Compulsive Buying Behaviors and Dietary Patterns in the Context of the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ)

Abstract

Exploring the interactions between compulsive buying and dietary practices is crucial in terms of understanding these behaviors from a behavioral standpoint. This paper investigates the relationships between compulsive buying (CB) and non-compulsive buying (non-CB), focusing on the influence of dietary habits (TFEQ), body mass index (BMI), and emotional valence. The study involved a representative sample of 707 Polish adults and employed tools such as the Compulsive Buying Scale, the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ), and the Emotional Appetite Questionnaire (EMAQ). The results revealed that compulsive buyers (CBs) had higher levels of cognitive restraint, emotional eating, and uncontrolled eating than non-compulsive buyers (non-CBs). Importantly, emotional valence—which includes both positive and negative emotions—significantly influenced dietary behaviors, illustrating the complex role emotions play in food consumption. Additionally, the results highlighted that the BMI significantly affects these relationships, suggesting different eating patterns across BMI categories. This study underscores the need for targeted interventions focusing on psychological and nutritional aspects to address these interconnected compulsive behaviors.

1. Introduction

Shopping plays a crucial role in fulfilling the needs of consumer societies, serving both utilitarian and symbolic functions. Beyond addressing material necessities, shopping also serves as a means of identity expression and a form of entertainment. However, in some cases, shopping becomes compulsive, characterized by excessive, uncontrolled purchasing behavior, which can have serious individual and societal consequences. Compulsivity is a broader psychological construct that refers to a pattern of behavior characterized by repetitive actions driven by an inner urge that the individual feels unable to control. It is often associated with emotional distress and is generally seen as a difficulty in regulating one’s impulses [1]. Compulsivity encompasses a range of behaviors and does not necessarily imply a focus on shopping alone. Compulsive buying, on the other hand, is a specific manifestation of compulsivity that involves chronic, repetitive purchasing patterns driven by emotions. It is important to distinguish this from impulsivity, which refers to spontaneous and unplanned buying decisions [2].

Compulsive buying behavior affects approximately 4% of consumers aged 15 and older in Poland [3] and between 1.8% and 16% of the adult population in the United States [2]. It is defined as a chronic, repetitive purchasing pattern driven by negative emotions, distinguishing it from impulsivity, which refers to spontaneous, unplanned buying decisions [1,4]. Notably, impulsive food purchases constitute approximately 70% of all impulse buying [5]. While compulsivity is often considered an extreme form of impulsivity, the distinction between the two remains a subject of ongoing debate [6]. Granero et al. [7] suggest that compulsive shopping is part of a broader spectrum of behavioral addictions characterized by impulsivity and difficulty in regulating behavior under an emotional influence. Their findings indicate that individuals with compulsive tendencies struggle with impulse control, making them more susceptible to other maladaptive behaviors, including uncontrolled eating. This issue is particularly concerning among children and adolescents, who exhibit a heightened propensity to lose control over their purchasing behaviors [8].

Compulsivity appears to be a key factor contributing to dysfunctional eating behaviors, particularly emotional eating and a diminished ability to regulate both the quantity and the quality of food consumed. As noted by Maraz et al. [9], individuals with compulsive tendencies are three times more likely to develop eating disorders than those without such tendencies. Moreover, compulsivity is frequently associated with binge eating, especially of high-energy foods, which increases the risk of obesity and other eating disorders [10,11].

Emotions play a vital role in driving compulsive purchasing behaviors. Compulsive consumers often engage in shopping as a means of alleviating negative emotional states; however, this relief is temporary and reinforces repetitive behavioral patterns [12,13,14]. This mechanism is particularly pronounced in the context of food purchases, where compulsive tendencies are linked to unhealthy eating practices such as emotional eating [15,16,17].

While extensive research has examined compulsivity in the context of purchasing clothing, footwear, cosmetics, household appliances, and home decor, its relationship with dietary choices remains underexplored. Given the growing obesity epidemic, it is crucial to investigate compulsive behaviors in relation to consumer attitudes toward increasingly large portion sizes [18,19,20], uncontrolled eating driven by the widespread availability of highly palatable foods [21,22], and non-hunger-driven consumption [23]. Although compulsive buying is recognized as a behavioral addiction, it has yet to be formally classified as a disorder, despite growing evidence of its prevalence [24].

This study examines the differences between compulsive buyers (CBs) and non-compulsive buyers (non-CBs) in relation to dietary patterns, as assessed by the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ), which includes uncontrolled eating (UE), emotional eating (EE) and cognitive restraint (CR). Additionally, we explore the role of the body mass index (BMI) and emotional valence, as measured by the Emotional Appetite Questionnaire (EMAQ), in understanding the interactions between compulsivity and eating behaviors.

UE, which reflects difficulties in moderating the frequency or quantity of food intake, has been linked to impulsivity and heightened sensitivity to immediate rewards [25]. Similarly, individuals with higher levels of impulsivity, which closely relate to disinhibited eating, exhibit stronger early neural responses to food-related cues and rate palatable foods more highly, suggesting an increased sensitivity to hedonic food attributes and reduced top-down executive control mechanisms [26]. Compulsive buying frequently coexists with emotionally driven eating patterns, particularly EE, which may serve similar emotional regulation purposes [24,27]. Notably, EE can be triggered by both negative and positive affective states, especially in individuals with impulsive traits who are more reactive to emotional food cues [28,29]. The construct of CR is multifaceted. While high levels of CR are often interpreted as intentional efforts to limit caloric intake and promote healthier dietary choices, research suggests that in individuals with compulsive or disinhibited tendencies, CR may reflect a rigid and vulnerable form of control that is susceptible to breakdown under emotional or psychological stress [30,31]. Van Strien [30] emphasizes that high restraint scores can coexist with episodes of disinhibited eating, particularly in contexts of anxiety or mood disturbances, highlighting the paradox of restraint failure. Similarly, Oikarinen et al. [31] observe that restrained eaters, especially those with elevated psychopathological traits, may experience difficulty sustaining control over eating behaviors, leading to compensatory patterns such as binge or emotional eating. Although individuals with high CR may exhibit enhanced top-down attentional processing of food stimuli [26], such neural patterns do not necessarily translate into successful dietary regulation. These findings highlight the dual aspect of restraint, as while it may involve intentional efforts to control intake, it can also reflect a rigid and fragile regulatory mode that is particularly prone to failure in emotionally challenging contexts [30,31]. This paradox underscores the psychological complexity of maintaining effective dietary self-regulation.

Both EE and UE have been identified as risk factors for weight gain. Research confirms that individuals with compulsive buying tendencies are more likely to present with a higher BMI, potentially due to the complex interactions between impulsivity, affective dysregulation and disordered eating behaviors [24,32].

