positive attitude to estimating the money
need for retirement and having a retirement saving plan. In a situation of uncertainty, such disorganized and careless
people may expect the worst to happen. Life after retirement is just an example of an uncertain situation. By making a
plan for retirement saving and by estimating the money they need for retirement, they reduce their negative response to
the said uncertainty.
People who are critical of others declare more often that they estimate the money needed for retirement. Similarly,
individuals who are disorganized and careless show a more positive attitude to having a plan for retirement saving and
estimating money for retirement. However, antagonists and undirected individuals decide to save for retirement less often.
This inconsistency suggests that these individuals may have too broad frame. Shifting from a broad frame to a narrow
frame may help antagonists and undirected individuals to save by allowing them to recognize that saving large sums of
money for retirement may not be as daunting as it seems.
This study reveals negative and positive indirect effects of pessimism. Pessimism fosters procrastination because
pessimism leads to anxiety and depression, which are positively associated with procrastination. Pessimism, therefore,
indirectly discourages individuals from saving for retirement through procrastination.
Pessimism can also negatively influence retirement planning decisions through locus of control. Pessimism lowers the
internal locus of control and individuals with low internal locus of control plan to save for retirement less often.
There are also positive indirect effects of pessimism. First, pessimists are more often critical and quarrelsome and are
more often individualists who value financial comfort in their life. Therefore they more often estimate the money they
need to live at a satisfying level in retirement. Second, the positive indirect effects of pessimism on estimating money
for retirement as well as on having a plan for retirement saving can be explained by a mechanism based on defensive
pessimism. Defensive pessimism induces undirected people to reflect on how to reduce their anxiety about retirement.
They may conclude that estimating money for retirement and making a plan for retirement saving are good solutions.
Internal locus of control and future-time orientation are significant in explaining the decision to plan for retirement.
Age is a significant demographic determinant. When people become older they decide more often to save for retirement
and to plan how to do it.
The findings show various effects of personality and behavior on saving, which can be useful in designing savings and
pension schemes that help people to save and operate in a way that is in their best interest. The role of the behavioral
perspective is to make people better-off by identifying more accurate descriptions of behavior, which could serve as a
basis for prescriptive recommendations.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the National Centre for Science, Poland [grant numbers 2015/17//HS4/02713].
References
Abdullah, M.Q., 2018. Optimism/pessimism and its relationship with locus of control among children and adolescents. Mathews J. Psychiatr. Mental
Health 3 (1).
Achtziger, A., Hubert, M., Kenning, P., Raab, G., Reisch, L., 2015. Debt out of control: the links between self-control, compulsive buying, and real
debts. J. Econ. Psychol. 49, 141–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.04.003.
Akerlof, G.A., 1991. Procrastination and obedience. Amer. Econ. Rev. 81 (2), 1–19.
Almlund, M., Duckworth, A.L., Heckman, J., Kautz, T., 2011. Personality, psychology and economics. IZA DP 5500.
Ameriks, J., Andrew Caplin, A., Leahy, J., 2003. Wealth accumulation and the propensity to plan. Q. J. Econ. 68, 1007–1047.
Baggaley, A., Hull, A., 1983. The effect of nonlinear transformations on a likert scale. Eval. Health Prof. 6, 483–491.
Banerjee, S., 2011. How do financial literacy and financial behavior vary by state?. EBRI Notes 32 (11).
Banks, J., Blundell, R., Tanner, S., 1998. Is there a retirement-savings puzzle?. Amer. Econ. Rev. 88, 769–788, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-
8282%28199809%2988%3A4%3C769%3AITARP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X.
Bassett, W.F., Fleming, M.J., Rodrigues, A., 1988. How workers use 401 (k)plans: The participation, contribution, and withdrawal decisions. Nat. Tax
J. 51, 263–589.
Bell, Michael M., 1998. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. Pine Forge Press, California.
Bengtson, V.L., Biblarz, T.J., Roberts, R.E.L., 2003. How Families Still Matter. A Longitudinal Study of Youth in Two Generations. Cambridge University
Press.
Benson-Townsend, B., Silver, N.C., 2015. Compulsive hoarding as a function of money attitudes. J. Psychol. Clin. Psychiatr. 4 (4), http://dx.doi.org/10.
15406/jpcpy.2015.04.00228.
