Dorien Bangma

194 | CHAPTER 8 agreeableness were significantly negatively related to the IBQ total score. Furthermore, being female and a lower age were also related to a stronger tendency to buy on impulse (Table 8.4a). With regard to the cognitive, affective and situational components of the IBQ, 23.3% ( F (11,1288) = 36.7; p < .001); 24.2% ( F (11,1288) = 38.4; p < .001) and 3.6% ( F (11,1289) = 5.4; p < .001) of variance could be explained in the third regression model, respectively (Table 8.4a). Symptoms of ADHD, again, did not significantly contribute to these models (cognitive: ∆R 2 = .001; ∆F (1,1277) = 2.2; p = .137; affective: ∆R 2 = .003; F ( ∆F (1,1277) = 4.6; p = .032; and situational: ∆R 2 = .001; F ( ∆F (1,1278) = 1.7; p = .192). For the IBQ cognitive component, the significant predictors were similar to the contributors of the IBQ total score: while extraversion and neuroticism were significantly positively related, conscientiousness and agreeableness were significantly negatively related to the cognitive component. Also, being female and a lower age were significantly related to higher scores on the cognitive component of impulsive buying. For the IBQ affective component, extraversion and neuroticism were found to be significantly positively related, while other Big Five personality traits and symptoms of depression did not significantly contribute to this model. However, being female and a lower age were significantly related to the affective component of impulsive buying as well. Regarding the situational component of the IBQ, only conscientiousness was found to be a significant negative predictor (Table 8.4a). Financial decision styles. Symptoms of ADHD did not significantly contribute to the third model of any of the five FDS decision styles (rational: ∆R 2 = .000; ∆F (1,1278) = 0.3; p = .580; intuitive: ∆R 2 = .000; ∆F (1,1278) = 0.1; p = .827; dependent: ∆R 2 = .006; ∆F (1,1278) = 8.7; p = .003; avoidant: ∆R 2 = .005; ∆F (1,1278) = 7.6; p = .006 and spontaneous: ∆R 2 = .001; ∆F (1,1278) = 1.2; p = .278). Decision styles could, however, be explained by other variables included in the regression model (Table 8.4b). In total, 21.0% of variance of the FDS rational subscale could be explained in the third regression model ( F (11,1289) = 32.2; p < .001). The use of a rational decision style was significantly positively related to conscientiousness and openness and significantly negatively related to extraversion. In addition, level of education was also a significant positive predictor of the rational decision style (Table 8.4b). With regard to the FDS intuitive subscale, 9.8% of variance could be explained in the third regression model ( F (11,1289) = 13.7; p < .001). The use of an intuitive decision style was significantly negatively related to level of education and significantly positively related to extraversion and symptoms of depression (Table 8.4b). The third regression model of the FDS dependent subscale was also significant ( R 2 = .115; F (11,1289) = 16.3; p < .001) and the use of a dependent decision style was significantly positively related to neuroticism, extraversion and being female (Table 8.4b). With regard to the FDS avoidant subscale, 23.6% of variance could be explained in the third regression model ( F (11,1289) = 37.2; p < .001). The use of an avoidant decision style was significantly positively related to age, neuroticism and extraversion and significantly negatively related to conscientiousness and agreeableness (Table 8.4b). Finally, 24.0% of variance could be explained in the third regression model of the FDS spontaneous subscale ( F (11,1289) = 37.9; p < .001). The use of a spontaneous decision style was significantly positively related to extraversion and neuroticism and significantly negatively related to conscientiousness and agreeableness (Table 8.4b).