See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263573883

Predicting Consumer Behavior and Media

Preferences: The Comparative Validity of
Personality Traits and...

Article in Psychology and Marketing November 2013

DOI: 10.1002/mar.20657

CITATIONS READS

4 303

3 authors, including:

Samuel D Gosling
University of Texas at Austin
151 PUBLICATIONS 15,821 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Great Ape Personality and Behaviour View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samuel D Gosling on 11 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Predicting Consumer Behavior and
Media Preferences: The Comparative
Validity of Personality Traits and
Demographic Variables
Carson J. Sandy and Samuel D. Gosling
The University of Texas

John Durant
Mindset Media

ABSTRACT

It is common practice for organizations selling a product to divide potential consumers into
segments to allow them to target those most likely to buy their products. Two broad approaches to
market segmentation can be delineated. The most common approach relies on segmenting by
demographic variables (e.g., age, gender). The second approach (known as psychographics)
identifies market divisions in terms of psychological variables such as values, attitudes, and
personality traits. There has been little research comparing the efficacy of the two approaches. Based
on analyses of over 45,000 participants, the present research empirically compares the effectiveness
of the two approaches among segmentation variables ranging from cell phones and lottery tickets to
newspapers and television shows. Overall, both approaches explained surprisingly small amounts of
variance in consumer behavior. Nonetheless, for the variance that was predictive, the relative
contribution of demographics and psychographics varied dramatically across consumer behaviors;
for some behaviors (e.g., electronic purchases), demographics had superior predictive potential but
for others (e.g., television shows) psychographics were more useful. Therefore, an approach that
integrates both methods is recommended.  C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

It is common practice for organizations that have a
product to sell to divide their potential consumers
into segments. Doing so allows the organizations to
target their marketing efforts, directing advertising
to the consumers most likely to buy their product
and crafting their pitches to appeal to the intended
audience (Vyncke, 2002). Two broad approaches to
market segmentation can be delineated. The first ap-
proach, and by far the largest, relies on segmenting the
market in terms of sociodemographic variables such
as age, gender, race, and class. The second approach
sometimes referred to as psychographicsidentifies
market divisions in terms of psychological variables
such as values, attitudes, goals, and personality.
There has been surprisingly little research directly
comparing the efficacy of the two approaches. The goal
of the present research was to conduct just such an
analysis, empirically comparing the relative effective-
ness of the two approaches in segmenting markets for
a wide variety of products ranging from cell phones
to lottery tickets. To provide context for the current
approach, the fields of psychographic and demographic
segmentation are first briefly reviewed.
Market Segmentation and Psychographics
The early 1930s saw a revitalization of economic
theory in which it became apparent that components
of the supply side (i.e., production) and the demand
side (i.e., consumption) of manufacturing were no
longer homogenous (Smith, 1956). Marketers began to
recognize that people were growing in their desire for
variety. Customers needs and desires were growing
more complex. These factors, as well as a number of
other practical issues, drove manufacturers and busi-
nesses to segment their large heterogeneous market
into smaller, more homogenous groups (Smith, 1956).
The term psychographics as it is used in the field of
market segmentation was coined by Demby in 1965
(Demby, 1994). To enrich the fields understanding
of consumer behavior and to enhance advertising
strategies, Dembys idea was add to demographic
segmentation by further segmenting people based on
their tendency to think or act in a certain way (Demby,
1994). Subsequent marketers and researchers began
to use psychological variables such as values, motiva-
tions, and personality traits to segment their potential

Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 30(11): 937949 (November 2013)

