The Role of Personality and Late-Life Categorical Spending Regret

Abstract

This study examines the association between the big five “OCEAN” personality traits and late-life categorical spending regret. The categorical spending regrets examined are housing, food, clothing, appliances/furnishings, cars, leisure, child-related expenses, and providing financial help. Openness was associated negatively with spending regret on food. Conscientiousness was associated positively with spending regret on appliances/furnishings and cars. Extraversion was associated negatively with spending regret on food, cars, and providing financial help. Agreeableness was associated positively with spending regret on food, clothing, leisure, and providing financial help. The results for Neuroticism indicated no statistically significant association between the OCEAN personality traits and the categorical spending regrets tested. The findings provide insight into the psychological mechanisms underlying consumer spending regret and offer additional support for research on the psychological benefits of personality-matched spending.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Psychol Stud
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-025-00820-x
RESEARCH INPROGRESS
The Role ofPersonality andLate‑Life Categorical Spending
Regret
BlainPearson1 · ThomasKorankye2· SarahAsebedo3
Received: 15 November 2022 / Accepted: 9 January 2025
© The Author(s) 2025
Introduction
The ubiquitous act of spending serves as the primary
medium for acquiring necessities to meet basic life needs.
Operating under the condition that individuals maintain a
budget constraint, individuals face trade-offs between what
they can or cannot acquire through their limited financial
resources. Given their respective budget constraints, indi-
viduals must decide how to consume in a manner that pro-
motes the greatest utility from their limited resources. Con-
sequently, spending can be viewed as an intended action that
is performed in a manner that facilitates the greatest hedonic
benefit for both oneself and others who have an interdepend-
ent connection with the spender.
Spending involves opportunity costs in addition to direct
monetary costs (Mellers & McGraw, 2001; Mellers etal.,
1999). Opportunity costs are the benefits foregone that a
consumer would have derived by considering spending
alternatives. Spending, therefore, has the potential to fos-
ter emotions of pleasure and pain given the monetary and
opportunity costs associated with this daily consumer activ-
ity. Using an event-related fMRI study design, Knutson etal.
(2007) found that the anticipatory influence of pleasure and
pain precedes and supports spending decisions.
Considering the gains and losses resulting from monetary
and opportunity costs, the intended effect of spending is to
maximize economic benefit and satisfaction (Csikszentmi-
halyi, 2000; Korankye & Pearson, 2023; Matz etal., 2016).
However, researchers have suggested that this relationship
is subjective in nature, arguing that individual differences
moderate the optimal types of spending decisions (Hill &
Howell, 2014; Liu etal., 2023a; Pearson, 2020; Rowena
etal., 2023; Zhang etal., 2014). For example, self-congruity
theory suggests that individuals spend on items not only for
their functional intent but also because of their perception of
Abstract This study examines the association between the
big five “OCEAN” personality traits and late-life categorical
spending regret. The categorical spending regrets examined
are housing, food, clothing, appliances/furnishings, cars, lei-
sure, child-related expenses, and providing financial help.
Openness was associated negatively with spending regret
on food. Conscientiousness was associated positively with
spending regret on appliances/furnishings and cars. Extra-
version was associated negatively with spending regret on
food, cars, and providing financial help. Agreeableness was
associated positively with spending regret on food, cloth-
ing, leisure, and providing financial help. The results for
Neuroticism indicated no statistically significant association
between the OCEAN personality traits and the categorical
spending regrets tested. The findings provide insight into the
psychological mechanisms underlying consumer spending
regret and offer additional support for research on the psy-
chological benefits of personality-matched spending.
Keywords Aging· Financial satisfaction· OCEAN·
Personality traits· Spending regret
* Blain Pearson
bpearson@coastal.edu
1 Department ofFinance andEconomics, E. Craig Wall
Sr. College ofBusiness Administration, Wall College
ofBusiness, Coastal Carolina University, 119 E Chanticleer
Dr, Conway, SC29526, USA
2 Personal andFamily Financial Planning, Norton School
ofFamily andConsumer Sciences, The University
ofArizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
3 School ofFinancial Planning, College ofHuman Sciences,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

Psychol Stud
brand image and perception of their own self-image (Sirgy,
1982, 1985). Ozer and Benet-Martinez (2006) showed that
preferences vary across a vast array of domains, and these
preferences are driven by psychological characteristics.
As noted by Matz etal. (2016), psychological theory
offers a framework that explains the connection between
spending satisfaction, spending regret, and individual dif-
ferences. Moreover, personality traits embody fundamental
differences in the way individuals think, feel, and behave
(APA, 2022), and they are closely related to preferences
that predict behaviors (Bleidorn etal., 2019; Golsteyn &
Schildberg-Hörisch, 2017; Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006),
including how individuals manage their finances (Asebedo
etal., 2019; Fenton‐O’Creevy & Furnham, 2020; Liu
etal., 2023b; Pearson & Lee, 2022) and accumulate wealth
(Asebedo etal., 2022). Consequently, personality traits pro-
vide a useful framework to identify the contributing factors
that explain the variation in spending and spending regret
among the populace.