Drawing on this conceptual and empirical background, we hypothesized that compulsive buyers would demonstrate higher levels of CR, greater susceptibility to UE and a stranger inclination toward EE compared to non-compulsive buyers. We also hypothesized that positive and negative affective states would intensify EE among compulsive buyers. We further expected that individuals with a higher BMI would exhibit elevated CR, more pronounced UE and stronger EE tendencies than those with a lower BMI.

The primary objective of this paper is to address a critical gap in the literature by investigating the complex relationships between compulsive buying, eating patterns, and dietary practices. Our findings provide a scientific foundation for interventions aimed at mitigating these harmful behaviors. By integrating novel perspectives into existing theoretical models, we offer new insights into the mechanisms linking shopping addiction, emotion regulation, and dysfunctional eating [21,23]. Furthermore, we highlight the significance of emotional valence and BMI as key factors influencing compulsivity and eating behaviors, with implications for both research and practice.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Interrelations Between Compulsive Buying and Eating Behaviors: Insights from the TFEQ

Eating behaviors and dietary practices are critical areas of research due to their profound impact on individual and public health. Dietary styles, eating habits, and the psychological mechanisms underlying food choices play a crucial role in both the prevention and the treatment of diet-related diseases. Compulsive behaviors, often regarded as part of the “dark side” of consumer behavior [21], provide valuable insights into the emotional, cognitive, and uncontrolled mechanisms that shape eating patterns. Understanding these mechanisms is particularly important for developing public health strategies and behavioral interventions.

A widely used tool for assessing eating behaviors is the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ), which evaluates three key dimensions: cognitive restraint (CR), uncontrolled eating (UE), and emotional eating (EE).

Cognitive restraint (CR) refers to the intentional regulation of calorie intake to maintain or reduce body weight. Research suggests that compulsive buying may be associated with an increased capacity for CR in the context of eating behaviors. A systematic review by Thomas et al. [33] indicates that compulsive purchases are influenced by both internal triggers (e.g., discomfort, boredom, uncertainty) and external emotional triggers (e.g., advertisements), prompting a heightened need for self-control among individuals with compulsive tendencies. Consequently, compulsive buyers (CBs) may exhibit a stronger inclination toward self-regulation in response to these triggers.

Earlier research by Yeomans et al. [25] further supports this perspective, demonstrating that impulsivity is linked to eating control but not directly to CR. This suggests that while CBs may struggle with impulse control, they might consciously adopt compensatory strategies—such as cognitive restraint—to regulate their behavior in other domains. Although this hypothesis has not been directly confirmed, it aligns with findings by Oikarinen et al. [31], who report that individuals with high CR levels deliberately restrict their food intake. It is therefore plausible that CBs employ similar cognitive strategies to counteract impulsive shopping tendencies.

Given that compulsivity is generally associated with difficulties in maintaining control, compulsive buyers may consciously enhance their CR levels as a means of preventing uncontrolled purchasing behaviors. This suggests a potential link between compulsive buying and an increased tendency toward calorie restriction. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H1a: 

Compulsive buyers show higher cognitive restraint than non-compulsive buyers.

Uncontrolled eating (UE), a key component of the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ), refers to the inability to regulate food intake, often driven by emotional influences and external stimuli. This loss of control can contribute to overconsumption and challenges in maintaining a healthy weight. Research by Yeomans et al. [25] identifies impulsivity as a critical predictor of behaviors characterized by diminished eating control, including excessive food consumption and eating in response to emotional distress. Their findings suggest that compulsive buyers (CBs) experience greater difficulties in moderating their food intake and are more prone to emotional eating, highlighting a strong connection between impulsivity and UE.

Further evidence supports this association. De Pasquale et al. [24] indicate that compulsive shopping often co-occurs with eating disorders, particularly in individuals experiencing anxiety and low self-esteem. These emotional factors appear to heighten susceptibility to both compulsive buying and uncontrolled eating, suggesting a shared psychological foundation. Similarly, Quoquab et al. [34] find that compulsive buyers frequently engage in shopping as an emotional coping mechanism, using consumption to regulate mood. This behavior, in turn, may lead to a broader pattern of loss of control, including overeating.

Beyond psychological factors, external marketing influences—such as food-related scents, visual cues, accessibility, and promotional strategies—further contribute to compulsive consumer behaviors. These stimuli facilitate impulsive decision-making, reinforcing dysfunctional eating patterns by encouraging consumers to disregard biological hunger and satiety signals. Compulsivity, characterized by an overwhelming urge to purchase, is thus closely linked to difficulties in regulating dietary behaviors. Additionally, pervasive food advertisements that emotionally associate happiness with purchasing and promote snacking as a source of pleasure contribute to ruminative thinking and heightened cravings, ultimately fostering a loss of control over both shopping and eating behaviors [35]. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H1b: 

Compulsive buyers are more likely to experience uncontrolled eating than non-compulsive buyers.

Emotional eating (EE), the third component of the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ), refers to the tendency to consume food in response to negative emotions. Research by Sansone et al. [36] suggests that individuals exhibiting compulsive buying behaviors may also have elevated levels of EE, indicating a shared mechanism for coping with negative emotions through consumption. Similarly, Davenport et al. [37] find that individuals with compulsive tendencies are particularly prone to emotional eating in response to stress and anxiety, using food consumption as a means of emotion regulation. Martins et al. [27] further support this link, demonstrating that negative emotions, particularly anxiety, heighten the likelihood of EE—a pattern especially pronounced among compulsive individuals. This finding underscores the role of emotional eating as a coping strategy for emotional distress. Additionally, Cachón-Rodríguez et al. [38] highlight that anxiety increases susceptibility to both compulsive buying and EE, reinforcing the idea that these behaviors serve a regulatory function in managing negative emotional states.

Taken together, these findings suggest that compulsive buyers are more vulnerable to EE as a mechanism for emotional regulation, further reinforcing the interconnected nature of compulsive consumption behaviors. Considering the above, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1c: 

Compulsive buyers are more prone to emotional eating than non-compulsive buyers.

2.2. Compulsive Buying and EMAQ

Consumers experiencing emotional influences often adopt specific coping strategies to regulate their affective states. While emotions are a known catalyst for compulsive behaviors, they also play a significant role in food consumption, shaping dietary choices and increasing the likelihood of consuming alcohol, drugs, and high-energy snacks, and of eating out. Negative emotional states—such as anger, fear, anxiety, stress, sadness, and dread—are particularly associated with emotional eating (EE) [39], especially among individuals predisposed to compulsive behaviors [40].

The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) conceptualizes EE as eating triggered exclusively by negative emotions. However, our study aims to extend this framework by exploring the relationship between emotional eating and compulsive behaviors. Drawing on research by Martins et al. [27], we also investigate how both negative and positive emotions influence dietary choices using the Emotional Appetite Questionnaire (EMAQ).