Beshears, J., Choi, J.J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B.C., 2009. The importance of default options for retirement saving outcomes: Evidence from the United
States. In: Jeffrey Brown, J., Jeffrey Liebman, J., David Wise (Eds.), Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment. University of Chicago Press,
pp. 167–195.
Beswick, G., Rothblum, E.D., Mann, L., 1988. Psychological antecedents of student procrastination. Aust. Psychol. 23 (1998), 207–217. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/00050068808255605.
Black, D.W., Repertinger, S., Gaffney, G.R., Gabel, J., 1998. Family history and psychiatric comorbidity in person with compulsive buying. Am. J.
Psychiatry 155, 960–963.
Bridges, E., Florsheim, R., 2008. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping goals: The online experience. J. Bus. Res. 61 (4), 309–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbusres.2007.06.017.
Brown, J.D., 2011. Likert items and scales of measurement?. SHIKEN: JALT Test. Eval. SIG Newslett. 15 (1), 10–14, March.
Brown, J.R., Previtero, A., 2016. Saving retirement, annuities and procrastination. http://gsm.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/file-attachments/
procrastination_saving_for_retirement.pdf.
Brown, S., Taylor, K., 2011. Household finance and the big five personality traits. IZA DP 6191.
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., Kritikos, A., 2011. Personality characteristics and the decision to become and stay self-employed. IZA DP 5566.
Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pessimism.
Carifio, J., Perla, R., 2008. Resolving the 50 year debate around using and misusing likert scales. Medical Educ. 42, 1150–1152.
Chatterjee, S., Finke, M., Harness, N., 2011. The impact of self-efficacy on wealth accumulation and portfolio choice. Appl. Econ. Lett. 18, 627–631.
Cheema, F., Phanwar, I., Zia, S., Rasool, M., 2014. Exploring the personality traits as cause of compulsive buying behavior. J. Bus. Strateg. 8 (2), 19–29.
Claes, L., Müller, A., 2010. Personality and compulsive buying disorder. In: Müller, A., Mitchell, J.E. (Eds.), Compulsive Buying: Clinical Foundations
and Treatment. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York.
Claes, L., Müller, A., 2017. Resisting temptation: Is compulsive buying an expression of personality deficits?. Curr. Addict. Rep. 4 (3), 237–245.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40429-017-0152-0.
Cobb-Clark, D.A., Kassenboehmer, S.C., Sinning, M.G., 2016. Locus of control and savings. J. Bank. Financ. 73, 113–130.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. PAR,
Odessa, FL.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rochberg-Halton, E., 1981. The Meaning of Things. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Deaton, A., Franco Modigliani and the Life Cycle Theory of Consumption. Presented at the Convegno Internazionale Franco Modgliani, Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, February 17th-18th, 2005 https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/romelecture.pdf.
Dittmar, H., 2005. A new look at ‘compulsive buying’: self-discrepancies and materialistic values as predictors of compulsive buying tendency. J. Soc.
Clin. Psychol. 24 (6), 832–859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2005.24.6.832.
Dittmar, H., 2007. The costs of consumer culture and the cage within: The impact of the material good life and body perfect ideals on individuals’
identity and wellbeing. Psychol. Inquiry 18, 37–41.
Duckworth, A.L., Weir, D.R., 2011. Personality, lifetime earnings, and retirement wealth. working Paper Series 2010-235 University of Michigan
Retirement Research Center.
Dunlap, H.F., 1931. An empirical determination of means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients drawn from rectangular distributions. Ann.
Math. Stat. 2, 66–81.
Eastman, J.K., Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R., 1999. Status consumption in consumer behavior: Scale development and validation. J. Mark. Theory Pract.
7 (3), 41–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1999.11501839.
Escalas, J.E., Bettman, J.R., 2003. Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. J. Consum. Res. 32, 378–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/497549.
European Commission, 2012. The 2010 ad hoc EU SILC module on the intra-household sharing of resources. Research Note 3, 203–216. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9125-5.
Faber, R.J., O’Guinn, T.C., 1992. A clinical screener for compulsive buying. J. Consum. Res. 19 (3), 459–469.
Gasper, K., Lozinski, R.H., Smith, LeBe. L., 2009. If you plan, then you can: how reflection helps defensive pessimists pursue their goals. Motiv. Emot.
33, 203–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9125-5.
Glick, D.M., Orsillo, S.M., 2015. An investigation of the efficacy of acceptance-based behavioral therapy for academic procrastination. J. Exp. Psychol.
Gen. 144 (2), http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000050.