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar

C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20657

937
customers (e.g., Engel, Kollat, & Blackwell, 1969;
Wells, 1975).
Early psychographic segmentation was heavily
rooted in personality profiling. One of the most com-
mon inventories used for this purpose was the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1959), a scale
on which people rated themselves on 15 normal needs
or motives. For example, Evans (1959) attempted to
predict brand preference of Ford and Chevrolet own-
ers based on psychological needs (e.g., autonomy, dom-
inance, order). Unfortunately Evans and similar re-
searchers attempts at predicting consumer behavior
were largely unsuccessful (Wells, 1975).
Eventually, the use of personality profiling as a ba-
sis for psychographic segmentation was replaced by
the lifestyle approach (Wells, 1975). First introduced
by Lazer (1963), lifestyle is generally defined as the
patterns in which people live and spend their time
and money (Vyncke, 2002). Often, lifestyle question-
naires were designed within the context of the prod-
uct being sold. So, for example, heavy users of shot-
gun ammunition were identified by such questions as:
I like hunting and I would like to be a policeman
(Plummer, Erickson, & Groves, 1975; Wells, 1975). Ex-
panding upon this method, Plummer (1974) and oth-
ers took a more person-centered approach to lifestyle
segmentation (e.g., Vyncke, 2002). The most widely
accepted model of lifestyle segmentation is the AIO
approachactivities, interests, and opinions. Activities
include actions such as vacations, shopping, sports, and
work. Interests are defined as the degree of excitement
that is affiliated with topics such as fashion, media,
food, family, and home. Lastly, opinions include any de-
scriptive beliefs that one holds (e.g., politics, business,
education, culture; Plummer, 1974). The AIO batter-
ies were often quite large, with as many as 300 items
(e.g., Wells & Tigert, 1971). The AIO approach has seen
some popularity over the years largely because psycho-
graphic lifestyle profiles (like the one derived in the
hunting study) and product-specific psychographic pro-
files can be useful in providing focused marketing ef-
forts for a specific product (e.g., Plummer, 1974).
A closely related method of segmentation is based
on values. In the field of psychographics, values can be
defined as goals that extend across situations, are en-
during, and serve as guiding principles in peoples lives
(Vyncke, 2002). The two most common measures used
for values-based segmentation are the Values and Life
Styles (VALS; Mitchell, 1983) and the List of Values
(LOV; Kahle, 1983; Veroff, Kulka, & Douvan, 1981).
Utilizing values as a segmentation method has two
advantages over the AIO approach: values capture a
broader array of behavior and they can be measured
with shorter instruments.
The lifestyle (or AIO) approach and the values ap-
proach are the main methods of psychographic segmen-
tation that remain in use today. These methods have
received mixed reviews from researchers. Some authors
have argued that psychographic methods in general do
not provide enough predictive validity to offer practical
938
applications in advertising and marketing. For exam-
ple, Yankelovic and Meer (2006) use the example of the
psychographic-based Pepsi Generation campaign. They
argued that though this campaign reinforced youth cul-
ture in Pepsis brand image, it did nothing to influence
commercial activity. One of their main complaints with
psychographic segmentation was the lack of empirical
data in predicting actual consumer behavior.
Other researchers, such as Wells (1975) have offered
slightly more positive critiques of psychographic seg-
mentation. Wells points out that when psychological
constructs have been relevant to the consumer behav-
ior being studied that predictive correlations have been
in the 0.20s and 0.30s. He notes that although some
have been quick to dismiss numbers of this magnitude,
they are often high enough to offer substantial predic-
tive validity. He also points out that accounting for dif-
ferences in segments is often more important than ex-
plaining the variance in individual consumer behavior.
Despite these occasional positive critiques, there has
been a broader lack of systematic research on the effi-
cacy of demographic and psychographic segmentation
(Novak & MacEvoy, 1990).
It is clear that the study of psychographics in con-
sumer behavior is fraught with complex methodological
issues as well as a number of misconceptions by those
both inside and outside of the academic field of con-
sumer behavior. Three factors in particular may con-
tribute to the failure of psychographics as a prominent
method of segmentation.
Criticisms of Studies that Have Used
Psychographics as a Predictor of Consumer
Behavior
One factor driving the methodological issues of using
psychographics in market segmentation is the aban-
donment of more traditional personality measures,
which occurred after the 1960s (e.g., Wells, 1975). One
factor driving this abandonment was that marketers
commonly adopted measures developed in clinical con-
texts; such instruments, designed to provide clinical
diagnoses, are not well suited to large-scale assess-
ments of personality. For example, The Edwards Per-
sonal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1959), which was
used in early psychographic research, was primarily de-
veloped for personal counseling. Its effectiveness in con-
sumer research was largely unsuccessful (Wells, 1975).
Additionally, marketers have favored ad hoc (rather
than established) measures that either relate to a
specific product or that relate to a theory of a particular
marketing group (e.g., Novak & MacEvoy, 1990; Wells,
1975). Many of these ad hoc measures were developed
by nonpsychologists who typically are not trained in
psychometrics; as a result issues such as reliability
and validity have often been neglected, resulting in
measures that are not well placed to provide predictive
power in the consumer-behavior context (e.g., Vyncke,
2002). Additionally, ad hoc scales in general do not
SANDY, GOSLING, AND DURANT
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
provide the same robustness of reliability and validity
as do established scales (Furr, 2011).
A second and related methodological concern is the
narrow scope of behavioral outcomes that are typically
examined in traditional segmentation studies. Study-
ing such a narrow scope of behaviors makes compara-
bility and generalizability practically impossible. For
example, it would be hard to generalize results about
personality predictors in shotgun ammunition to other
types of purchasing behavior such as selecting a brand
of painkillers (OConnor & Sullivan, 1995). The narrow
focus may not be problematic for market practitioners
because they will tend to focus on a problem and then
move on to the next one. But more generalizable mea-
sures are needed for scientists trying to understand
broader patterns of consumer behavior.
Finally, segmentation research has largely over-
looked how psychographic and demographic variables
may differentially contribute to predicting consumer
behavior. Wells (1975) cites a couple of studies from
the 1960s and 1970s that examined the contributions
of both demographic and psychographic variables (e.g.,
Bass, Pessemier, & Tigert, 1969; Burger & Schott, 1972;
King & Sproles, 1973). The psychographic variables
rarely accounted for a great deal of the variance but
they often captured greater differences than the demo-
graphic variables. For example, Bass, Pessemier, and
Tigert (1969) examined factor dimensions of various
consumer behaviors (e.g., magazine readership, media)
and found that of the 31% total variance explained,
psychographic variables (responses to AIO items such
as Husband oriented, Risk avoidance, Information to generate predictions about consumer behavior more
seeker) accounted for 16.7% while demographic vari-
ables accounted for 14.3%. One drawback to this study
and others that Wells cites is that the sample size was
relatively small (N = 344) and restricted (housewives
in Lafayette, Indiana).
Aside from the studies examining psychographic and
demographic studies in the 1960s and 1970s there is
one other more recent exceptiona study conducted by
Novak and MacEvoy (1990). The primary goal of their
study was to compare the efficacy of the two values ap-
proaches to segmentation (i.e., VALS and LOV). But
the researchers also evaluated the predictive ability of
psychographics over demographics. They found in 60 of
64 consumer outcomes, that demographics offered more
predictive ability than psychographics (as measured by
the VALS and LOV). Unfortunately, investigating the
relative predictive validity of demographics and psy-
chographics has fallen out of practice.
What is Needed?
To understand the predictive power of personality
relative to demographic factors, three things are
needed. First, to address the measurement issues, well-
established scales need to be implemented in psycho-
graphic research. The measurement of demographic
variables (e.g., age, sex, income) is fairly uncomplicated
PERSONALITY AND CONSUMER DECISIONS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
and has experienced little variation, but psychographic
measurement is more complex and has seen a great deal
of development over the past few decades. In particu-
lar, the Big Five model has emerged as a widely used
personality framework, with established reliability and
validity (e.g., Goldberg, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999;
McCrae & Costa, 1999). The Big Five captures five
broad dimensions of personality: Extraversion, Agree-
ableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Open-
ness. Researchers have conducted many studies using
the Big Five as a framework, with topics ranging from
their impact on health outcomes to their role in pre-
dicting pet preference (Gosling, Sandy, & Potter, 2010;
Roberts et al., 2007). When behaviors are predicted us-
ing a common framework (e.g., Big Five), it becomes
easier to compare findings across studies and to gener-
ate informed hypotheses in future research.
Second, a wider scope of behaviors needs to be exam-
ined than has been previously been studied in psycho-
graphic research. The narrow scope of previous studies
may have served the needs of the product makers and
advertisers at the time but a broader array of vari-
ables is needed to provide a more general picture of the
relative predictive ability of demographic and person-
ality variables. The narrow scope of previous research
has also limited the generalizability of results. In the
same way that the Big Five can provide a common mea-
surement framework, using a broad array of consumer
behaviors can provide a broad pattern of results on
which future researchers may build. This framework
may allow researchers to develop a model from which
generally.
Lastly, it is important to evaluate psychographics
and demographics concurrently when predicting con-
sumer behavior. Doing so will allow researchers to eval-
uate cases in which one method may be more advanta-
geous than the other (e.g., Novak & MacEvoy, 1990;
Roberts et al., 2007). Roberts et al. (2007) recently used
this strategy in a meta-analytic study of the incremen-
tal validity of personality variables over demographics
in terms of a variety of important life outcomes (e.g.,
marital status, mortality, occupational attainment).
Thus, the present study sought to build on previous
research by addressing the issues highlighted above.
To address inconsistent and unreliable measurement,
the analyses were based on the Big Five framework.
This framework brings sound psychometric quality to
the analyses of consumer behavior and it will allow
future researchers to build on the current hypotheses
and findings.
To address the lack of generalizability in psycho-
graphic research, a diverse array of consumer behaviors
was examined, ranging from purchasing lottery tickets
and automobiles to endorsing political candidates and
watching television shows. To understand broader be-
havioral patterns, exploratory factor analysis was used
to derive meaningful latent variables. By predicting
these patterns using standard demographics and psy-
chographics, researchers can begin to understand how
939
these variables may predict consumer behavior more Table 1. Demographics.
generally. This breadth, like the Big Five framework, Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3
will provide the foundation for broader theorizing re-
garding the factors that drive consumer behavior. Total N 8878 31,883 5570
Most importantly, the analyses focused on the incre- Age 1893 18100 1890
mental validity of personality variables over and above (M = 50.23, (M = 49.12, (M = 50.36,
SD = 13.46) SD = 12.76) SD = 12.74)
demographic variables. The outcome variables mea-
Sex
sured in the present study can be grouped into three
Female 72.2% 77.9% 73.9%
different consumer markets (Vynke, 2002): media (e.g., Male 27.8% 22.1% 26.1%
television programs), indirect buying behavior (e.g., en- Ethnicity
vironmental attitudes), and consumer goods (e.g., cars, White 81.6% N/A 74.9%
lottery tickets). Black 7.6% N/A 7.3%
Asian or Pacific 1.4% N/A 1.0%
Islander
METHODS American Indian 1.0% N/A 1.0%
and Alaska
Native
The data were collected as part of three surveys and Other, including 3.2% N/A 3.4%
were administered by Mindset Media, a marketing com- multiple
pany focused on psychographic measurement and tar- ethnicities
geting. Unknown 5.2% N/A 12.4%
Income
$0$24,999 17.8% N/A 15.9%
Participants $25,000$49,999 32.5% N/A 29.4%
$50,000$99,999 32.7% N/A 30.3%
Participants were 45,843 volunteers who provided de- $100,000+ 9.1% N/A 9.7%
mographic and personality information over the Inter- Unknown 7.8% N/A 14.6%
net from 2008 to 2009. Participants age ranged from Education
18 to 100 (mean = 49.6; SD = 12.9) and 76.4% were Grammar school 0.1% N/A 0.04%
female. See Table 1 for the demographic breakdown Some high school 1.7% N/A 1.5%
High school grad 21.5% N/A 18.1%
across surveys.
Some college 33.7% N/A 31.2%
Associate degree 10.6% N/A 10.8%
Bachelors 17.9% N/A 17.3%
Measures degree
Post grad degree 9.2% N/A 8.6%
Personality. The Big Five personality traits were Unknown 5.2% N/A 12.4%
measured using items from the NEO PI-R (Costa & Note: N/A indicates that information was not available. Ethnic-
McCrae, 1992). Unfortunately, as a result of opera- ity, income, and education information was not available for Survey 2
tional considerations at Mindset Media, Neuroticism participants.
items were not collected. Thus, the analyses of per-
sonality presented here focus on Extraversion, Agree-
ableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness. Across the
three surveys, reliability was acceptable for all the Big
Five personality factors: Extraversion ( = 0.820.84), stance, there are a number of general items directed at
Agreeableness ( = 0.740.81), Conscientiousness ( = determining how restrictive parents are of their chil-
0.84.85), and Openness ( = 0.710.73). drens behavior (e.g., How much do you restrict your
childs use of video games?). This item is not a di-
Consumer Behavior. Three categories of variables rect measure of consumer behavior but it is indicative
related to consumer behavior were measured: media, of how much money that particular individual might
indirect buying behavior, and consumer goods. The me- spend on video games for his or her child. This category
dia category includes items such as types of television of outcome variables is not always treated as a form
shows watched and amount of hours spent per week of consumer behavior in the previous literature but it
consuming various forms of media (e.g., TV, newspa- is potentially influential and of interest to real-world
pers, magazines; see Table 2, for a break down of the practitioners.
items). Consumer goods include types of automobiles pur-
Indirect buying behavior includes items such as en- chased, electronic (e.g., flat screen TVs, cell phones; see
vironmental attitudes, political behavior, and parental Table 4 for breakdown of the items) purchases, and lot-
restrictions (see Table 3 for a breakdown of the items). tery ticket purchases.
This category of variables is not a pure measure of di- As with the personality variables, the selection of
rect consumer behavior. However, the variables all di- behavioral variables was determined by the operational
rectly or indirectly influence buying behavior. For in- needs of Mindset Media.