Devonport et al. [40] emphasize that emotions, regardless of the valence (positive or negative), influence eating behaviors by activating the brain’s reward system. Both positive and negative affective states can drive the consumption of hedonically rewarding foods, often resulting in reduced control over overeating. A literature review by Evers et al. [41] suggests that compulsive buyers (CBs) are particularly susceptible to the emotional regulation function of eating behaviors. Similarly, Garg et al. [42] found that sadness increases the consumption of unhealthy foods compared to happiness, though the extent to which this applies to compulsive behavior remains unclear.

Smith et al. [43] propose that CBs may use food as a coping mechanism to manage emotional distress, potentially impairing their ability to regulate eating in response to stress and tension. Their findings align with research by Cachón-Rodríguez et al. [38], which highlights anxiety as a key factor contributing to both compulsive buying and emotional eating, further underscoring their role in emotion regulation. Additionally, Khoshghadam and Rajabi [44] suggest that both positive and negative emotions can impair control over eating, particularly in terms of the consumption of high-calorie, hedonically driven foods.

Furthermore, Ljubičić et al. [32] argue that positive emotions, such as joy, can divert attention and weaken self-regulation, leading to emotional eating driven by pleasure rather than dietary restraint.

Building on these findings, we hypothesize that compulsive buyers, influenced by emotions, are more likely to engage in emotional eating in response to both positive and negative emotional states.

This has led us to formulate the following hypotheses:

H2a: 

Compulsive buyers experiencing positive emotions are likelier to exhibit higher emotional eating than non-compulsive buyers.

H2b: 

Compulsive buyers experiencing negative emotions are likelier to exhibit higher emotional eating compared to non-compulsive buyers.

2.3. Compulsive Buying, BMI, and Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire

A growing body of literature suggests a strong relationship between compulsivity, eating behaviors, and body mass index (BMI). Research indicates that the BMI influences both emotional eating (EE) and compulsive buying (CB) behaviors in both men and women [45]. Individuals with a higher BMI often exhibit greater cognitive restraint (CR) as they attempt to regulate their food intake in response to difficulties maintaining an appropriate body weight. According to Nolan et al. [15], individuals with higher BMI levels show a stronger tendency toward EE, particularly in response to negative emotions. Furthermore, Bilici et al. [16] highlight that emotions can weaken control over eating, leading to overconsumption, although they do not explicitly identify CR as a compensatory mechanism.

Conversely, Khoshghadam and Rajabi [44] argue that both positive and negative emotions influence eating control. Bourdier et al. [29] further emphasize that emotional eating, particularly triggered by negative affect, is closely associated with higher BMI levels. Studies by Mortasa et al. [17] and Oikarinen et al. [31] suggest that individuals with a higher BMI and emotional eating tendencies may engage in heightened CR to counteract excessive food consumption. Given the connection between eating control, emotional responses, and compulsive behaviors, we hypothesize that compulsive buyers with a higher BMI exhibit greater CR compared to those with a lower BMI.

Prior research also suggests that compulsive buying behaviors are often associated with impulse control deficits, which may include episodes of uncontrolled eating (UE) [7]. Sansone et al. [36] report that compulsive buying behaviors correlate with higher BMI levels and a greater propensity for eating disorders, such as binge eating episodes. Their findings indicate a positive relationship between the scores on compulsive buying scales and the BMI, particularly in relation to self-regulation difficulties, including UE behaviors. Similarly, Fuente González et al. [46] find that individuals with a higher BMI are more likely to engage in EE, especially in response to negative emotions. The authors argue that EE is associated with the excessive consumption of high-energy foods, contributing to further BMI increases.

A meta-analysis by Smith et al. [43] supports these findings, showing that overweight and obese individuals experience greater challenges in terms of eating control, particularly when faced with negative emotional states. The study highlights that EE is prevalent among overweight and obese adults and is closely linked to the consumption of calorie-dense foods, which can exacerbate weight gain. Likewise, a literature review by Ljubičić et al. [32] identifies a strong association between a higher BMI and difficulty in regulating food intake, particularly in response to stress and negative emotions. Individuals with higher BMI levels are more likely to engage in EE, leading to a loss of dietary control and increased susceptibility to external environmental cues. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that compulsive buyers with a higher BMI may be more prone to UE than those with a lower BMI.

Compulsive behaviors, including shopping and eating, are widely recognized as emotional regulation mechanisms [47]. Individuals with higher BMI levels are particularly susceptible to EE as a strategy for managing emotions [48,49]. Both compulsive shopping and EE activate the brain’s reward system, which appears to be more pronounced among individuals with a higher BMI, reinforcing impulsive responses to emotional stimuli [46,50]. Additionally, research suggests that individuals with higher BMI levels are more sensitive to both external and emotional stimuli, making them more vulnerable to compulsive behaviors [40,51]. This heightened impulsivity may, in turn, exacerbate EE tendencies among compulsive buyers [49,52].

The interconnection between compulsivity, EE, and BMI underscores the notion that individuals with a higher BMI are more likely to exhibit impulsive eating behaviors in response to emotional triggers. These findings provide critical insights into the psychological mechanisms underlying compulsive behaviors and their implications for dietary regulation.

These considerations have led us to propose the following hypotheses:

H3: 

Compulsive buyers are characterized by a higher BMI than non-compulsive buyers.

H4a: 

Compulsive buyers with a higher BMI are more likely to exhibit higher cognitive restraint in eating than those with a lower BMI.

H4b: 

Compulsive buyers with a higher BMI are likelier to exhibit uncontrolled eating than those with a lower BMI.

H4c: 

Compulsive buyers with a higher BMI are more likely to show a higher tendency toward emotional eating than those with a lower BMI.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the research model and the research hypotheses.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

To address the research objectives, a nationwide study was conducted using the computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI) method. The data for the study were collected via SWPanel—one of the largest research panels in Poland, managed by the SW Research agency. The research sample consisted of 707 adult individuals residing permanently in Poland. It was designed to be representative in terms of gender, age, and place of residence (voivodeship, type of locality), based on data from the Central Statistical Office of Poland (GUS). Respondent selection was carried out using the proprietary Ankieteo system, employing a multi-stage quota-random sampling procedure based on stratification of the sampling frame according to demographic variables. Within each stratum (e.g., men aged 25–34 in the Mazowieckie voivodeship), respondents were randomly selected based on the expected response rate and algorithms for time-based invitation balancing (Pinczos module). SWPanel participants are recruited through open registration (website, mobile app), and their identities are verified both automatically (CAPTCHA, IP analysis, account uniqueness) and manually. The agency also implements a range of procedures to prevent misuse and ensure high data quality (including topic-specific cool-down periods, logical consistency checks, and response time analysis).