Goda, G.S., Flaherty, C., Sojourner, A., 2013. Do income projections affect retirement saving? Centre for Retirement Research at Boston College, No.
13-4, 1-6..
Gonzales, A., Zimbardo, P.G., 1985. Time in perspective. Psychol. Today 19 (3), 21–26.
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., Swann Jr, W.B., 2003. A very brief measure of the big five personality domains. J. Res. Personal. 37, 504–528.
Grable, J.E., Lytton, R.H., 1997. Determinants of retirement savings plan participation: A discriminant analysis. Pers. Finances Res. Manag. Bienn. 2,
19–24.
Greco, V., Roger, D., 2002. Coping with uncertainty: The construction and validation of a new measure. Pers. Individ. Differ. 31, 519–534.
Greninger, S.A., Hampton, V.L., Kitt, K.A., Jacquet, S., 2000. Retirement planning guidelines: a Delphi study of financial planners and educators. Financ.
Serv. Rev. 9, 231–245.
Guariglia, A., 2001. Saving behaviour and earnings uncertainty: Evidence from the british household panel survey. J. Popul. Econ. 14, 619–634.
Hanley, A., Wilhelm, M.S., 1992. Compulsive buying: An exploration into self-esteem and money attitudes. J. Econ. Psychol. 13 (1), 5–18.
Havlicek, L.L., Peterson, N.L., 1976. Robustness of the pearson correlation against violation of assumption. Percept. Motor Skills 43, 1319–1334.
Hayes, A.F., 2013a. Introduction To Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Press, New York.
Hayes, A.F., 2013b. Model Templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxb14/M554/
specreg/templates.pdf.
Heimer, R.Z., Myrseth, K.O.R., Schoenle, R.S., 2015. YOLO: Mortality Beliefs and Household Finance Puzzles, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, working
paper no. 15-21.
Henson, J.M., Carey, M.P., Carey, K.B., Maisto, S.A., 2006. Associations among health behaviors and time perspective in Young adults: Model testing
with boot-strapping replication. J. Behav. Med. 29 (2), 127–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10865-005-9027-2.
Hira, T.K., Rock, W.L., Loibi, C., 2009. Determinants of retirement planning behavior and differences by age. Int. J. Consum. stud. 33, 293–301.
Hoch, S.J., Loewenstein, G.F., 1991. Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. J. Consum. Res. 17 (4), 492–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1086/208573.
Horváth, C., Adıgüzel, F., 2018. Shopping enjoyment to the extreme: Hedonic shopping motivations and compulsive buying in developed and emerging
markets. J. Bus. Res. 86, 300–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.013.
IOSCO and OECD, 2018. The Application of Behavioural Insights to Financial Literacy and Investor Education Programmes and Initiatives Copies of
publications are available from the IOSCO website http://www.iosco.org and the OECD website http://www.oecd.org.
Jackson, T., Fritch, A., Nagasaka, T., Pope, L., 2003. Procrastination and perceptions of past, present, and future. Individ. Differ. Res. 1 (1), 17–28.
Jamieson, S., 2004. Likert scales: How to (ab) use them. Med. Educ. 38, 1217–1218.
John, O.P., Srivastava, S., 1999. The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin, L.A., John, O.P. (Eds.),
Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. Guilford Press, pp. 102–138.
Johnson, J.W., 2000. A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivar. Behav. Res. 35,
1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1.
Johnson, J.W., LeBreton, J.M., 2004. History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 7, 238–257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428104266510.
Kalemli-Ozcan, S., Weil, D.N., 2010. Mortality change, the uncertainty effect, and retirement. J. Econ. Growth 15, 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10887-
010-9050-1.
Keough, K.A., Ziimbardo, P.G., Boyd, J.N., 1999. Who’s smoking, drinking, an using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic
Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21 (2), 149–164.
Kesavayuth, D., Rosenman, R.E., Zikos, V., 2016. Retirement, personality, and well-being. Econ. Inq. 54 (2), 733–750.
Klontz, B., 2012. How clients’ money scripts predict their financial behaviors. J. Financ. Plann. 25 (11), 33.40.
Klontz, B., Britt-Lutter, S., Mentzer, J., Klontz, T., 2011. Money beliefs and financial behaviors: Development of the Klontz money script inventory. J.
Financ. Therapy 2 (1), 1-22.39.
Knoll, M.A.Z., 2010. The role of behavioral economics and behavioral decision making in americans’ retirement savings decisions. Soc. Secur. Bull. 70
(4).
Krasikova, D., LeBreton, J.M., Tonidandel, S., 2011. Estimating the relative importance of variables in multiple regression models. In: Hodgkinson, G.P.,
Ford, J.K. (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Wiley, Indianapolis, IN, pp. 119–141.
Kukar-Kinney, M., Ridgway, N.M., 2012. The role of price in the behavior and purchase decisions of compulsive buyers. J. Retail. 88 (1), 63–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.02.004.