Spending Regret verse Buyer’s Remorse
Regret is a set of cognitively based negative emotions which
are experienced when one has realized or imagined that their
current condition would have been improved if one would
have taken a different set of actions (Zeelenberg, 1999).
Consequently, spending regret can be defined as a set of
experienced cognitively based negative emotions that result
from the experiences received and foregone that result from
spending behavior.
The distinction between spending regret and buyer’s
remorse is paramount, as the concept of spending regret
transcends the temporary salience of buyer’s remorse. Buy-
er’s remorse is defined as a sense of disappointment resulting
from a consumer purchase. The theory underlying buyer’s
remorse is rooted in the concept of cognitive dissonance,
suggesting one consciously and unconsciously pursues psy-
chological internal consistency (Festinger, 1957). When
spending decisions do not align with expectations, a con-
sumer may experience buyer’s remorse (Akerlof & Dicken,
1982; Maziriri & Madina, 2015). This helps explain why
buyer’s remorse is associated with ceasing to use a particular
product or service (Kang etal., 2009; Korankye etal., 2024;
Lemon etal., 2002).
During a reflective life-stage, such as in late life, the
assessment of lifetime purchase behavior allows for the
opportunity to understand how spending behaviors may
have manifested into spending regret. Spending regret, or
the long-term dissatisfaction received from the purchase of
certain goods and services and the dissatisfaction received
from the foregone purchase alternatives, may potentially be
explained by a misalignment of spending behavior and one’s
personality traits.
Spending andtheBig Five “OCEAN” Personality
Traits
Recent research has generally shifted the scholarship tra-
jectory from pinpointing what types of spending increase
spending satisfaction in favor of examining the types of
spending that increase an individual’s spending satisfaction
(see Gladstone etal., 2019; Matz etal., 2016; Pearson etal.,
2024). Much of the research is based upon the premise that
individuals’ personalities can influence both the relative
amount of individual spending and the types of spending
(Maddi etal., 2013; Tovanich etal., 2021). For example,
Zhang etal. (2014) found that experiential purchases result
in greater satisfaction for buyers who value experiential pur-
chases compared to buyers who value material purchases.
This study’s purpose is to investigate the connection
between the big five model of personality traits and late-
life categorical spending regret. The Big Five model posits
that five traits comprise an individual’s general personal-
ity framework: openness to experience, conscientiousness,
extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (“OCEAN”;
Costa & McCrae, 1985; Goldberg, 1992). This study posits
that spending provides an increase in satisfaction and well-
being when there is an alignment between one’s spending
and one’s OCEAN personality traits. Without this alignment,
the second research hypothesis is that individuals are more
likely to experience spending regret in late life.
Big Five Personality Traits andLate‑Life Categorical
Spending Regret Hypotheses
Expected Outcomes
Table1 provides the hypothesized associations between the
OCEAN personality traits and late-life categorical spending
regret.
Openness toExperience
Openness to experience (Openness) is best regarded as both
motivational and structural (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Open-
ness is a predictor of the active pursuit of new and diverse
experiences and provides an indicator of how relatively open
one is to an experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991; McCrae,
1993; Pearson etal., 2021). Individuals with higher levels
of openness are associated with less materialism (Troisi
etal., 2006) and enjoy creative activities (Tan etal., 2019).
It is hypothesized that individuals who are open will regret
spending on materialistic categories but will not regret
spending on experience-based categories.
H1 Openness is associated negatively with regret on food
and leisure categorical spending.

Psychol Stud
Conscientiousness
Individuals exhibiting greater conscientiousness have a
propensity to be orderly, self-controlled, hardworking, and
rule-abiding (Roberts etal., 2009, 2014). Conscientiousness
is a predictor of achievement independent of cognitive abil-
ity (Noftle & Robins, 2007; Roberts etal., 2007), job per-
formance (Dudley etal., 2006), and income (Moffitt etal.,
2011). Research also suggests that conscientiousness is
related to higher levels of net worth (Duckworth etal., 2012;
Letkiewicz & Fox, 2014) and is associated negatively with
impulsive spending (Weston etal., 2019). Conscientiousness
is hypothesized to be associated positively with spending
regret on categories that could be perceived as impulsive
and that are related to depreciating assets.
H2 Conscientiousness is associated positively with regret
on clothing, appliances/furnishings, and car categorical
spending.
Extraversion
Extraversion represents the extent to which an individual
exhibits sociability, positive emotions, and activity (Costa
& McCrae, 1980). Those with greater extraversion are more
likely to rely on others for guidance (Amirkhan etal., 1995),
have a larger social network, and contact their social network
more frequently (Russell etal., 1997). Extraversion within
the financial domain tends to be associated with lower sav-
ings rates (Hirsh, 2015) and impulsive spending (Fenton‐
O’Creevy & Furnham, 2020).
H3 Extraversion is associated negatively with regret on
food, clothing, appliances/furnishings, car, and leisure cat-
egorical spending.
Agreeableness
Agreeableness is associated with behavioral characteristics
that are warm, cooperative, kind, and sympathetic (Costa
etal., 1991; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). Agreeableness is
also related to the motivation to acquire and maintain posi-
tive interpersonal relations (Graziano, 1996; Jensen‐Camp-
bell & Graziano, 2001). Evidence from Mongrain etal.