Although probabilistic methods in the sense of random selection from a population registry were not applied, the quota-random procedures and control of sample structure ensured its alignment with demographic indicators of the general population. Despite the use of an advanced sampling methodology, it is important to clearly acknowledge the lim-itations associated with employing an online panel. In particular, such panels may be subject to self-selection bias—participants are individuals inclined to take part in surveys, which may mean they differ from the general population in cognitive, motivational, or so-cial characteristics. Additionally, the phenomenon of digital exclusion must be taken into account, as it may lead to the underrepresentation of older individuals, those with lower levels of education, or residents of rural areas—even if the sample structure is technically balanced.

Accordingly, the representativeness of the sample in question should be understood solely in relation to the specified demographic characteristics. The results should be inter-preted with caution, especially when attempting to generalize them to the entire adult population of Poland. The study received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee at the Poznań University of Economics and Business, ensuring compliance with ethical standards for research involving human participants.

Participants were recruited based on their ability to independently make food purchases and dietary decisions. The final sample consisted of 52.76% women and 47.24% men, with the majority of respondents under the age of 50 (55.01%).

Table 1. Structure of the research sample by selected characteristics.

Characteristics	Number	(%)
Total	707	(100.0)
Gender
Female	373	52.76
Male	334	47.24
Age
18–29	128	18.10
30–39	134	18.95
40–49	127	17.96
50–59	101	14.29
60 and older	217	30.96
Education
Basic	43	6.08
Vocational	1023	14.43
Secondary	304	43.00
Higher	258	36.49
Place of residence
Village	268	37.91
Town up to 10,000 residents	45	6.36
Town from 10,000 to 20,000 residents	46	6.51
Town from 20,000 to 50,000 residents	82	11.60
Town from 50,000 to 100,000 residents	60	8.49
Town from 100,000 to 200,000 residents	61	8.63
City over 200,000 residents	145	20.51

provides a detailed overview of the demographic characteristics of the sample.

Respondents completed a structured questionnaire comprising the following components:

−

Compulsive Buying Scale (CBS)—11 items,

−

Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ)—13 items,

−

Emotional Appetite Questionnaire (EMAQ)—14 items,

−

Expanded demographic section—10 items, including self-reported weight and height, used to calculate the body mass index (BMI).

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. The Compulsive Buying Scale (CBS)

The Compulsive Buying Scale (CBS), developed by d’Astous et al. [53], is a psychometric tool designed to assess compulsive buying behaviors. It evaluates tendencies toward uncontrolled purchasing, often driven by emotional factors rather than actual needs. The CBS is a self-report measure, where respondents assess their shopping behaviors using a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire focuses on key dimensions of compulsive buying, including impulsivity, loss of control over purchases, emotional motives for shopping, and post-purchase guilt. In this study, an 11-item version of the CBS was utilized.

3.2.2. The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ)

The Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ), developed by Stunkard and Messick [54], is a widely used instrument for assessing three core aspects of eating behavior:

• Cognitive restraint (CR)—measures the extent to which individuals restrict food intake to control weight and body image.
• Uncontrolled eating (UE)—evaluates loss of control over food consumption, including tendencies toward binge eating and excessive hunger-driven eating episodes.
• Emotional eating (EE)—assesses eating in response to negative emotions, such as low mood and anxiety.

The TFEQ is a self-report instrument using a 4-point scale, with separate scores calculated for each subscale. Higher scores indicate greater severity in each respective domain. Originally comprising 51 items, the scale was later revised and shortened to 18 items by Karlsson et al. [55]. This study employed the Polish adaptation of the TFEQ-13, which maintains the structure of the TFEQ-18 while demonstrating verified reliability and validity [56].

3.2.3. Emotional Appetite Questionnaire (EMAQ)

The Emotional Appetite Questionnaire (EMAQ), developed by Geliebter and Aversa [57], is a validated tool for assessing emotional influences on food consumption [15,16,29,57]. The questionnaire consists of two sections, each evaluating distinct aspects of emotional eating:

• Emotional influence on appetite—measures how various positive and negative emotions impact food intake.
• Situational influence on eating behavior—assesses changes in food consumption in response to specific life situations.

Given that the objective of this study was to examine the valence of emotions influencing increased food consumption, only the first section of the EMAQ was used, while situational factors were excluded as they were not critical to the research aims. Respondents completed the self-assessments on a 9-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated significantly less than usual food consumption, 5 represented no change, and 9 signified significantly increased consumption. The results provided insights into tendencies toward emotional eating.

In this study, emotional valence was measured using the Emotional Appetite Questionnaire (EMAQ), which distinguishes between positive and negative emotional contexts related to eating behavior. The EMAQ was selected due to its theoretical alignment with the study’s focus on affect-driven eating. While self-report measures of emotional eating have faced criticism for not always reflecting actual intake [58], the EMAQ was used as a validated tool to assess the emotional dimension of eating tendencies.

3.2.4. Body Mass Index (BMI)

The body mass index (BMI) is a widely used metric for assessing nutritional status and classifying body weight categories. It is calculated as the ratio of body weight (kg) to the square of height (m²). In this study, following Kruger et al. [59], participants were categorized into two main groups: individuals with normal weight (BMI < 25) and those with OWOB (overweight, obesity)—overweight (BMI ≥ 25.0–29.9) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0).

3.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis began with categorizing the respondents based on their propensity for compulsive buying, as measured by the Compulsive Buying Scale (CBS). To ensure internal consistency, the reliability of the scale was first assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. A k-means cluster analysis was then conducted to identify potentially distinct subgroups within the sample based on compulsive buying behaviors.

To examine the differences between compulsive buyers (CBs) and non-compulsive buyers (non-CBs), descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were calculated. For variables that did not meet the assumption of a normal distribution, the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test was applied to assess the group differences. Additionally, the relationship between the BMI classification (BMI < 25 kg/m² vs. BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and the buyer type (CBs vs. non-CBs) was examined using the chi-square (χ²) test.

All the statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0.2.0.

4. Results

4.1. Compulsive vs. Non-Compulsive Buyers

Following the adopted research methodology, respondents were classified based on their propensity for compulsive buying, as measured by the Compulsive Buying Scale (CBS). The reliability analysis of the CBS yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.912, indicating high internal consistency. Furthermore, the item–total correlation analysis revealed that all the individual items demonstrated values above 0.30, supporting the scale’s reliability.

To explore whether distinct segments existed within the sample regarding compulsive buying tendencies, a k-means cluster analysis was conducted. This analysis grouped respondents based on their self-reported tendencies toward uncontrolled shopping, often driven by emotional rather than practical motives. The resulting classification identified two homogeneous groups: compulsive buyers (CBs) and non-compulsive buyers (non-CBs) (

Table 2. Cluster analysis: CBs and non-CBs (n = 707).