Lai, M.M., Lai, M.L., Lau, S.H., 2009. Managing money and retirement planning: Academics’ perspectives. Pensions: Int. J. 14, 282–292. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1057/pm.
LeBreton, M., Tonidandel, S., 2008. Multivariate relative importance: Extending relative weight analysis to multivariate criterion spaces. J. Appl.
Psychol. 93, 329–345.
Littauer, F., 1995. Personality plus: How to understand others by understanding yourself. Monarch Books first published 1983.
Lusardi, A., 2003. Planning and Saving for Retirement Working Paper Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College. Retrieved 04.08.2019, from http://www.
dartmouth.edu/~alusardi/Papers/Lusardi_pdf.pdf.
Lusardi, A., 2010. Financial Capability in the United States: Consumer Decision-Making and the Role of Social Security. Michigan Retirement Research
Center, Research Paper 2010-226.
MacLeod, A.K., Tata, Ph., Kentish, J., Carroll, F., Hunter, E., 1997. Anxiety, depression, and explanation-based pessimism for future positive and negative
events. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 4 (1), 15–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0879(199703)4.
Maison, D., Sekścińska, K., 2014. Time Perspective as a determinant of financial behaviors. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on
Time Perspective, Warsaw, Poland, 29th July–1st.
Maraz, A., Eisinger, A., Hende, B., Urbán, R., Paksi, B., Kun, B., Kökönyei, G., Griffiths, M.D., Demetrovics, Z., 2015. Measuring compulsive buying
behaviour: Psychometric validity of three different scales and prevalence in the general population and in shopping centres. Psychiatr. Res. 225
(3), 326–334.
Maruta, T., Colligan, R.C., Malinchoc, M., Offord, K.P., 2000. Optimists vs. pessimists: Survival rate among medical patients over a 30-year period.
Mayo Clin. Proc. 75, 140–143.
Maurer, J., Pierce, H.R., 1998. A comparison of likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy. J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 324–329.
Moorthy, M.K., Chelliah, T.D., Sien, C.S., Leong, L.C., Kai, N.Z., Rhu, W.C., Teng, W.Y., 2012. A study on the retirement planning behaviour of working
individuals in Malaysia. Int. J. Acad. Res. Econ. Manag. Sci. 1 (2), 54–74.
Norem, J.K., Cantor, N., 1986a. Anticipatory and post hoc cushioning strategies: Optimism and defensive pessimism in ‘‘Risky’’ situations. Cognit.
Therapy Res. 10, 347–362.
Norem, J.K., Cantor, N., 1986b. Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1208–1217.
Norman, G., 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the laws of statistics Advances in Health Sciences Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10459-010-9222-y https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41420484.
O’Dea, C., Sturrock, D., 2019. Survival pessimism and the demand for annuities. IFS Working Papers W19/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
O’Guinn, T.C., Faber, R.J., 1989. Compulsive buying: A phenomenological exploration. J. Consum. Res. 16 (2), 147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209204.
Pahl, J., 1990. Household spending, personal spending and the control of money in marriage. Sociology 24 (1), 119-138.41.
Palante, G., 1914. Pessimisme et individualism. F. Alcan, Paris.
Pearson, E.S., 1931. The analysis of variance in the Case of non-normal variation. Biometrika 23, 114–133.
Pearson, E.S., 1932a. The test of signi?cance for the correlation coefficient. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 27, 128–134.
Pearson, E.S., 1932b. The test of significance for the correlation coefficient: Some further results. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 27, 424–426.
Read, D., Loewenstein, G., Rabin, M., 1999. Choice bracketing. J. Risk Uncertain. 19 (1–3), 171–197.
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J.E., Denton, F., 1997. Family structure, materialism, and compulsive consumption. J. Consum. Res. 23 (4), 312. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1086/209486.
Roberts, J.A., Jones, E., 2001. Money attitudes, credit Card use, and compulsive buying among american college students. J. Consum. Affairs 35 (2),
213–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00111.x.
Roberts, J.A., Manolis, C., Pullig, C., 2014. Contingent self-esteem, self-presentational concerns, and compulsive buying. Psychol. Mark. 31 (2), 147–160.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20683.
Roberts, J., Manolis, C., Tanner, J., 2006. Adolescent autonomy and the impact of family structure on materialism and compulsive buying. J. Mark.
Theory Pract. 14 (4), 301–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP10696679140404.
Rodermund, R.H., 2012. Examining the Savings Habits of Individuals with Present-Fatalistic Time Perspectives using the Theory of Planned Behavior
https://academyoffinancialservices.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/Proceedings/2012/F2-Rodermund.pdf.