940 SANDY, GOSLING, AND DURANT

Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 2. Demographic and Personality Variable Effects on Media Consumption.
Personality Demos Personality Personality
Item Survey Demographic Variables Variables Only R2 Only R2 + Demos R2 R2 Change

Movies watched per 1 Age, gender, education, E, A, C, O 0.042 0.033 0.067 0.025
month (in theaters) income
Do you buy movie tickets 1 Age, gender, education, E, A, C, O 0.125 0.043 0.149 0.024
online? income
Hours spent watching TV 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.014 0.013 0.029 0.015
(per week)
Network 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.011 0.014 0.023 0.012
Cable 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.004 0.005 0.008 0.004
Premium channels 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.007 0.012 0.016 0.009
Crime shows 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.003
Sports 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.046 0.012 0.057 0.011
Reality competitions 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.024 0.007 0.032 0.008
Reality living shows 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.087 0.004 0.089 0.002
Relationship dramas 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.023 0.004 0.027 0.004
Action dramas 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.035 0.012 0.042 0.007
Sitcoms 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.032 0.004 0.034 0.002
Adult animation 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.118 0.055 0.151 0.033
Morning shows 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.016 0.008 0.022 0.077
Soap operas 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.027 0.004 0.030 0.003
Hourly news 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.026 0.014 0.040 0.014
Political shows 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.04 0.030 0.076 0.036
Evening news 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.063 0.009 0.073 0.01
Local news 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.035 0.014 0.043 0.008
Cable news 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.024 0.017 0.043 0.019
Financial news 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.026 0.022 0.051 0.025
Hours spent reading the 3 Age, gender, education, E, A, C, O 0.041 0 0.041 0
newspaper (per week) income
Hours spent reading 3 Age, gender, education, E, A, C, O 0.01 0.001 0.01 0
magazines (per week) income
Hours spent on the 3 Age, gender, education, E, A, C, O 0.015 0.001 0.015 0
Internet (per week) income
Hours spent listening to 3 Age, gender, education, E, A, C, O 0.006 0.002 0.01 0.004
the radio income
Note: Change in r was estimated using Nagelkerke method. r change indicates incremental validity, or change in variance explained by
personality variables when demographics are accounted for.