$\mathbf{CBS} (\overline{\mathbf{x}}$ ± σ)	CBs (390 Respondents)	Non-CBs (317 Respondents)
Q1: When I have money, I cannot help but spend part or all of it.	3.43 ± 0.956	1.86 ± 0.819
Q2: I often buy something I see, without planning, just because I have to have it.	3.54 ± 0.900	2.02 ± 0.864
Q3: For me, shopping is a way of facing the stress of my daily life and relaxing.	3.68 ± 0.902	2.29 ± 1.039
Q4: I sometimes feel that something inside pushed me to go shopping.	3.70 ± 0.855	2.16 ± 0.986
Q5: There are times when I have a strong urge to buy.	3.85 ± 0.789	2.39 ± 1.021
Q6: At times, I have felt somewhat guilty after buying a product, because it seemed unreasonable.	3.71 ± 0.943	2.72 ± 1.148
Q7: There are some things I buy that I do not show to anybody because I’m afraid people will think I wasted my money.	2.96 ± 1.135	1.76 ± 0.875
Q8: I often have an unexplainable urge, a sudden and spontaneous desire, to go and buy something.	3.73 ± 0.839	2.04 ± 0.934
Q9: As soon as I enter a shopping center or mall, I have an irresistible urge to go into a shop and buy something.	3.61 ± 0.927	1.91 ± 0.876
Q10: I have often bought a product that I did not need, while knowing that I have very little money left.	3.41 ± 1.014	1.88 ± 0.904
Q11: I like to spend money.	3.73 ± 0.917	2.53 ± 0.979

).

Compulsive buyers exhibited a strong urge to make purchases, reporting a high need to buy something (Q5: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.85, σ = 0.789; Q4: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.70, σ = 0.855) and experiencing a sudden, spontaneous desire to shop (Q8: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.73, σ = 0.839). They also admitted to enjoying spending money excessively (Q11: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.73, σ = 0.917) and often struggled to control their expenditure, reporting difficulties in restraining themselves from spending all or part of their money (Q1: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.43, σ = 0.956) and frequently purchasing products they do not need (Q10: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.41, σ = 1.014).

Additionally, CBs demonstrated a lack of shopping planning, as they frequently engaged in unplanned shopping (Q2: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.54, σ = 0.900) and were driven by an irresistible urge to go to the store and make a purchase (Q9: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.61, σ = 0.927). These individuals also experienced significant post-purchase guilt, as evidenced by the high scores indicating regret after buying unnecessary items (Q6: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.71, σ = 0.943) and a tendency to hide their purchases to avoid negative judgment from others (Q7: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.96, σ = 1.135). Furthermore, CBs often viewed shopping as a way to relax and cope with stress (Q3: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 3.68, σ = 0.902).

In contrast, non-compulsive buyers reported significantly lower levels of impulsive shopping behaviors. They did not experience spontaneous urges to shop (Q2: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.02, σ = 0.864; Q4: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.16, σ = 0.986; Q5: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.39, σ = 1.021; Q8: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.04, σ = 0.934; Q9: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.91, σ = 0.876) and were unlikely to engage in uncontrolled spending habits (Q1: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.86, σ = 0.819; Q10: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.88, σ = 0.904; Q11: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.53, σ = 0.979). Unlike CBs, non-CBs did not associate shopping with relaxation or stress relief (Q3: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.29, σ = 1.039).

Furthermore, non-CBs did not report hiding purchases to avoid negative social judgment (Q7: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 1.76, σ = 0.875) and showed little to no post-purchase guilt (Q6: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 2.72, σ = 1.148). Their shopping behavior was more controlled, deliberate, and less emotionally driven compared to CBs.

4.2. Compulsive Buying and the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire

As outlined by Dzielska et al. [56], the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) scores are calculated separately for each of its three components—cognitive restraint (CR), uncontrolled eating (UE), and emotional eating (EE)—rather than as an aggregated total score. Consequently, in accordance with the research methodology, the verification of hypotheses H1a, H1b, and H1c is presented sequentially, following the corresponding order of the TFEQ factors: cognitive restraint (H1a), uncontrolled eating (H1b), and emotional eating (H1c) (

Table 3. Statistical verification according to compulsive buying and TFEQ.

$\mathbf{Characteristics} (\overline{\mathbf{x}}$ ± σ)	CBs (390 Respondents)	Non-CBs (317 Respondents)	Statistical Verification
TFEQ
CR	15.32 ± 3.60	11.97 ± 3,48	U = 93,146.500, Z = 11.644, p < 0.001, r = 0.44
UE	10.51 ± 2.63	9.62 ± 2.68	U = 73,635.000, Z = 4.411, p < 0.001, r = 0.17
EE	7.58 ± 3.60	5.72 ± 2.03	U = 90,709.000, Z = 10.830, p < 0.001, r = 0.41
EMAQ
EMAQ—positive	28.15 ± 6.52	26.59 ± 5.52	U = 72,241.000, Z = 3.908, p < 0.001, r = 0.15
EMAQ—negative	43.99 ± 13.81	39.57 ± 11.68	U =74,196.000, Z = 4.590, p < 0.001, r = 0.17

).

Hypothesis H1a proposes a relationship between compulsive buying (CB) and cognitive restraint (CR), which refers to the intentional restriction of food intake to regulate body weight or facilitate weight loss. To test this hypothesis, a Mann–Whitney U test was conducted. The results revealed a statistically significant difference between compulsive buyers (CBs) and non-compulsive buyers (non-CBs) (U = 93,146.500, Z = 11.644, p < 0.001, with a medium-to-large effect size, r = 0.44), indicating that individuals classified as CBs ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 15.32, σ = 3.60) exhibit greater dietary restriction compared to their non-CB counterparts ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 11.97, σ = 3.48). Based on these findings, hypothesis H1a is supported.

Uncontrolled eating (UE) refers to the tendency to consume more food than usual due to a loss of control over intake, often accompanied by subjective feelings of hunger. Hypothesis H1b examined the relationship between compulsive buying (CB) and UE. A Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to assess the differences between the two groups. The results indicated a statistically significant difference (U = 73,635.000, Z = 4.411, p < 0.001), with a small effect size (r = 0.17), suggesting that CBs ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 10.51, σ = 2.63) demonstrate greater control over their food intake compared to non-CBs ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 9.62, σ = 2.68). Based on these findings, hypothesis H1b is supported.

Hypothesis H1c explored the relationship between compulsive buying (CB) and emotional eating (EE), which refers to the inability to resist eating in response to emotional cues. To verify this relationship, a Mann–Whitney U test was performed. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between CBs and non-CBs (U = 90,709.000, Z = 10.830, p < 0.001, with a medium effect size, r = 0.41), indicating that CBs ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 7.58, σ = 3.60) eat more frequently and in response to emotional stimuli compared to non-CBs ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 5.72, σ = 2.03). These results confirm that hypothesis H1c is supported.