Rosenberg, M., 1965. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Rotter, J.B., 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr. 80 (609), 1–29.
Sabini, J., Silver, M., 1982. Moralities of Everyday Life. Oxford University Press, New York.
Sang-Hee, S., Yun-Jung, C., 2012. A model of compulsive buying: Dysfunctional beliefs and self- regulation of compulsive buyers. Soc. Behav. Pers. :
Int. J. 40 (10), 1611–1624.
Schäfer, K., 2016. The Influence of Personality Traits on Private Retirement Savings in Germany. SOEPpaper (867). Available at SSRN: https:
//ssrn.com/abstract=2839772 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2839772.
Sekścińska, K., 2014. The impact of time perspective on ?nancial decision depending on the experience of success and failure, Poster session presented
at the 2nd International Conference on Time Perspective, 29th July–1st.
Shahjehan, A., Qureshi, J.A., Zeb, F., Saifullah, K., 2012. The effect of personality on impulsive and compulsive buying behaviors. Afr. J. Bus. Manag.
6, 2187–2194.
Showers, C., Ruben, C., 1990. Distinguishing defensive pessimism from depression: Negative expectations and positive coping mechanisms. Cognit.
Therapy Res. 14, 385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01172934.
Stawski, R.S., Hershey, D.A., Jacobs-Lawson, J.M., 2007. Goal clarity and financial planning activities as determinants of retirement savings contributions.
Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 64 (1), 13–32.
Steel, P., 2007. The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychol. Bull. 133, 1,
65-94.
Thaler, R.H., Shefrin, H.M., 1981. An economic theory of self-control. J. Polit. Econ. 89 (2), 392–406.
Tonidandel, S., LeBreton, J.M., 2010. Determining the relative importance of predictors in logistic regression: An extension of relative weight analysis.
Organ. Res. Methods 4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428109341993.
Tonidandel, S., LeBreton, J.M., Johnson, W., 2009. Determining the statistical significance of relative weights. Psychol. Methods 14, 387–399.
Tuckman, B.W., 1991. The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination scale. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 51, 473–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0013164491512022.
Unger, A., Lyu, H., Zimbardo, P.G., 2018. How compulsive buying is influenced by time perspective—Cross-cultural evidence from Germany, Ukraine,
and China. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 16 (3), 525–544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9942-4.
Vickers, A., 1999. Comparison of an ordinal and a continuous outcome measure of muscle soreness. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 15, 709–716.
Watson, S., 2009. Credit Card misuse, money attitudes, and compulsive buying behaviors: A comparison of internal and external locus of control
(LOC) consumers. Coll. Stud. J. 43 (2), 268–275, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ872241.
Workman, L., Paper, D., 2010. Compulsive buying: A theoretical framework. J. Bus. Inquiry: Res. Educ. Appl. 9 (1), 89–126.
Yamauchi, K., Templer, D., 1982. The development of a money attitudes scale. J. Personal. Assess. 46, 522–528.
Yurchisin, J., Johnson, K.K.P., 2004. Compulsive buying behavior and its relationship to perceived social status associated with buying, materialism,
self-esteem, and apparel-product involvement. Fam. Consum. Sci. 32 (3), 291–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077727X03261178.
Zimbardo, P.G., 1990. Strategies for Coping with Social Traps: Time Perspectives Influences. Paper presented at the 98th Annual Convention of
American Psychological Association, Boston, August.
Zimbardo, P.G., Boyd, J.N., 1999. Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1271–1288.
Zimbardo, P.G., Boyd, J.N., The Time Paradox: The New Psychology of Time That Will Change Your Life. New York: Free Press (2008).
Zimbardo, P.G., Keough, K.A., Boyd, J.N., 1997. Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Pers. Individ. Differ. 23, 1007–1023.

Ing 11 Fix

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ing 11 Fix

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ing 11 Fix

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economic Analysis and Policy 64 (2019) 194–220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Economic Analysis and Policy

Full length article

The importance of personality characteristics and behavioral

E-mail address: maria.piotrowska@ue.wroc.pl.

2. Material and methods

(continued on next page)

Description of variables in Table 1.

M. Piotrowska / Economic Analysis and Policy 64 (2019) 194–220

3. Theoretical and empirical motivation

4. Results and discussion

Results of Hayes’ conditional process analysis.

↑Compulsiv e buying →↑Lack of self − respect →↓Retirement sav ing

↑Conscientiousness →↓ Compulsiv e buying →↓ Status consumption →↓ Material

↑Present − Hedonistic (Present − Fatalistic) → ↑Compulsiv ebuying →↑Retirementsav ing

6. Limitations and further research

You might also like