Items that are binary.

RESULTS To assess the incremental variance explained over

To assess the unique and incremental variance ac-
counted for by demographic and personality variables,
multiple regressions were computed for each outcome
variable. In cases of binary outcomes (e.g., Are you
a registered voter?), logistic regressions were com-
puted and the variances were estimated via the Nagelk-
erke method (Nagelkerke, 1991). The goal of the cur-
rent paper was to assess the unique predictive valid-
ity of personality variables as a whole over and above
demographic variables, not to examine the predictive
effect of particular personality (e.g., Extraversion) or
demographic (e.g., gender) variables. To this end, de-
mographic and personality variables were grouped into
blocks for the analyses. Therefore, beta coefficients for
individual personality or demographic variables were
not reported. Researchers interested in the specific ef-
fects regarding individual variables may contact the
authors for more information.
demographic variables, stepwise regressions were per-
formed. In the first block of each regression, the demo-
graphic variables were entered. In the second block of
the regressions, demographic and personality variables
were included. This method accounted for the variance
provided for by the demographic variables and allowed
us to assess the change in variance accounted for due
to the addition of personality variables.
First, it should be noted that the full predictive
models (i.e., demographics and psychographics com-
bined) explained, on average, only 5% of the variance.
Personality variables on average explain 2% of the
variance while demographics on average explain 3% of
the variance. Thus overall, the R2 for both personality
and demographic variables were quite low. Next, the
incremental validity of personality over and above
demographic predictors was evaluated, the overall
small effects notwithstanding. After computing the
change in variance (i.e., the change from Step 1 with
demographics only to Step 2 with demographics and

PERSONALITY AND CONSUMER DECISIONS 941

Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 3. Demographic and Personality Variable Effects on Indirect Consumer Behavior.
Personality Demos Personality Personality
Item Survey Demographic Variables Variables Only R2 Only R2 + Demos R2 R2 Change

Are you a registered 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.114 0.044 0.131 0.017
voter?
Are you a Democrat? 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.015 0.012 0.026 0.011
Are you a Republican? 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.023 0.035 0.056 0.033
Are you an 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.011 0.013 0.023 0.012
Independent?
Did you vote for John 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.042 0.044 0.078 0.036
McCain?
Did you vote for Barack 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.034 0.056 0.08 0.046
Obama?
Global warming
Scientists will find a 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.023 0.051 0.054 0.031
solution to global
warming without
people having to
make big changes
to their lifestyles.
Recycling
I go out of my way to 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.013 0.091 0.113 0.100
buy recycled
products.
Sustainability
I go out of my way to 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.012 0.037 0.042 0.030
buy sustainable
products.
Parental restrictions
If you are a parent, how restrictive are you of the following?
Sugar 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.016 0.012 0.028 0.012
TV 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.004 0.006 0.011 0.007
Video games 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.027 0.004 0.029 0.002
Movies 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.002
Music 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0 0.004 0.004 0.004
Internet 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.043 0.002 0.044 0.001
Note: Change in r was estimated using Nagelkerke method. r change indicates incremental validity, or change in variance explained by
personality variables when demographics are accounted for.

Items that are binary.

psychographics combined), the ratio of change was
calculated by dividing R2 for the second regression
block by the R2 for the first regression block. The
average factor increase for all outcome variables
assessed was 1.9. Thus, when adding personality to
a model of overall consumer behavior, on average the
variance almost doubled.
The primary aim of this paper was to evaluate the
overall value of personality variables in offering predic-
tive ability over and above demographics. It is, however,
worth examining the areas, if any, in which personality
is more beneficial than others. As shown in Tables 24,
certain areas of consumer behavior benefited more than
others did from the addition of personality variables to
the model.
As shown in Table 2, in the media category, predic-
tions of general television watching items (e.g., How
many hours of TV do you watch?, Do you subscribe to
premium channels?) benefited from adding personal-
ity to the model. For most of the more specific genre
questions, personality did not account for a great deal
of variance over and above demographics. For exam-
ple, when evaluating how many hours of television per
week an individual watches, R2 increased from 0.01 to
0.03, an increase of 2.07. However, when examining a
more specific genre such as Sitcoms no change could
be observed in R2 . One exception to this genre-specific
limitation was Crime shows and Political shows. Crime
shows increased by 2.5 in R2 when adding personality
variables to the regression. Similarly, political shows
increased by 1.9 in R2 .
As shown in Table 3, the indirect buying behav-
ior category also revealed a complex pattern of find-
ings. Personality played an important role in predict-
ing items related to attitudes about recycled products
and sustainable products. For example, demographic
variables alone predicted whether or not an individ-
ual will purchase recycled products with an R2 = 0.013
but after adding personality to the model, R2 increased
to 0.113an increase of a factor of 8.69. In the cate-
gory of political items, the two behaviors that benefited
most from personality variables were whether or not
the person was a registered Republican (increase in R2
of 2.43) and whether or not the person voted for Barack

942 SANDY, GOSLING, AND DURANT

Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 4. Demographic and Personality Variable Effects on Consumer Products.
Personality Demo Personality Personality
Item Survey Demographic Variables Variables Only R2 Only R2 + Demos R2 R2 Change

Lottery
Do you play? 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.02 0.019 0.044 0.024
How often? 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.02 0.007 0.024 0.004
Scratch-off games 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.084 0.007 0.089 0.005
Daily or numbers 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.014 0.008 0.027 0.013
games
Weekly or jackpot 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.031 0.008 0.037 0.006
games
Electronics
Flat screen TVs 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.06 0.019 0.067 0.007
Computers 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.031 0.019 0.046 0.015
Cell phones 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.088 0.031 0.111 0.023
Mac or PC? 1 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.021 0.031 0.045 0.024
Cars
Number of cars 3 Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.181 0.001 0.182 0.001
Minivan 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.01 0.014 0.026 0.016
Sedan 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.012 0.006 0.02 0.008
Sports car 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.004 0.01 0.012 0.008
Station wagon 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.001 0.007 0.009 0.008
SUV 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.009 0.005 0.015 0.006
Truck 2 Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.038 0.008 0.041 0.003
Note: Change in r was estimated using Nagelkerke method. r change indicates incremental validity, or change in variance explained by
personality variables when demographics are accounted for.

Items that are binary.