4.3. Compulsive Buying and the Emotional Appetite Questionnaire (EMAQ)

Compulsive buyers (CBs) tend to consume greater amounts of food in response to positive emotions, with the highest intake reported when experiencing happiness ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 5.71, σ = 1.647), cheerfulness ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 5.63, σ = 1.540), and relaxation ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 5.69, σ = 1.595). Similarly, non-compulsive buyers (non-CBs) also acknowledge increased food consumption during positive emotional states, particularly when feeling cheerful ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 5.37, σ = 1.307), happy ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 5.38, σ = 1.435), and self-satisfied ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 5.40, σ = 1.280).

To verify hypothesis H2a, which posits that compulsive buyers (CBs) increase their food consumption under the influence of positive emotions more than non-compulsive buyers (non-CBs), a Mann–Whitney U test was conducted. The results indicated a statistically significant difference between the groups (U = 72,241.000, Z = 3.908, p < 0.001), with a small effect size, r = 0.15, demonstrating that CBs ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 28.15, σ = 6.52) exhibit a greater increase in food consumption in response to positive emotions compared to non-CBs ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 26.59, σ = 5.52). These findings support the acceptance of hypothesis H2a.

Additionally, CBs reported that negative emotions also contribute to increased food consumption. Specifically, individuals in this group reported consuming more food when experiencing emotional distress, particularly when feeling sad ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 5.01, σ = 2.047), lonely ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 5.18, σ = 1.973), and bored ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 5.18, σ = 1.843) (Figure 2). A similar pattern was observed among non-CBs, who also acknowledged increased food intake during negative emotional states, particularly in response to sadness ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 4.50, σ = 1.730), loneliness ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 4.80, σ = 1.735), and boredom ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 4.85, σ = 1.595).

Hypothesis H2b examined the relationship between compulsive buying and increased food consumption under the influence of negative emotions. A Mann–Whitney U test confirmed a statistically significant difference between the groups (U = 74,196.000, Z = 4.590, p < 0.001), with a small effect size, r = 0.17, indicating that CBs ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 43.99, σ = 13.81) consume food more frequently and in greater quantities in response to negative emotions compared to non-CBs ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 39.57, σ = 11.68). These results support the acceptance of hypothesis H2b.

Furthermore, the relationship between emotional valence (measured by EMAQ) and the emotional eating (EE) subscale of the TFEQ was analyzed. A Spearman’s correlation analysis revealed a moderate, positive correlation between negative emotions (EMAQ—negative) and the EE subscale score (ρ = 0.505, p < 0.001), indicating that individuals more susceptible to increased food consumption under negative emotional states are also more prone to emotional eating. In contrast, no significant relationship was observed between positive emotions (EMAQ—positive) and EE (ρ = 0.033, p = 0.383), suggesting that positive emotions do not play a significant role in predicting emotional eating behaviors.

4.4. Compulsive Buying and Body Mass Index (BMI)

For the analysis, the continuous BMI variable was recoded into a dichotomous variable, distinguishing between individuals with normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m²) and those categorized as overweight or obese (OWOB, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²), following the WHO guidelines.

Table 4. Compulsive and non-compulsive buying by BMI.

Characteristics	BMI		Total
	Normal Weight	OWOB (Overweight + Obesity)
CBs (390 respondents)	199 (51.03%)	191 (48.97%)	390
Non-CBs (317 respondents)	137 (43.22%)	180 (56.78%)	317
Total	336	371	707

presents the distribution of respondents across these BMI categories in both the compulsive buying (CB) and non-compulsive buying (non-CB) groups. The proportion of individuals classified as having a normal weight differed between the groups, with a higher percentage observed in the CB group (51.03%) compared to the non-CB group (43.22%). However, in both groups, a substantial proportion of respondents were categorized as overweight or obese: 48.97% in the CB group and 56.78% in the non-CB group.

The relationship between the BMI (divided into two groups: BMI < 25 kg/m² and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and belonging to the CB or non-CB groups was analyzed using the chi-square test. The results showed a statistically significant association between the BMI classification and the group membership (χ²(1) = 4.275, p = 0.039, φ = 0.078). Individuals with a lower BMI are more likely to belong to the CBs than to the non-CBs. Hypothesis 3 should be rejected.

4.5. BMI and TFEQ

Hypotheses H4a, H4b, and H4c examined the relationship between the BMI (classified according to the standard categories) and the individual components of the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ). The verification of these hypotheses is presented below, following the order of the TFEQ factors: cognitive restraint (CR; H4a), uncontrolled eating (UE; H4b), and emotional eating (EE; H4c).

To test hypothesis H4a, a Mann–Whitney U test was conducted. The results indicated no statistically significant difference between the groups (U = 64,860.500, Z = 0.937, p = 0.349, r = 0.035) (

Table 5. Statistical verification according to BMI and TFEQ.

$\mathbf{Characteristics} (\overline{\mathbf{x}}$ ± σ)	BMI		Statistical Verification
	Normal Weight	OWOB
TFEQ
CR	13.70 ± 4.03	13.93 ± 3.82	U = 64,860.500, Z = 0.937, p = 0.349, r = 0.035
UE	9.83 ± 2.82	10.36 ± 2.53	U = 69,062.500, Z = 2.503, p = 0.012, r = 0.094
EE	6.56 ± 2.25	6.91 ± 2.39	U = 67,429.000, Z = 1.904, p = 0.057, r = 0.072

), suggesting that individuals with a lower BMI (<25 kg/m²) and higher BMI (≥25 kg/m²) exhibit similar levels of dietary restraint (BMI < 25 kg/m²: M = 13.70, SD = 4.03; BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²: M = 13.93, SD = 3.82). Consequently, hypothesis H4a was not supported.

These findings suggest that the BMI is not a determining factor in cognitive restraint, contradicting the expectation that individuals with a higher BMI might exhibit greater dietary restriction due to heightened health awareness or weight management efforts. This result highlights the complexity of eating behaviors and suggests that factors beyond the BMI, such as psychological or environmental influences, may play a more significant role in shaping cognitive restraint.

Hypothesis H4b was tested to examine the relationship between the BMI and uncontrolled eating (UE). The Mann–Whitney U test indicated a significant difference between the groups (U = 69,062.500, Z = 2.503, p = 0.012, with a small effect size, r = 0.094) (Table 5), demonstrating that individuals with a higher BMI ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 10.36, σ = 2.53) exhibit greater control over their eating behavior compared to those with a lower BMI ($\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 9.83, σ = 2.82). Consequently, hypothesis H4b is supported.