(2018) show that individuals with high levels of agreeable-
ness tend to spend money on others to promote their happi-
ness. In addition, greater agreeability is inversely related to
investment and savings behavior (Nyhus & Webley, 2001;
Pearson & Guillemette, 2020) and positively with compul-
sive buying behavior (Mowen & Spears, 1999).
H4 Agreeableness is associated positively with regret on
food, clothing, appliances/furnishings, car, and leisure cat-
egorical spending.
Neuroticism
Neuroticism is associated with an increased enduring ten-
dency to exhibit negative emotions such as stress, fear, sad-
ness, and worry (Claridge & David, 2001). Individuals who
are neurotic tend to exhibit behaviors related to self-con-
sciousness and tend to be more vulnerable to emotional hurt
(Costa & McCrae, 1985). Morrison (1997) found that those
with higher levels of neuroticism have a greater external
locus of control, and Wang etal. (2008) suggested that those
with a greater external locus of control view their finances
as beyond the individual’s control.
H5 H5: Neuroticism is associated positively with regret
on child-related expenses and providing financial help cat-
egorical spending.
Methods
Transparency andOpenness
This study, the hypotheses, and analyses were not prereg-
istered. All data, analytic code, and research materials are
Table 1 Hypothesized
association between OCEAN
personality traits and categorical
spending regrets
Openness Conscien-
tiousness
Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism
Housing ± ± ± ± ±
Food – ± – + ±
Clothing ± + ± + ±
Appliances/furnishings ± + – + ±
Car ± + – + ±
Leisure – ± ± + ±
Children’s education ± ± ± ± –
Providing help ± ± ± ± –

Psychol Stud
available online. This study and its results have not been
reported elsewhere.
Data andSample
This study used data collected from a survey fielded in the
RAND American Life Panel (ALP). The survey data were
collected between December 2017 and February 2018.
Weights were provided to approximate the distributions of
age, sex, ethnicity, education, and income in the Current
Population Survey. The data collection targeted individuals
over the age of 50. The sample size was 1886. See Hudomiet
etal. (2018) for a further description of the data. Institu-
tional Review Board approval was not required to conduct
this study, as the data are available to the public and not
individually identifiable.
Table2 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics
of the sample. The sample is comprised of individuals that
are White (87.6%), men (46.2%), married (62%), employed
(53.3%), and have at least a 4-year college degree (50.2%).
39.8% had household income of more than $75,000 annu-
ally. The average age of the sample was 63.
This study is interested in late-life categorical spending
regrets. A relatively older and fully developed sample pro-
vides personality stability (Costa & McCrae, 1986; Damian
etal., 2019; McCrae & Costa, 1994). Life choices made
at later stages in the life cycle are more likely to reflect
one’s personality when compared to life choices that are
made in earlier stages (Mortimer & Simmons, 1978; Stokes
etal., 1989). The older sample allows for the opportunity
to explore regrets related to accumulate lifetime spending.
Spending Regret
Survey participants from the RAND ALP were presented
with the prompt, “To save more you have to spend less.
Which of the spending categories could you have possibly
spent less on?” The possible responses included: housing,
food, clothing, appliances and home furnishings (appliances/
furnishings), car, leisure/going out/dining out, hobbies, etc.
(leisure), children’s education or other child-related expenses
(child-related expenses), and providing financial help. Sur-
vey participants had the opportunity to select multiple
spending regret categories.
Table3 provides the average categorical means of the
spending regrets. Survey participants experienced spending
regret (%) in the following categories: housing (10.2%), food
(24.2%), clothing (18.9%), appliances/furnishings (11.5%),
car (15.3%), leisure (31.8%), child-related expenses (4.6%),
and providing financial help (10.7%).
Table4 provides a summary of the frequency distri-
bution for the categorical spending regrets. Of the 1886
sample, 1013 (53.7%) responded with having no spend-
ing regret. The remaining sample reported having at least
one categorical spending regret. Of the 1886 sample, 199
(10.6%) reported having 1 categorical spending regret, 240
(12.7%) reported having 2 categorical spending regrets, 187
(9.9%) reported having 3 categorical spending regrets, 146
(7.74%) reported having 4 categorical spending regrets, 54
(2.9%) reported having 5 categorical spending regrets, 31
Table 2 Descriptive statistics
N = 1886
If the respondent was male, white, married, made $75,000 or more
annually, or had at least a 4-year college education, a separate dummy
variable for each variable are created with an assigned value of ‘1.’
