Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The role of personality traits in the development of addictive use of different online activities has been extensively demonstrated in the previous studies. One new type of online activity is the watching of mukbang (the South Korean term for “eating broadcasts”). However, very little is known about addictive mukbang watching (AMW) and its relationship to personality constructs. The present study investigated the direct and indirect associations of Big Five personality traits (i.e., extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) and dark personality traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, spitefulness) with AMW via procrastination. An online survey that comprised items assessing the aforementioned variables was completed by 222 university students who had watched mukbang at least once in the previous week. Path analysis indicated that extroversion was indirectly negatively associated with AMW via procrastination. Furthermore, conscientiousness, sadism, and procrastination were directly positively associated with higher AMW. Findings suggest that individuals may develop and maintain uncontrolled mukbang watching in order to procrastinate and personality traits may play a contributing role in this association.

Keywords

mukbang Big Five personality traits dark personality traits dark triad sadism procrastination

Introduction

“Mukbang Addiction”

Originating in South Korea, the term “mukbang” is a combination of the South Korean words “eating” (“meokneun”) and “broadcast” (“bangsong”; Kircaburan et al., 2020). Mukbang videos typically include a solo eater, known as the broadcast jockey (BJ) who consumes a large quantity of food during the broadcast whilst communicating with the watching viewers (Strand & Gustafsson, 2020). This communication can be interactive and in real time (Afreecatv), or via more linear communication channels such as YouTube (Kang et al., 2020). Mukbang gained popularity in South Korea in the late 2000s (Choe, 2019) but has grown considerably in worldwide popularity since 2014 (Donnar, 2017).

The initial popularity of mukbang in South Korea has been attributed to the Korean custom of shared eating and community during mealtimes (Kang et al., 2020). Watching mukbang is the technological equivalent of experiencing such communality and closeness during eating (Choe, 2019). Research has supported this premise of communality via mukbang videos, with viewers reporting that watching mukbang alleviates feelings of loneliness and facilitates feelings of emotional connection (Choe, 2019).

The popularity of mukbang has also been attributed to “provocative” content, including overeating, eating spicy/irritating food, and eating a large amount of food during a specific time limit (Kang et al., 2020). In another recent attempt to understand motivations of watching mukbang, Pereira et al. (2019) found that for both Caucasian and Asian viewers, the attractiveness of the host and socially normative ideas (i.e., ideas about what members of a specific social group ought to believe in and do) both positively influenced attitudes toward mukbang watching, and positive attitudes toward mukbang significantly predicted watching mukbang videos. In a scoping review of both peer-reviewed papers and newspaper articles, watching mukbang was attributed to social, sexual, entertainment, and eating motivations (Kircaburun, Harris, et al., 2021). Clearly, there are a variety of motivations and reasons why individuals (within cultures and cross-culturally) watch mukbang.

More recently, researchers have highlighted the potential addictiveness of watching mukbang (e.g., Kircaburun, Stavropoulos, et al., 2021; Kircaburun, Yurdagül, et al., 2021), and problematic (the term “problematic” is often used in the literature to account for addiction, but overcomes the emotive qualities associated with the term [Caplan, 2002; Thatcher et al., 2008]) mukbang watching has been positively associated with internet addiction (Kircaburun, Yurdagül, et al., 2021). Kircaburun, Yurdagül, et al. (2021) utilized the compensatory internet use model to explain problematic (i.e., addictive) mukbang watching (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014), where online behaviors may act as a compensation for unattained offline needs. An individual’s gratification of specific needs, such as alleviating loneliness, facilitating emotional connection, and attaining social norms via watching mukbang could potentially develop into an addiction (Kircaburun, Stavropoulos, et al., 2021; Kircaburun, Yurdagül, et al., 2021). To date, and in comparison to research exploring other online addictions (i.e., gaming, gambling, social media), there is a paucity of research exploring predictors of addictive mukbang watching (Kircaburan et al., 2020). A recent study explored psychosocial correlates of AMW and found that loneliness but not depression was positively related to elevated AMW among emerging adults (Kircaburun, Balta, et al., 2021). Given that personality has previously been demonstrated to be a strong predictor of addictive online behavior (Kayiş et al., 2016; Young & Rodgers, 1998), in the present study, the role of personality (more specifically, the Big Five personality traits and dark personality traits) are hypothesized as being predictors of AMW.