Conversely, hypothesis H4c, which explored the relationship between the BMI and emotional eating (EE), was not supported. The Mann–Whitney U test did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the groups (U = 67,429.000, Z = 1.904, p = 0.057, r = 0.072) (Table 5). These findings suggest that individuals with both a lower and higher BMI demonstrate similar susceptibility to emotional eating (BMI < 25 kg/m²: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 6.56, σ = 2.25; BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²: $\overline{\mathrm{x}}$ = 6.91, σ = 2.39). Therefore, hypothesis H4c is rejected.

5. Discussion

The conducted study provides an in-depth analysis of consumer behavior in the context of compulsive buying, particularly its relationship with eating behaviors, emotional eating, and body mass index (BMI). The findings offer several key insights that align with, yet also challenge, the existing literature.

First, individuals classified as compulsive buyers (CBs) exhibited higher scores across all the TFEQ subscales, confirming hypotheses H1a, H1b, and H1c. This indicates that CBs are more likely to engage in cognitive restraint (CR) while simultaneously demonstrating a greater propensity for uncontrolled eating (UE) and emotional eating (EE). This paradox highlights the internal conflict between the desire to control food intake and the difficulty in managing emotional and impulsive eating behaviors.

CBs scored significantly higher on the cognitive restraint (CR) scale than non-CBs, suggesting that they experience strong emotions, such as guilt, which may drive conscious efforts to regulate dietary behaviors. CR appears to serve as a compensatory mechanism, allowing CBs to counterbalance the negative consequences of their compulsive shopping tendencies. This phenomenon suggests that individuals who experience loss of control in one domain (e.g., shopping) may attempt to regain control in another (e.g., dietary practices).

However, while the increased CR among CBs may reflect intentional self-regulation, research suggests that restraint can take both adaptive and maladaptive forms [30]. In CBs, elevated CR co-occurs with heightened UE and EE, indicating that restraint may be rigid and vulnerable to breakdown. Such rigidity, marked by strict food rules and a fear of loss of control, has been associated with greater susceptibility to disinhibited eating under emotional or environmental stress [31]. This interpretation aligns with dual-process models of self-regulation, where excessive cognitive effort fails when emotional resources are depleted [60]. Thus, in CBs, CR may not function as an effective dietary strategy but rather as a compensatory mechanism that ultimately undermines eating regulation.

Furthermore, compulsive buying is often linked to self-esteem regulation and social validation [61]. The high level of cognitive restraint among CBs may reflect a tension between their compulsive purchasing behavior and the need to conform to social norms regarding body image and health-conscious lifestyles. Individuals who frequently engage in compulsive consumption may simultaneously experience external pressures to maintain a socially desirable body weight [37].

Interestingly, the coexistence of heightened CR with increased UE and EE aligns with findings by De Pasquale et al. [24], who observed that impulsive individuals often attempt restrictive eating patterns but struggle to sustain them. Similarly, Quoquab et al. [34] noted that compulsive buyers frequently engage in shopping as a coping mechanism, which may lead to dysregulated eating patterns characterized by impulse-driven overconsumption.

The confirmation of hypotheses H1b and H1c further supports the notion that CBs exhibit higher tendencies toward uncontrolled eating (UE) and emotional eating (EE) compared to non-CBs. A high UE score suggests a greater propensity to consume excessive amounts of food, often driven by an inability to effectively regulate hunger and satiety cues in response to external stimuli, such as food advertisements, sensory cues, or promotional offers [24].This reinforces the role of environmental factors in fostering compulsive consumption patterns.

Similarly, EE was significantly higher among CBs compared to non-CBs. EE is defined as the tendency to consume food in response to negative emotional states, such as sadness, loneliness, or anxiety. This behavior serves as a regulatory mechanism to mitigate emotional distress [36]. Prior research suggested that both compulsive buying and emotional eating stem from deficits in emotion regulation, leading CBs to use food as a coping strategy for emotional discomfort [38]. Studies have demonstrated that anxiety, depression, and emotional tension increase susceptibility to both compulsive shopping and eating behaviors. This is explained by the activation of the brain’s reward system, which provides temporary relief but reinforces dysfunctional behavioral patterns. Moreover, neuromarketing research by Evers et al. [41] has shown that both UE and EE activate neural circuits associated with reward processing, suggesting that these behaviors are interconnected and mutually reinforcing.

The results of the EMAQ analyses confirm that CBs tend to increase food consumption in response to both positive and negative emotions, supporting hypotheses H2a and H2b. These results enrich the literature with a more comprehensive approach to emotion-driven eating, in which both hedonic and compensatory mechanisms play a significant role. These findings indicate that emotions play a key role in explaining shopping and eating behaviors, confirming earlier reports [15,27,39,57]. These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of emotion-driven eating, suggesting that both hedonic and compensatory mechanisms play a significant role.

Negative emotions, such as stress, sadness, and loneliness, appear to exert a stronger influence on compulsive behaviors, as they heighten the activation of emotional regulation mechanisms [40,43]. This is consistent with findings that negative emotional states provoke increased food consumption as a maladaptive coping strategy [38].

While negative emotions have a greater impact, positive emotions also contribute to emotional eating, albeit through different mechanisms. Research by Ljubičić et al. [32] suggested that positive emotional states promote hedonistic eating, often diminishing self-control. In these cases, eating is used not as a coping mechanism but as a means of amplifying or prolonging pleasurable experiences. For CBs, positive emotional states may weaken sensitivity to satiety cues, increasing the likelihood of impulsive food choices driven by immediate gratification.

The observed relationship between the BMI and compulsive buying was statistically significant, but its directionality was unexpected. Contrary to the assumption that impulsivity correlates with difficulties in behavioral regulation, individuals with a lower BMI were more likely to be classified as CBs. This suggests that CBs may exhibit a heightened preoccupation with body weight control (CR), which could suppress food-related impulses.

One possible explanation is that CBs prioritize shopping as a means of regulating their emotions, rather than engaging in excessive food consumption. This aligns with the notion that compulsive consumption does not necessarily manifest in food intake but may be directed toward other categories, such as clothing or cosmetics [62,63].