All other responses are coded as ‘0’
Mean Standard dev
Income (under 75k as base) 39.77% 48.95
Married (non-married as base) 62.04% 48.54
Male (female as base) 46.18% 49.86
White (non-white as base) 87.59% 32.98
Education (no 4-year degree as base) 50.21% 50.01
Age 62.91 7.51
Employed (not employed as base) 53.29% 49.91
Table 3 Average categorical spending regret
N = 1886
Mean Standard dev
Housing 10.18% 30.24
Food 24.18% 65.28
Clothing 18.88% 39.14
Appliances/furnishings 11.51% 31.92
Car 15.27% 35.98
Leisure 31.81% 46.59
Children’s education 4.56% 20.87
Providing help 10.66% 30.87
Table 4 Frequency distribution of multiple categorical spending
regrets
N = 1886
Frequency Percentage Cumm. percentage
0 Spending regret(s) 1013 53.71% 53.71%
1 Spending regret(s) 199 10.55% 64.26%
2 Spending regret(s) 240 12.73% 76.99%
3 Spending regret(s) 187 9.92% 86.9%
4 Spending regret(s) 146 7.74% 94.64%
5 Spending regret(s) 54 2.86% 97.51%
6 Spending regret(s) 31 1.64% 99.15%
7 Spending regret(s) 12 0.64% 99.79%
8 Spending regret(s) 4 0.21% 100%

Psychol Stud
(1.6%) reported having 6 categorical spending regrets, 12
(0.6%) reported having 7 categorical spending regrets, and
4 (0.21%) reported having all 8 categorical spending regrets.
Big Five Personality Traits
The big five personality traits: Openness, conscientious-
ness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism served
as the latent variables constructed using indicators obtained
from the ALP data. The personality explanatory variables
are estimated by utilizing Lachman and Weaver’s (1997)
approach to personality scale construction and scoring. The
ordinal indicators were measured using a 4-point Likert-type
scale. The higher the indicator reflected greater identifica-
tion with each trait. Each of the OCEAN traits exhibited
acceptable (0.7 ≤ α < 0.8) internal reliability. The Cronbach’s
Alpha scores of 0.70 for openness, 0.77 for conscientious-
ness, 0.71 for extraversion, 0.71 for agreeableness, and 0.73
for neuroticism.
A structural equation model with a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was utilized to examine the underlying per-
sonality traits and indicators obtained from the ALP data.
The results are reported in Fig.1 and Table5. All unstand-
ardized and standardized pattern coefficients were significant
(p < 0.001).
The Chi-square test initially indicated large differences
between expected and observed covariance matrices (χ2(df
289) = 3813.04; p ≤ 0.001). However, the Chi-square test is
sensitive to rejection when testing larger sample sizes (Kline,
2016; Ullman & Bentler, 2003). The root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) is useful when conducting a
CFA on a large sample size (Savalei, 2012; Schubert etal.,
2017). The model’s RMSEA of 0.05 (90% CI = 0.048, 0.052)
indicates an adequate fit. The comparative fit index (CFI)
and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) indicate an adequate fit,
with results of 0.89 and 0.88, respectively.
Model
To model the relationship between the Big Five personal-
ity traits and the categorical spending regrets, the following
probit models were estimated via maximum likelihood:
with
where
SpendRegretz
is a matrix of the observed dependent
variables, coded as a “1” if the respondent reported a spend-
ing regret in the spending regret category tested and a “0”
otherwise.
The matrix
OCEANj
enters the model as a series of con-
tinuous variables representing the OCEAN traits. Each of
the five traits was estimated utilizing the recommended
methodology on a 4-point Likert-type scale (Lachman &
Weaver, 1997). The scale was based upon the extent survey
respondents felt 20 adjectives described them. The higher
respondents scores reflected greater identification with each
of the traits. This methodology has been well established in
the psychology literature (Asebedo etal., 2019; Lachman &
Weaver, 1997; Mueller & Plug, 2006).
Dh is a matrix representing the survey participants demo-
graphic variables. The demographic variables that were
included in the model were indicator variables for whether
the participant was married, was male, was white, had a
4-year college degree, was employed, made over $75,000
annually, and a continuous variable measuring age.
𝛽0
represents the y-intercept of the model.
𝛽j
is the vector
of coefficients related to the
OCEANj
matrix of personality
variables.
𝛽h
is the vector of coefficients associated with the
demographic variables.
ez
is the vector of error terms related
to each of the regressions. Average marginal effects were
SpendRegretz=𝛽0+𝛽jOCEANj++𝛽hDh+ez
P(
Y=1
|
OCEAN
j
,D
h)
=Φ
(
𝛽0+𝛽
j
5OCEAN
j
+𝛽
h
D
h)
Fig. 1 Structural equation model with confirmatory factor analysis

Psychol Stud
calculated to determine the magnitudes of the associations
of these variables and the categorical spending regrets.
Results
OCEAN Traits Association withSpending Regrets
Table6 provides the average marginal effects and stand-
ard errors from the probit regressions. The OCEAN Traits
were associated significantly with the following categorical
spending regrets: food, clothing, appliances/furnishings, car,
leisure, and providing help. Housing and children’s educa-
tion had no statistically significant association with any of
the OCEAN personality traits.
Each of the OCEAN traits had their own unique associa-
tions. Openness was associated negatively with the food cat-
egorical spending regret (p < 0.10). Consciousness was asso-
ciated positively with the appliances/furnishings categorical
spending regret (p < 0.05) and was associated positively with
the car categorical spending regret (p < 0.01). Extraversion
was associated negatively with the food categorical spend-
ing regret (p < 0.10), was associated negatively with the car
categorical spending regret (p < 0.05), and was associated
negatively with the providing help categorical spending
regret (p < 0.001). Agreeableness was associated positively
with the food categorical spending regret (p < 0.01), asso-
ciated positively with the clothing categorical spending
regret (p < 0.01), was associated positively with the leisure
categorical spending regret (p < 0.01), and was associated
positively with the providing help categorical spending
regret (p < 0.001). The results for neuroticism indicate no
statistically significant association between the categorical
spending regrets tested.