Obama (increase in R2 of 2.35). One area that did not
see much benefit from adding personality variables to
the model was whether or not the individual is a regis-
tered voter (an increase in R2 of only 1.15). Among the
parental restriction items, restriction of television and
movies (R2 change of 2.75 and 2.00, respectively) ben-
efited more than Internet, video games, or music (R2
change of 1.07, 1.02, and 1.00, respectively).
As shown in Table 4, the findings for the consumer-
goods category were also complex. Similar to the finding
in the media category, general patterns of consumer
behavior often benefited more from adding personal-
ity to the model. For example, adding personality to
the model predicting lottery-ticket behavior increased
the R2 from 0.02 to 0.04 (2.2 factor increase). However,
when evaluating the more specific behavior of whether
the person plays scratch-off games, the R2 was 0.08 for
demographics alone, increasing to 0.09 when personal-
ity was added to the model (factor of change of 1.06).
Contrary to this specificity effect, the categories of elec-
tronics and car ownership presented a slightly different
picture. For electronics, personality added almost noth-
ing to explained variance for items such as flat screen
TVs per household and cell phones per household (with
factor of changes of 1.00 and 1.2, respectively). How-
ever, when evaluating whether the participant owned a
Macintosh or a PC, personality was a strong contributor
(R2 increased from 0.02 to 0.05, a 2.14 factor increase).
The findings for car ownership were split. When pre-
dicting station wagon, sports car, and minivan owners,
adding personality variables increased explained vari-
ance by double or more (factor of change of 9.00, 3.00,
and 2.60, respectively). However, for sedans, SUV, and
truck owners, the factor of change when adding per-
sonality variables induced much smaller factors of R2
change (1.60, 1.60, and 1.00, respectively).
To get a clearer grasp of how demographics and per-
sonality variables predict general consumer-behavior
patterns, an exploratory factor analyses was performed
on the pools of dependent variables. Separate factor
analyses were performed on each of the three sur-
veys. Across all three surveys, 11 dimensions were
derived. Three dimensions pertained to indirect buy-
ing behavior: Conservative Political Behavior, Recy-
cle/Sustainable Behavior, and Parental Restrictive-
ness. Five dimensions pertained to media consumption:
News/Information shows, Entertainment shows, Type
of Television, Traditional Entertainment, Modern En-
tertainment. And three dimensions pertained to con-
sumer products: Electronic, Lottery, Car Ownership.
The component matrices for the 11 dimensions can be
seen in Tables 5 through 7.
Some dimensions were better predicted by demo-
graphic variables and others were better predicted by
demographic variables. As shown in Table 8, personal-
ity variables were superior in predicting the following
dimensions: Conservative Political Behavior, Recy-
cle/Sustainable Purchases, Type of Television, and Tra-
ditional Entertainment. Demographic variables were
superior in predicting the remaining dimensions: Elec-
tronic Purchases, Lottery, Parental Restrictiveness,
News/Information Shows, Entertainment Shows, Car
Ownership, and Modern Entertainment. Results also
revealed that for about half of the dimensions, adding

PERSONALITY AND CONSUMER DECISIONS 943

Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 5. Rotated Component Matrix for Exploratory Factor Analysis of DVs in Survey 1.
Conservative Electronics/TV Lottery Green Products
I II III IV

John McCain 0.801 0.014 0.053 0.009

Republican 0.791 0.000 0.058 0.052
Barack Obama 0.679 0.070 0.002 0.072
Global warming 0.407 0.055 0.093 0.076
American dream 0.366 0.043 0.017 0.091
Democrat 0.605 0.009 0.145 0.026
Electronics: Computers 0.035 0.698 0.040 0.012
Electronics: Cell phones 0.003 0.649 0.120 0.121
Electronics: Flat screens 0.127 0.595 0.027 0.003
Movie tickets online 0.060 0.456 0.083 0.024
Movies per month 0.040 0.449 0.071 0.184
MAC versus PC 0.029 0.243 0.093 0.156
Lottery: Scratch-off games 0.025 0.024 0.708 0.032
Lottery: Daily or numbers games 0.017 0.068 0.615 0.046
Lottery: Weekly or jackpot games 0.044 0.123 0.525 0.073
Lottery: How often do you play? 0.010 0.070 0.309 0.033
Recycled products 0.091 0.063 0.044 0.783
Sustainability products 0.020 0.036 0.044 0.755

Table 6. Rotated Component Matrix for Exploratory Factor Analysis of DVs in Survey 2.
Parental News/Information Entertainment Type of Car
Restrictiveness Shows Shows Television Ownership
I II III IV V

Parental restriction: TV 0.980 0.052 0.05 0.031 0.032

Parental restriction: Movies 0.980 0.045 0.059 0.031 0.032
Parental restriction: Music 0.974 0.042 0.059 0.031 0.029
Parental restriction: Video games 0.972 0.035 0.054 0.031 0.032
Parental restriction: Sugar 0.970 0.034 0.051 0.026 0.028
Parental restriction: Internet 0.970 0.024 0.044 0.025 0.035
Minivan 0.233 0.011 0.029 0.070 0.195
TV: Politics 0.099 0.732 0.087 0.132 0.039
TV: Cable news 0.049 0.711 0.047 0.312 0.004
TV: Financial news 0.056 0.694 0.208 0.196 0.025
TV: Evening news 0.119 0.676 0.160 0.308 0.023
TV: Hourly news 0.066 0.642 0.284 0.142 0.015
TV: Local news 0.026 0.592 0.180 0.346 0.024
TV: Morning shows 0.016 0.544 0.309 0.232 0.016
TV: Sports 0.006 0.426 0.247 0.105 0.035
TV: Hours per week 0.118 0.197 0.055 0.016 0.033
TV: Sitcoms 0.027 0.030 0.685 0.100 0.005
TV: Relationship dramas 0.000 0.074 0.661 0.142 0.008
TV: Action dramas 0.018 0.049 0.623 0.022 0.012
TV: Reality competition 0.043 0.146 0.581 0.140 0.042
TV: Reality living 0.123 0.162 0.575 0.317 0.028
TV: Soaps 0.030 0.239 0.519 0.102 0.006
TV: Adult animation 0.070 0.148 0.513 0.262 0.069
TV: Crime dramas 0.043 0.093 0.494 0.073 0.011
TV: Food shows 0.031 0.293 0.448 0.264 0.039
TV: Network 0.002 0.186 0.034 0.903 0.049
TV: Cable 0.010 0.053 0.250 0.806 0.034
TV: Premium channels 0.019 0.029 0.007 0.233 0.064
Sedan 0.183 0.000 0.003 0.033 0.946
SUV 0.082 0.009 0.025 0.028 0.731
Truck 0.019 0.025 0.036 0.032 0.217
Station wagon 0.058 0.038 0.040 0.045 0.126
Sports car 0.024 0.006 0.010 0.021 0.104