Conversely, individuals with a higher BMI, despite their attempts to impose dietary restrictions, may struggle with maintaining long-term restraint due to heightened reactivity to external food cues [35]. Additionally, the lack of control over the amount of food consumed leads to weight gain, which can provoke feelings of guilt or shame, in turn fostering further episodes of uncontrolled eating. On the other hand, the lack of significant differences in cognitive restraint (CR) between the groups with a higher and lower BMI within the CB group (H4a) suggests that the cognitive strategies used by CBs may be less effective in preventing episodes of uncontrolled eating (UE). The absence of an increase in CR among those with a higher BMI could also be linked to their lower motivation for change or greater difficulty in maintaining long-term CR. As the study results have shown, the level of emotional eating (EE) is not higher among individuals with a higher BMI. This could indicate that emotional eating is more related to personality traits, stress levels, or other factors. CBs with a higher BMI may more frequently exhibit tendencies toward UE as a response to impulses rather than EE, which is more related to emotional regulation. In summary, UE is a problem for individuals with a higher BMI, especially in the group of compulsive buyers. CR and EE are not unequivocally linked to a higher BMI, which challenges previous findings indicating that emotional eating and uncontrolled eating are more frequently associated with a higher BMI than CR [15,16,17,29,52].

6. Theoretical and Practical Implications

The findings of this study on compulsive buying behaviors and dietary patterns within the framework of the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) offer significant theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, the results reinforce the multidimensional nature of compulsive buying and eating behaviors. The coexistence of high cognitive restraint (CR) and uncontrolled eating (UE) highlights a paradox in consumer behavior, where individuals oscillate between exerting control over their eating habits and struggling with impulse regulation. This duality suggests a need to refine existing models of emotion regulation and compulsivity, acknowledging that compulsive individuals may consciously attempt to regulate their behaviors, yet their efforts are often undermined by emotional triggers and external stimuli, such as advertisements or social pressures.

This study underscores the pivotal role of both negative and positive emotions in driving compulsive buying and emotional eating. While compulsive shopping and emotional eating are widely recognized as coping mechanisms for psychological distress, the findings extend this perspective by demonstrating that positive emotions—such as joy or excitement—can also contribute to compulsive eating behaviors. This effect is likely linked to the activation of the brain’s reward system and a preference for hedonistic dietary choices.

A particularly novel contribution of this research is the examination of the body mass index (BMI) in relation to compulsive behaviors, which challenges conventional assumptions. The discovery that individuals with a lower BMI exhibit higher levels of compulsive behaviors compared to those with a higher BMI presents an intriguing contradiction. Traditionally, a higher BMI has been associated with impulsivity and a heightened susceptibility to emotionally driven eating. However, the findings suggest that individuals with a lower BMI may engage in compulsive consumption patterns that do not necessarily involve food. This raises important questions about the role of psychological, environmental, and socio-cultural factors in shaping compulsive behaviors.

Understanding the interplay between cognitive attitudes, emotional experiences, and behavioral outcomes is essential for developing a more comprehensive framework of compulsivity.

From a practical standpoint, these findings have significant implications for intervention strategies targeting compulsive buyers. Effective interventions should incorporate tailored emotion regulation techniques, recognizing that individuals respond differently to emotional triggers. For those with a higher BMI, strategies should emphasize impulse control and self-regulation mechanisms. Conversely, for individuals with a lower BMI, addressing the influence of external stimuli—such as marketing strategies and societal pressures—could help mitigate compulsive shopping tendencies.

The results also highlight the need to acknowledge the dual role of emotions in shaping compulsive behaviors. While negative emotions are traditionally linked to compulsivity, positive emotions can be equally detrimental by reinforcing hedonistic consumption patterns. Consequently, psychological interventions should aim to equip individuals with healthier coping strategies for emotional distress. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) could be particularly effective in disrupting maladaptive cycles of compulsive buying and emotionally driven eating.

The finding of elevated CR among CBs should be interpreted with caution. Rather than indicating successful dietary self-regulation, it may reflect a rigid, compensatory form of control that is vulnerable to emotional or environmental disruption. This has important implications for therapeutic practice. Therefore, interventions should aim not only to reduce impulsivity and emotional reactivity but also to promote flexible and adaptive strategies for dietary control. Marketing practices play a crucial role in reinforcing compulsive behaviors, necessitating the implementation of ethical advertising regulations. Advertisers should be discouraged from leveraging emotional appeals—particularly those that exploit stress, anxiety, or social insecurities—to drive consumer behavior. Instead, marketing messages should promote consumer agency and self-efficacy. Additionally, e-commerce platforms should integrate tools that encourage responsible shopping, such as purchase limits and decision-rationalizing prompts, to curb impulsive spending.

Educational initiatives are also vital to fostering more mindful consumption patterns. Public awareness campaigns could enhance recognition of compulsive behaviors, reduce associated stigma, and improve access to institutional support for affected individuals.

7. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Despite its valuable contributions, this study has several limitations. First, the reliance on self-reported measures introduces the potential for subjective biases. Although the instruments used (CBS, TFEQ, EMAQ) have been validated for reliability, the responses may be influenced by social desirability bias or inaccuracies in the self-assessment of emotions, impulses, and behaviors.

Second, this study focused on specific individual-level variables, omitting broader environmental influences such as advertising exposure, product accessibility, stressful life events, and social support. Future research should explore these contextual factors to gain a more nuanced understanding of emotional regulation mechanisms in compulsive behaviors. Examining the role of marketing intensity, family dynamics, and peer influences could further enrich the findings.

Although quota sampling procedures were applied to ensure demographic repre-sentativeness, due to the use of an online panel, potential risks of self-selection and digital exclusion should be considered, as they may affect the sample structure. The representa-tiveness of the data applies only to basic demographic characteristics, which limits the generalizability of the findings to the entire adult population. Additionally, the study sample was representative of Poland, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural contexts. Compulsive buying and emotional eating may vary across societies due to differences in social norms, consumer habits, and market structures. Factors such as the prevalence of online shopping, the sophistication of digital marketing strategies, and cultural attitudes toward consumption could significantly shape compulsive tendencies. Future cross-cultural studies could provide comparative insights into these behaviors across diverse populations. The Polish market’s degree of development in marketing and advertising, social media, e-commerce, and online shopping can significantly shape consumers’ susceptibility to compulsive buying behaviors [64].

Third, a key methodological limitation is the use of bivariate statistical analyses. While these methods enabled the identification of direct associations between variables, they failed to capture the complex interdependencies likely present between emotional regulation, compulsive behavior, and eating patterns. Moreover, due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, the observed relationships cannot be interpreted as causal. Future research would benefit from the application of multivariate techniques and longitudinal designs, which can better reveal the dynamic and potentially reciprocal links between psychological traits, consumer behavior, and health outcomes. Experimental and neuromarketing approaches, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), could further enrich our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying compulsive buying and emotional eating. Finally, an unexpected finding of this study was that compulsive buyers tend to have a lower BMI. This calls for further investigation into the relationship between compulsivity and consumption behaviors, particularly in relation to conditions such as binge eating disorder and orthorexia nervosa—a condition characterized by an obsessive focus on healthy eating [28]. Understanding the broader spectrum of compulsive tendencies in different consumption domains could pave the way for more targeted interventions and policy recommendations.