Discussion andConclusion
Openness
Individuals who are more open are less likely to regret life-
time spending on food. The conscious (unconscious) edible
(non-edible) food experience emphasizes the viewpoint of
food as an experiential product. Rosenzweig and Gilovich
(2012) showed material versus experiential properties of a
product influence spending behavior and regret. The experi-
ences received from food purchases by individuals who are
more open may lead to greater lifetime spending satisfaction
and a decrease in the likelihood of having spending regret
in late life.
Conscientiousness
Individuals who are more conscientious are more likely
to regret lifetime spending on appliances/furnishings and
cars. The monetary values of cars and appliances/furnish-
ings rarely appreciate over time; rather, the monetary val-
ues of cars and appliances/furnishings are more likely to
depreciate over time. Because conscientiousness has been
associated with higher levels of net worth (Duckworth etal.,
2012; Letkiewicz & Fox, 2014), it is likely that individuals
who are more conscientious receive dissatisfaction from the
monetary depreciation of their cars and appliances/furnish-
ings post-purchase. The accumulated dissatisfaction received
from the monetary depreciation of lifetime purchases can
Table 5 Confirmatory factor analysis results
a Not tested for statistical significance. All other unstandardized and
standardized pattern coefficients are significant at p < 0.001
Model fit indices are: χ2(df 289) = 3813.04, p ≤ 0.000;
RMSEA = 0.05, 90% CI [0.048, 0.052], CFI = 0.89, TLI = 0.88
Parameter Unstandardized Standardized
Coeff SE Coeff SE
Openness
O1 Creative 1a0.77 0.01
O2 Imaginative 0.98 0.03 0.81 0.01
O3 Intelligent 0.43 0.02 0.50 0.02
O4 Curious 0.55 0.03 0.53 0.02
O5 Sophisticated 0.60 0.04 0.46 0.02
O6 Adventurous 0.61 0.03 0.50 0.02
O7 Broadminded 0.49 0.03 0.44 0.02
Conscientiousness
C1 Organized 1a0.62 0.02
C2 Responsible 0.53 0.03 0.58 0.02
C3 Hardworking 0.67 0.04 0.57 0.02
C4 Careless 0.51 0.04 0.33 0.02
C5 Thorough 1.06 0.04 0.74 0.02
Extraversion
E1 Outgoing 1a0.72 0.02
E2 Friendly 0.59 0.03 0.62 0.02
E3 Lively 0.94 0.03 0.74 0.01
E4 Active 0.60 0.04 0.45 0.02
E5 Talkative 0.90 0.04 0.61 0.02
Agreeableness
A1 Helpful 1a0.55 0.02
A2 War m 1.57 0.08 0.71 0.02
A3 Caring 1.40 0.07 0.73 0.01
A4 Softhearted 1.60 0.09 0.62 0.02
A5 Sympathetic 1.57 0.08 0.69 0.02
Neuroticism
N1 Moody 1a0.52 0.02
N2 Worrying 1.71 0.09 0.78 0.02
N3 Nervous 1.86 0.9 0.83 0.02
N4 Calm 0.72 0.5 0.40 0.02

Psychol Stud
help explain the association between conscientiousness and
appliances/furnishings and cars categorical spending regret.
Extraversion
Individuals who are extraverted are less likely to regret life-
time spending on food, cars, and providing financial help.
Extraversion is associated with excitement and stimulation,
which are associated with impulsive purchases (Hussain &
Siddiqui, 2019; Verplanken & Sato, 2011). Fenton‐O’Creevy
and Furnham (2020) provided evidence that individuals who
are more extraverted tend to be impulsive with their pur-
chases. The categories of food, cars, and providing financial
help present opportunities for impulsive purchasing, which
may manifest into spending regret.
Agreeableness
Individuals who are more agreeable are more likely to regret
lifetime spending on food, clothing, leisure, and providing
financial help. This finding links to the evidence provided
by Mowen and Spears (1999), who showed agreeability is
related positively to compulsive buying behavior. Housed
inside of the food, clothing, and leisure spending catego-
ries are a plethora of compulsive purchase opportunities.