944 SANDY, GOSLING, AND DURANT

Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 7. Rotated Component Matrix for Exploratory
Factor Analysis of DVs in Survey 3.
Traditional Modern
Entertainment Entertainment
I II
Newspaper hours 0.829 0.022
Magazines hours 0.827 0.001
Radio hours 0.328 0.186
Internet hours 0.176 0.784
TV hours 0.191 0.736
personality variables to a model of demographic
variables alone increased explained variance by 100%
or more.
DISCUSSION
Strikingly, the overall effect sizes and R2 values re-
ported above were very small. Consistent with past
studies (e.g., Novak & MacEvoy, 1990), individual dif-
ference measureswhether they are demographics,
psychographics, lifestyles, etc.do not seem to pro-
vide a great deal of predictive power in the context
of buying behavior. There are a few possible explana-
tions for the generally low effect sizes. The first is that,
like personality-related behaviors (e.g., Fleeson, 2001),
buying behaviors (e.g., electronics purchases) may vary
a lot within person in the short term but show more
stability over longer time periods. So buying behaviors
may need to be aggregated over longer periods of time in
order to obtain reliable estimates of purchasing habits.
A second possible explanation is that personality and
demographic variables may predict greater variance in
the brand decisions (e.g., Toyota vs. Ford) than in the
class of product (e.g., minivan vs. SUV). A whole field of
research is devoted to understanding the personality of
brands (e.g., Aaker, 1997) but the connection between
the brand personalities of the products and the person-
ality and demographics of the consumer (e.g., Huang,
Mitchell, & Rosenaum-Elliott, 2012) has yet to be exam-
ined extensively. Lastly, there could many other situa-
tional variables and individual differences (e.g., values)
not measured here that could account for some of the
variance in consumer behavior. Future work is needed
to expand the predictive model.
Despite overall low R2 values the present research
suggests that personality variables can offer substan-
tial predictive validity over and above demographic
variables when evaluating consumer behavior. The ex-
plained variance in more than half of the items in
this study increased by at least 60% as a result of
adding personality variables to the model. Similar to
the findings of Roberts et al. (2007), the present re-
search revealed that the explanatory power of per-
sonality variables equaled and often times outper-
formed demographic variables. However, the increment
in predictive ability varied widely across categories of
consumer behavior.
One factor that seemed to influence whether or not
personality provided more predictive ability was the
level of specificity of the behavior. Previous research
has shown that personality is better at predicting gen-
eral or aggregated behaviors than specific behaviors
(e.g., Barrick & Mount, 2005). As previously mentioned,
personality is found to be consistent over time and
across situationsbut is known to fluctuate across nar-
row situations (e.g., across the course of a day; e.g.,
Fleeson, 2001). The media and consumer-goods cate-
gories seemed to be particularly affected by specificity.
For example, items such as number of hours spent
watching TV per week and whether or not one plays the
lottery, benefited substantially from adding personality
to the model.
In the media category, general behavior (e.g., types
of networks watched, amount of hours spent watching
TV) benefited most from personality. Factor analyses
of the dependent variables showed that general behav-
ior (e.g., TV Network Type) was predicted better by
personality than by demographics. However, entertain-
ment showseven when aggregated were still better
predicted by demographic variables.
In the indirect buying behavior category there
were several behavioral outcomes that benefited
significantly from adding personality to the model
specifically, political behavior and attitudes about
recycled and sustainable products. There has been a

Table 8. Demographic and Personality Variable Effects on Latent Dependent Variables.

Personality Demos Personality Personality
Category Demographic Variables Variables Only R2 Only R2 + Demos R2

Conservative Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.025 0.063 0.077

Electronic Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.103 0.061 0.145
Lottery Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.011 0.005 0.018
Recycle/sustainable Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.01 0.091 0.098
Parental restrictiveness Age, gender, education, income E, A, C, O 0.016 0.004 0.022
News/information shows Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.031 0.028 0.06
Entertainment shows Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.06 0.009 0.064
Type of television Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.011 0.013 0.021
Car ownership Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.009 0.005 0.015
Traditional entertainment Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.002 0.002 0.005
Modern entertainment Age, gender E, A, C, O 0.005 0.002 0.007