Table 6 Probit regression average marginal effects and standard errors
N = 1886
If the respondent was male, white, married, made $75,000 or more annually, or had at least a 4-year college education, a separate dummy vari-
able for each variable are created with an assigned value of ‘1.’ All other responses are coded as ‘0’
Significance is defined as follows: † significant at p < 0.10; * significant at p < 0.05; ** significant at p < 0.01; *** significant at p < 0.001
Housing Food Clothing Appliances/furnishings
Marginal
effect
Standard
error
Marginal
effect
Standard
error
Marginal
effect
Standard
error
Marginal
effect
Standard error
Open − 0.0137 0.0169 − 0.0337†0.0183 − 0.0185 0.0216 − 0.0201 0.0178
Conscien-
tiousness
0.0192 0.0187 − 0.0146 0.0193 − 0.0129 0.0235 0.0396* 0.0198
Extraversion 0.0119 0.0163 − 0.0296†0.0172 0.0218 0.0207 0.0178 0.0173
Agreeableness 0.0231 0.0186 0.0564** 0.0202 0.0722** 0.0243 0.0226 0.0197
Neuroticism 0.0122 0.0147 0.0004 0.0162 − 0.0281 0.0191 0.0096 0.0157
Income 0.0058 0.0163 0.0089 0.0175 0.0095 0.0209 0.0116 0.0172
Married 0.0049 0.0157 − 0.0157 0.0166 − 0.0329†0.0196 − 0.0239 0.0162
Male 0.0372* 0.0149 0.0088 0.0162 − 0.0761*** 0.0192 0.0407** 0.0157
White 0.0147 0.0227 0.0196 0.0240 − 0.0549* 0.0264 − 0.0152 0.0222
Education − 0.0145 0.0151 − 0.0424** 0.0612 − 0.0272 0.0191 − 0.0539*** 0.0151
Age 0.0021†0.0011 0.0018 0.0012 0.0056*** 0.0014 0.0026* 0.0012
Employed 0.0194 0.0163 0.0349* 0.0175 0.0377†0.0207 − 0.0089 0.0169
Car Leisure Children’s education Providing help
Marginal
effect
Standard
error
Marginal
effect
Standard
error
Marginal
effect
Standard
error
Marginal
effect
Standard error
Open − 0.0187 0.0198 − 0.0201 0.0257 − 0.0072 0.0116 0.0254 0.0173
Conscien-
tiousness
0.0601** 0.0219 − 0.0441 0.0273 0.0134 0.0131 0.0222 0.0192
Extraversion − 0.0327* 0.0188 − 0.0362 0.0244 0.0008 0.0109 − 0.0581*** 0.0160
Agreeableness 0.0231 0.0214 0.0919** 0.0278 0.0101 0.0131 0.0841*** 0.0201
Neuroticism 0.0212 0.01756 − 0.0141 0.0227 0.0119 0.0101 0.0102 0.0149
Income 0.0068 0.0192 − 0.0167 0.0248 0.0274* 0.0116 0.0165 0.0162
Married − 0.0026 0.0185 − 0.0375 0.0234 − 0.0179 0.0109 − 0.0203 0.0154
Gender 0.0889*** 0.0175 0.0613** 0.0226 − 0.0161 0.0107 − 0.0131 0.0153
White − 0.0111 0.0257 − 0.0234 0.0326 0.0272 0.0177 − 0.0368 0.0207
Education − 0.0265 0.0177 − 0.0873*** 0.0225 − 0.0121 0.0104 − 0.0258†0.0150
Age 0.0059*** 0.0013 0.0094*** 0.0016 0.0004 0.0008 0.0056*** 0.0011
Employed 0.0262 0.0191 0.0923*** 0.0244- 0.0025 0.0113 0.0378* 0.0162

Psychol Stud
Compiled over a lifetime, compulsive purchases help explain
the positive association with late-life spending regret.
In addition, an overextension of providing financial help
can be regarded as compulsive. This leaves individuals who
are more agreeable in a particularly vulnerable position, as
those with greater agreeableness are more likely to spend
money on others to promote their happiness (Mongrain
etal., 2018). This may lead individuals who are more agree-
able to be susceptible to financial exploitation.
Neuroticism
The results for neuroticism revealed no statistically signifi-
cant association with any of the spending regret categories
tested.
Conclusion
This study finds that the Big Five personality traits are sig-
nificantly associated (more regret ± less regret) with the fol-
lowing categorical spending regrets in late-life. Openness:
food (−). Conscientiousness: appliances/furnishings ( +)
and cars ( +). Extraversion: food (−), car (−), and providing
financial help (−). Agreeableness: food ( +), clothing ( +),
leisure ( +), and providing financial help ( +). The findings
provide insight into the role of personality traits and cat-
egorical spending regret. When taken together, the results
suggest that there are optimal ways to allocate spending on
an individual level to minimize spending regret. Continued
research exploring personality-based spending optimization
may further uncover opportunities to enhance spending to
promote financial satisfaction and prevent spending regret.
Author Contributions The primary author completed the empirical
analyses, while the co-authors contributed to manuscript development.
Funding Open access funding provided by the Carolinas Consor-
tium. There was no funding to support this research.
Data Availability The data used are available publicly.
Declarations
Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interests or competing
interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Akerlof, G. A., & Dickens, W. T. (1982). The economic consequences
of cognitive dissonance. The American Economic Review, 72(3),
307–319.
Amirkhan, J. H., Risinger, R. T., & Swickert, R. J. (1995). Extraver-
sion: A “hidden” personality factor in coping? Journal of Person-
ality, 63(2), 189–212.
APA. (2022). Personality. Retrieved from https:// www. apa. org/ topics/
perso nality.
Asebedo, S. D., Quadria, T. H., Chen, Y., & Montenegro-Montenegro,
E. (2022). Individual differences in personality and positive emo-
tion for wealth creation. Personality and Individual Differences,
199, 111854.
Asebedo, S. D., Wilmarth, M. J., Seay, M. C., Archuleta, K., Brase,
G. L., & MacDonald, M. (2019). Personality and saving behavior
among older adults. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 53(2), 488–519.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
Bleidorn, W., Hill, P. L., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J., Hennecke, M.,
Hopwood, C. J., & Orth, U. (2019). The policy relevance of per-
sonality traits. American Psychologist, 74(9), 1056–1067.
Claridge, G., & Davis, C. (2001). What’s the use of neuroticism? Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 31(3), 383–400.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and
neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory.
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Personality stability and its
implications for clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review,
6(5), 407–423.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales
for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO
personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences,
12(9), 887–898.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Happiness, flow, and economic equality.
American Psychologist, 55(10), 1163–1164.
Damian, R. I., Spengler, M., Sutu, A., & Roberts, B. W. (2019). Sixteen
going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability
and change across 50 years. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 117(3), 674.
Duckworth, A. L., Weir, D. R., Tsukayama, E., & Kwok, D. (2012).
Who does well in life? Conscientious adults excel in both objec-
tive and subjective success. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 356.
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006).
A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the predic-
tion of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the
incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 91(1), 40.
Fenton-O’Creevy, M., & Furnham, A. (2020). Money attitudes, per-
sonality and chronic impulse buying. Applied Psychology, 69(4),
1557–1572.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford
University Press.

Psychol Stud
Gladstone, J. J., Matz, S. C., & Lemaire, A. (2019). Can psychological
traits be inferred from spending? Evidence from Transaction Data.
Psychological Science, 30(7), 1087–1096.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five
factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26.
Golsteyn, B., & Schildberg-Hörisch, H. (2017). Challenges in research
on preferences and personality traits: Measurement, stability, and
inference. Journal of Economic Psychology, 60, 1–6.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimen-
sion of personality. In Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp.
795–824). Academic Press.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Per-
ceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for
agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70(4), 820.
Hill, G., & Howell, R. T. (2014). Moderators and mediators of pro-
social spending and well-being: The influence of values and psy-
chological need satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 69, 69–74.
Hirsh, J. B. (2015). Extraverted populations have lower savings rates.
Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 162–168.
Hudomiet, P., Hurd, M. D., & Rohwedder, S. (2018). The causal effects
of economic incentives, health and job characteristics on retire-
ment: estimates based on subjective conditional probabilities. In
2018 Working Longer and Retirement Conference.
Hussain, S., & Siddiqui, D. A. (2019). The Influence of Impulsive
Personality Traits and Store Environment on Impulse Buying of
Consumer in Karachi.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness
as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality,
69(2), 323–362.
Kang, Y. S., Hong, S., & Lee, H. (2009). Exploring continued online
service usage behavior: The roles of self-image congruity and
regret. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 111–122.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G. E., Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G.
(2007). Neural predictors of purchases. Neuron, 53(1), 147–156.
Korankye, T., & Pearson, B. (2023). How engaging in financial man-
agement activity relates to the experiential well-being of Ameri-
cans. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(2), 132.
Korankye, T., Pearson, B., & Liu, L. (2024). Rethinking fundamen-
tals: Analyzing millennial retirement plan participation in light
of employer contributions and automatic enrollment. Journal of
Risk and Financial Management, 17(2), 1–13.
Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1997). The midlife development
inventory (MIDI) personality scales: Scale construction and scor-
ing (pp. 1–9). Brandeis University.
Lemon, K. N., White, T. B., & Winer, R. S. (2002). Dynamic customer
relationship management: Incorporating future considerations into
the service retention decision. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 1–14.
Letkiewicz, J. C., & Fox, J. J. (2014). Conscientiousness, financial
literacy, and asset accumulation of young adults. Journal of Con-
sumer Affairs, 48(2), 274–300.
Liu, Y., Asebedo, S., & Pearson, B. (2023a). Personality, financial risk-
taking attitude, and older individuals’ stock investment decisions.
Financial Planning Review, 6(4), 1–16.
Liu, Y., Korankye, T., & Pearson, B. (2023b). Personality traits and stu-
dent loan holding for self and for children among baby boomers.
Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 34(3), 415–429.
Maddi, S. R., Erwin, L. M., Carmody, C. L., Villarreal, B. J., White,
M., & Gundersen, K. K. (2013). Relationship of hardiness, grit,
and emotional intelligence to internet addiction, excessive con-
sumer spending, and gambling. The Journal of Positive Psychol-
ogy, 8(2), 128–134.
Matz, S. C., Gladstone, J. J., & Stillwell, D. (2016). Money buys hap-
piness when spending fits our personality. Psychological Science,
27(5), 715–725.
Maziriri, E. T., & Madinga, N. W. (2015). The Effect of buyer’s
remorse on consumer’s repeat purchase intention: Experiences of
Generation Y apparel student consumers within the Vaal Triangle.
International Journal of Research, 24.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of
openness to experience. In Handbook of Personality Psychology
(pp. 825–847). Academic Press.
McCrae, R. R. (1993). Openness to experience as a basic dimension
of personality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13(1),
39–55.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1994). The stability of personality:
Observations and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychologi-
cal Science, 3(6), 173–175.
Mellers, B. A., & McGraw, A. P. (2001). Anticipated emotions as
guides to choice. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
10(6), 210–214.