PERSONALITY AND CONSUMER DECISIONS 945

Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
substantial amount of research evaluating relation-
ships between the Big Five and political orientation
(e.g., Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008) as well
as environmental attitudes (e.g., Swami, Chamorro-
Premuzic, Snelgar, & Furnham, 2010). Carney et al.
(2008) found that liberals are consistently higher on
Openness than are conservatives. So it is not sur-
prising that adding the Big Five, including Openness,
would drive an increase in explained variance when
predicting outcomes related to political behavior.
In addition to political behavior, the predictions
of endorsements of recycled and sustainable products
benefited greatly from the addition of personality to
the model. Previous research (Swami et al., 2010) has
shown that environmental concern is related to Agree-
ableness, Contentiousness, and low Neuroticism. The
present study replicated the effects of Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness for recycled products and of
Conscientiousness for sustainable products. It was not
possible to replicate the Neuroticism finding because,
as noted above, data on this trait were not collected.
Interestingly, Swami et al. also found a positive rela-
tionship between Openness and both recycled products
and sustainable products. The present results do not
precisely mirror those past findings but it is clear that
personality plays a large role in endorsing these types
of products.
One area within indirect buying behavior that
yielded mixed results was parental restrictiveness. The
overall factor of parental restrictiveness was more ef-
fectively predicted by demographics. However, when
examining the more specific components of parental re-
strictiveness, it was found that TV watching, movies,
and sugar benefited significantly from adding person-
ality to the model whereas restrictiveness with regard
to video games, Internet, and music did not. A meta-
analysis (Prinzie, Stams, Dekovic, Reijntjes, & Belsky,
2009) revealed that the more restrictive parents are
in general, the less open and agreeable they are and
the more neurotic they are. The present results regard-
ing Openness and Agreeableness are consistent with
this previous research and are also consistent across
domains of restriction.
Like the media and indirect consumer behavior
categories, the consumer-goods category showed vari-
ability in how it benefited from personality variables.
Automobile ownership in particular revealed a mixed
pattern of results. Minivan, station wagon, and sports
car ownership benefit the most from adding personality
to the model while truck, SUV, and sedan ownership
benefits the least. Taking a closer look, minivan owners
tended to be more extraverted and agreeable and less
conscientious and open. They also tend to be female.
Station wagon owners showed the exact opposite
effects of personality (low Extraversion and Agreeable-
ness, high Conscientiousness and Openness). They
also tended to be female. Sports car ownership was
positively related to Extraversion and Openness but
negatively to Agreeableness. There were no significant
effects for age or sex. Demographics played a role in
946
predicting these types of car ownership but not as
strongly as personality.
Conversely, truck, SUV, and sedan ownership was
predicted more by demographics than by personality.
Truck and sedan ownership was significantly related
to being a male and SUV ownership was related to
being female. SUV owners tended to be younger and
truck owners tended to be older. In terms of person-
ality, truck owners were less agreeable and less open.
Like the truck owners, SUV owners were less agree-
able and open. They were also more extraverted and
conscientious. Sedan drivers were less extraverted and
agreeable and more conscientious and open. These per-
sonality relationships were significant but the amount
of explained variance over demographic variables was
small in comparison to other types of car ownership.
Additionally, demographics were more predictive of the
general car-ownership factor. No published research ex-
amining types of car ownership and Big Five traits was
found but the results here suggest personality could be
a fruitful factor to examine in future studies.
Overall, demographic variables were more predic-
tive of lottery-ticket purchases than were the per-
sonality variables. Consistent with previous research
(Haisley, Mostafa, & Loewenstein, 2008), the findings
showed that lottery players tended to be young, male,
and have a lower income. One exception was the item
Do you play the lottery? Past research has indicated
that lottery play is associated with being higher on
Extraversion and lower on Agreeableness and Open-
ness (Balabanis, 2002). The present study replicated
the negative Openness effect but the demographic
effects outweighed this contribution.
Similar to lottery-ticket purchases, predictions of
electronics purchases benefited most from demographic
variables. Owning more computers, flat screen TVs,
and cell phones per household was strongly related
to higher income. Cell phone and computer ownership
was also correlated with being younger. An exception
to these items was the Macintosh versus PC question.
Personality (specifically higher Openness among Mac-
intosh users) almost doubled the explained variance
in the model. Previous researchers have evaluated dif-
ferences between Macintosh and PC users in terms of
Internet use and Technophilia (Yang & Lester, 2003)
but there has been no examination of the personality
differences between users.
Overall, the patterns of findings reveal a complex
picture of how demographics and psychographics relate
to consumer behavior. Generally, where the present
findings can be compared to previous research, the
findings replicate. However, a subset of findings ei-
ther failed to replicate or had never been previously
examined. Nonetheless, it is clear that certain out-
come variables benefited from personality more than
others (i.e., the general factors of political behavior, re-
cycling and sustainable product attitudes, and broad
television watching behavior). To echo a point made
by Wells (1975), it is important to consider the nature
of ones outcome variables when deciding what type of
SANDY, GOSLING, AND DURANT
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
segmentation method to use. The present study pro-
vides an initial framework of personality findings upon
which future researchers can expand. What is clear is
that personality is capable of providing as much, and in
some cases more, explanatory power than demographic
variables when predicting consumer behavior.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
There are a few limitations associated with the current
study. First, as mentioned above, the absolute amounts
of variance explained by both personality and demo-
graphic variables were very small. The magnitude of
the effects explains a very small amount of the vari-
ance in the data and therefore limits the ability of
the model to predict future outcomes. As previously
mentioned, personality offers greater predictive abil-
ity when examined in the context of repeated and ag-
gregated behavior. Therefore, it may be profitable for
future research to collect repeated consumer behaviors
(e.g., How many days a week did you buy lottery tick-
ets over the past year?). It is also important to note
that, although personality effects were small, the de-
mographic effects were virtually identical in magnitude
across the prediction matrix. A major avenue of future
inquiry is needed to determine what accounts for the
lions share of the predictive variance. Is it situational
factors, like effective advertising, marketing strategy,
and like? Or is it other demographic (e.g., geographic
location) and personality (e.g., values, self-esteem, at-
tachment styles) variables not evaluated here?
Second, the selection of variables was limited by the
constraints of third-party data collection. In terms of
personality variables, the goal of Mindset Media was to
create a set of mindsets that could successfully pre-
dict consumer behavior. Personality researchers would
be interested in evaluating pre-established personal-
ity measures. Unfortunately the developers at Mind-
set Media did not deem the Neuroticism items of the
NEO PI-R necessary to their data-collection goals. Thus
the current model was limited to the remaining factors
of the Big Five. It is unknown how much the lack of
Neuroticism influenced the present findings. There has
been some work demonstrating effects for Neuroticism
predicting consumer behavior and motives. For exam-
ple, Lynn (1994) demonstrated that the more neurotic
an individual is, the more likely he or she is to tip at
a restaurant. In another study that examined shop-
ping motivations, Neuroticism predicted a utilitarian
shopping motivation (Guido, 2006). Based on these re-
sults, it seems plausible that the inclusion of Neuroti-
cism items would have increased the predictive power of
the personality items. Obviously, future studies should
include all five of the Big Five factors.
Third, the majority of the literature directly relating
the specific consumer outcomes (e.g., lottery, electron-
ics, automobile, TV genres, parental restrictions) to the
Big Five personality traits is very small. So previous
research offers very little in the way of clues to why
PERSONALITY AND CONSUMER DECISIONS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
the results varied within and across categories. This
problem was especially acute with respect to studying
multiple consumer behaviors at once. Also, as noted in
the introduction, few studies have examined the rel-
ative of importance of demographic and psychographic
variables in the domain of consumer behavior. It is thus
difficult, in some cases impossible, to make comparative
judgments about when and why personality should out-
perform demographic variables and vice versa. Thus,
future researchers are encouraged to expand the list
of consumer behaviors and predictive variables they
study.
There are a number of practical implications as-
sociated with the current findings. If marketers and
advertisers understand the psychological motivations
for why individuals buy certain products, they can
then leverage that information to better promote their
brands. Future research in this area should focus on un-
derstanding specific ways in which information about
psychographic variables can be used to promote prod-
uct sales. For example, Belisle and Bodur (2010) found
that the personality of online avatars reflected the ac-
tual personalities of the consumers who created them.
They proposed that companies could utilize this infor-
mation in tandem with segmentation research to craft
company avatars that resonate with particular psycho-
graphic segments. For instance, extraverted consumers
may prefer to encounter an avatar who smiles and talks
a lot.
As previously mentioned, another potentially use-
ful area of future research is in brand personality. Re-
searchers have established that product brands have
discernable personality dimensions (e.g., Aaker, 1997).
A certain brand could be associated with any number
of specific consumer products (e.g., cosmetics, hair care,
nail polish). Researchers have investigated the effects
of the presence or absence of certain brand personali-
ties. For example, if a brand is seen as socially respon-
sible, are consumers more willing to reward that brand
by purchasing its products (Madrigal & Boush, 2008)?
Research has also been conducted to understand how
new products will fit into an existing brand personality
(Lau & Phau, 2007). For instance, will a new car model
fit with the brand personality of the rest of the cars
that a particular company manufactures? Less stud-
ied, however, is the link between brand personality and
human personality. How do certain human personality
traits influence the decision to buy brands with partic-
ular personalities? Understanding this link could help
researchers and practitioners understand the patterns
of human motivations associated with particular brand
personality profiles.
In conclusion, personality variables do offer statisti-
cally significantoften times yielding R2 values larger
than those associated with demographic variables
predicative validity with regard to consumer behavior.
Future work is needed in this area to fully understand
the role personality plays in accounting for variance
in purchasing behavior. As it stands, the overall
predictive validity of personality (and demographic)
947
variables is low. Thus, these results offer compelling
evidence for continued research on uncovering the
connection between consumer behavior and individual
differences.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality. Journal
of Marketing Research, 34, 347356.
Balabanis, G. (2002). The relationship between lottery ticket
and scratch-card buying behaviour, personality and other
compulsive behaviours. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2,
722.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality mat-
ters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Perfor-
mance, 18, 359372.
Bass, F. M., Pessemier, E. A., & Tigert, D. J. (1969). A tax-
onomy of magazine readership applied to problems in mar-
keting strategy and media selection. Journal of Business,
42, 337363.
Belisle, J., & Bodur, H. (2010). Avatars as information: Percep-
tion of consumers based on their avatars in virtual worlds.
Psychology & Marketing, 27, 741765.
Burger, P.C., & Schott, B. (1972). Can private brand buyers
be identified? Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 219222.
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008).
The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality
profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave be-
hind. Political Psychology, 29, 807840.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R pro-
fessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.
Demby, E. H. (1994). Psychographics revisited: The birth of a
technique. Marketing Research, 6, 2630.
Edwards, A. L. (1959). Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
[manual] (rev. ed.) New York: Psychological Corp.
Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. J., & Blackwell, R. D. (1968). Consumer
Behavior. Oxford England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Evans, F. B. (1959). Psychological and objective factors in the
prediction of brand choice: Ford vs. Chevrolet. Journal of
Business, 32, 340369.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-
integrated view of personality: Traits as density distribu-
tions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 80, 10111027.
Furr, R. M. (2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for
social and personality psychology. London, UK: Sage Pub-
lications.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the
Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4,
2642.
Gosling, S. D., Sandy, C. J., & Potter, J. (2010). Personalities
of self-identified dog people and cat people. Anthrozoos, Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Gold-
23, 213222.
Guido, G. (2006). Shopping motives, Big Five factors, and the
hedonic/utilitarian shopping value: An integration and fac-
torial study. Innovative Marketing, 2, 5767.
Haisley, E., Mostafa, R., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Subjec-
tive relative income and lottery ticket purchases. Journal
of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 283295.
Holak, S. L., Matveev, A. V., & Havlena, W. J. (2007). Nostal-
gia in post-socialist Russia: Exploring applications to ad-
vertising strategy. Journal of Business Research, 60, 649
655.
948
Huang, H. H., Mitchell, V., & Rosenaum-Elliott, R. (2012). Are
consumer and brand personalities the same? Psychology &
Marketing, 29, 334349.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxon-
omy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.
In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personal-
ity: Theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp. 102138). New York,
NY, US: Guilford Press.
Kahle, L. R. (Ed.). (1983). Social values and social change:
Adaptation to life in America. New York: Praeger.
King, C. W., & Sproles, G. B. (1973). Predictive efficacy of
psycho-personality characteristics in fashion change agent
identification. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, pp. 847848.
Koponen, A. (1960). Personality characteristics of purchasers.
Journal of Advertising Research, 1, 1612.
Lau, K., & Phau, I. (2007). Extending symbolic brands using
their personality: Examining antecedents and implications
towards brand image fit and brand dilution. Psychology &
Marketing, 24, 421444.
Lazer, W. (1963). Lifestyle concepts and marketing. In S.
Greysser (Ed.), Toward scientific marketing (pp. 24352).
Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Lynn, M. (1994). Neuroticism and the prevalence of tipping:
A cross-country study. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 17, 137138.
Madrigal, R., & Boush, D. M. (2008). Social responsibility as
a unique dimension of brand personality and consumers
willingness to reward. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 538
564.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. R. (1999). A Five-Factor theory of
personality. In L. A. Pervin, O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp. 139153).
New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Mitchell, A. (1983). The nine American life styles. New York:
Warner.
Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1991). A note on a general definition of
the coefficient of determination. Biometrika, 78, 691692.
Novak, T. P., & MacEvoy, B. (1990). On comparing alternative
segmentation schemes: The list of values (LOV) and values
and life styles (VALS). Journal of Consumer Behavior, 17,
105110.
OConnor, P. J., & Sullivan, G. L. (1995). Market segmenta-
tion: A comparison of benefits/attributes desired and brand
preference. Psychology & Marketing, 12, 613635.
Plummer, J. T. (1974). The concept and application of life style
segmentation. Journal of Marketing, 38, 3337.
Plummer, J. T., Erickson, D. L., & Groves, D. L. (1975).
Lifestyle portrait of the hunter. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 2, 3340.
Prinzie, P., Stams, G. M., Dekovic, M., Reijntjes, A. A., &
Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between parents Big Five
personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 351362.
berg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The compar-
ative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status,
and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes.
Perspectives On Psychological Science, 2, 313345.
Smith, W. R. (1956). Product differentiation and market seg-
mentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of
Marketing, 21, 38.
Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Snelgar, R., & Furnham,
A. (2010). Egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric environmen-
tal concerns: A path analytic investigation of their determi-
nants. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 139145.
SANDY, GOSLING, AND DURANT
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Veroff, J., Kulka, R. A., & Douvan, E. (1981). Mental health in
America: Patterns of help-seeking from 1957 to 1976. New
York: Basic Books.
Vyncke, P. (2002). Lifestyle segmentation: From attitudes, in-
terests and opinions, to values, aesthetic styles, life visions
and media preferences. European Journal of Communica-
tion, 17, 445463.
Wells, W. D. (1975). Psychographics: A critical review. Journal
of Marketing Research, 12, 196213.
Wells, W. D., & Tigert, D. (1971). Activities, interests and
opinions. Journal of Advertising Research, 11, 2735.
PERSONALITY AND CONSUMER DECISIONS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
View publication stats
Yang, B., & Lester, D. (2003). PC versus Macintosh users.
Psychological Reports, 92, 616.
Yankelovic, D., & Meer, D. (2006). Rediscovering market seg-
mentation. Harvard Business Review, 84, 122132.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to:
Carson J. Sandy, Ph.D. Director of Behavioral Research
Tip Tap Inc., 150 5th St. no. 3, Cambridge, MA 02141
(cjosandy@gmail.com).
949