Mellers, B., Schwartz, A., & Ritov, I. (1999). Emotion-based choice.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 332.
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J.,
Harrington, H., & Sears, M. R. (2011). A gradient of childhood
self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693–2698.
Mongrain, M., Barnes, C., Barnhart, R., & Zalan, L. B. (2018). Acts of
kindness reduce depression in individuals low on agreeableness.
Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(3), 323.
Morrison, K. A. (1997). Personality correlates of the five-factor model
for a sample of business owners/managers: Associations with
scores on self-monitoring, type a behavior, locus of control, and
subjective well-being. Psychological Reports, 80(1), 255–272.
Mortimer, J. T., & Simmons, R. G. (1978). Adult socialization. Annual
Review of Sociology, 4(1), 421–454.
Mowen, J. C., & Spears, N. (1999). Understanding compulsive buy-
ing among college students: A hierarchical approach. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 8(4), 407–430.
Mueller, G., & Plug, E. (2006). Estimating the effect of personality on
male and female earnings. ILR Review, 60(1), 3–22.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of aca-
demic outcomes: Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 116.
Nyhus, E. K., & Webley, P. (2001). The role of personality in house-
hold saving and borrowing behaviour. European Journal of Per-
sonality, 15(S1), S85–S103.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the predic-
tion of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology,
57, 401–421.
Pearson, B., Korankye, T., & Salehi, H. (2021). Comparative advantage
in the household: Should one person specialize in a household’s
financial matters?. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 1–11.
Pearson, B. (2020). Demographic variations in the perception of the
investment services offered by financial advisors. Journal of
Accounting and Finance, 20(3), 127–139.
Pearson, B., & Guillemette, M. (2020). The association between finan-
cial risk and retirement satisfaction. Financial Services Review,
28(4), 341–350.
Pearson, B., Korankye, T., & Liu, Y. (2024). Retirement planning,
retirement insecurity, and financial satisfaction. Journal of Retire-
ment, 11(3), 1–13.
Pearson, B., & Lee, J. (2022). Student debt and healthcare service
usage. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 33(2),
183–193.
Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints,
J. (2009). Conscientiousness, In Leary M & Hoyle R (Eds.),

Psychol Stud
Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 369–
381). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L.
R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of
personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for
predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 2(4), 313–345.
Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, J. M., & Hill, P.
L. (2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed?
Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1315.
Rosenzweig, E., & Gilovich, T. (2012). Buyer’s remorse or missed
opportunity? Differential regrets for material and experiential pur-
chases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2),
215.
Rowena, G., Varani, L., Pearson, B., & McCoy, M. (2023). ‘I’m just
bad with money’: How self-fulfilling prophecy shapes financial
behaviors. Journal of Financial Planning, 36(4), 62–70.
Russell, D. W., Booth, B., Reed, D., & Laughlin, P. R. (1997). Per-
sonality, social networks, and perceived social support among
alcoholics: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Personal-
ity, 65(3), 649–692.
Savalei, V. (2012). The relationship between root mean square error of
approximation and model misspecification in confirmatory factor
analysis models. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
72(6), 910–932.
Schubert, A. L., Hagemann, D., Voss, A., & Bergmann, K. (2017).
Evaluating the model fit of diffusion models with the root mean
square error of approximation. Journal of Mathematical Psychol-
ogy, 77, 29–45.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical
review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300.
Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to pre-
dict purchase motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13(3),
195–206.
Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (1989). Life history
prototypes in the study of human individuality. Journal of Per-
sonality, 57(2), 509–545.
Tan, C. S., Lau, X. S., Kung, Y. T., & Kailsan, R. A. L. (2019). Open-
ness to experience enhances creativity: The mediating role of
intrinsic motivation and the creative process engagement. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(1), 109–119.
Tovanich, N., Centellegher, S., Seghouani, N. B., Gladstone, J., Matz,
S., & Lepri, B. (2021). Inferring psychological traits from spend-
ing categories and dynamic consumption patterns. EPJ Data Sci-
ence, 10(1), 1–23.
Troisi, J. D., Christopher, A. N., & Marek, P. (2006). Materialism and
money spending disposition as predictors of economic and per-
sonality variables. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(3).
Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling.
Handbook of Psychology, 607–634.
Verplanken, B., & Sato, A. (2011). The psychology of impulse buy-
ing: An integrative self-regulation approach. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 34(2), 197–210.
Wang, M., Chen, H., & Wang, L. (2008). Locus of control and home
mortgage loan behaviour. International Journal of Psychology,
43(2), 125–129.
Weston, S. J., Gladstone, J. J., Graham, E. K., Mroczek, D. K., & Con-
don, D. M. (2019). Who are the scrooges? Personality predictors
of holiday spending. Social Psychological and Personality Sci-
ence, 10(6), 775–782.
Zeelenberg, M. (1999). Anticipated regret, expected feedback and
behavioral decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Mak-
ing, 12(2), 93–106.
Zhang, J. W., Howell, R. T., Caprariello, P. A., & Guevarra, D. A.
(2014). Damned if they do, damned if they don’t: Material buy-
ers are not happier from material or experiential consumption.
Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 71–83.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.