Personality, Procrastination, and Online Addictions

The Big Five personality model (Costa & McCrae, 1992) has been explored in relation to various online addictions. The Big Five model comprises extroversion (i.e., warmth, assertiveness), neuroticism (i.e., anxiety, vulnerability), agreeableness (i.e., trust, altruism), openness (i.e., curious, ideas), and conscientiousness (i.e., competence, self-discipline; McCrae & Costa, 1997). A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality traits and internet addiction found significant relationships between all traits and internet addiction. Neuroticism was positively associated with internet addiction, whereas extroversion, agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness were all negatively associated with internet addiction (Kayiş et al., 2016). The authors concluded that characteristics of trait neuroticism (more specifically, anxiety, lack of social confidence), and underdeveloped self-awareness, predispose these individuals to be more likely to develop addiction to the internet. Regarding the negative relationships between extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and internet addiction, the authors posited that characteristics associated with these traits such as assertiveness (extraversion), curiosity (openness), self-discipline (conscientiousness), and lower aggression (agreeableness) “protect” these individuals from developing internet addiction.

The Big Five personality traits have also been found to be predictive of other addictive online behaviors. For example, high neuroticism, low extroversion, and low agreeableness have been found to predict videogame addiction (Vollmer et al., 2014), and high extroversion, low conscientiousness, and low openness have been found to predict Facebook addiction (Kanat-Maymon et al., 2018). Moreover, high neuroticism has also been found to predict Facebook addiction (Tang et al., 2016), and low agreeableness is a direct predictor of Instagram addiction (Kircaburun & Griffiths, 2018a).

Research has also shown associations between dark personality traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, spitefulness) and online addictions. The online environment may be particularly appealing to individuals with higher levels of these dark traits, because the online environment offers behavioral opportunities that may not be as possible in offline contexts (i.e., enhancing self-presentation, de-individuated aggression, and manipulation), and therefore may facilitate the development of addictive online behavior. Testament to the addictive potential of online environments, (i) trait psychopathy has been associated with social media addiction (Chung et al., 2019; Demircioğlu & Köse, 2018; Lee, 2019), (ii) Machiavellianism has been positively associated with internet use disorder (Sindermann et al., 2018), (iii) narcissism has been associated with Facebook addiction (Brailovskaia et al., 2020), (iv) trait sadism has been directly associated with problematic online gaming (Kircaburun et al., 2018), and (v) spitefulness has been directly associated with problematic smartphone use (Balta et al., 2019). Based on the significant associations between dark personality traits and problematic internet use, researchers have concluded that individuals with higher levels of dark personality traits may be more vulnerable to developing problematic online behaviors and addictions than those with lower levels of dark personality traits (Kircaburun & Griffiths, 2018b).

In addition to the aforementioned empirical evidence, the Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution model (I-PACE) indicates that an individual’s development and maintenance of addictive use of online platforms can be explained by the interplay between personality characteristics, social cognitions, and cognitive and affective components (Brand et al., 2016, 2019). According to the I-PACE, individual differences including personality traits possess specific vulnerabilities for developing addictive behaviors (Brand et al., 2016). Given the theoretical rationale and substantial research evidence regarding associations between the Big Five personality traits, dark personality traits, and development of different online addictions, there is good rationale to expect these traits to relate to AMW. For instance, personality features that facilitate greater loneliness and social isolation, including neuroticism, introversion, disagreeableness, psychopathy, sadism, and spitefulness (Buecker et al., 2020), maybe more common among those who use mukbang watching as a compensation of real-life interpersonal interaction given that individuals who watch mukbang feel less lonely and more socially connected when interacting with mukbangers and other viewers (Choe, 2019). Similarly, less conscientious individuals may engage in mukbang watching to avoid their real-life tasks and assignments given that mukbang watching has been reported to be good entertainment that may help individuals pass a lot of time (Kircaburun, Harris, et al., 2021). Some individuals report that they enjoy watching others eat a large portion of extremely hot and/or spicy foods in a short period of time simply because they enjoy the eater’s suffering during the show (Kang et al., 2020). Obtaining pleasure from others’ suffering is suggestive of sadistic and spiteful personality traits as well as more Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Sindermann et al., 2018). Consequently, both Big Five personality dimensions and darker aspects of personality could be associated with elevated vulnerability for developing and maintaining AMW.

Finally, in the present study, the indirect relationship of these personality traits to AMW via procrastination was explored. According to the I-PACE model (Brand et al., 2019), individuals’ mental states and social cognitions can play a mediating role between their individual differences and excessive technology use. Procrastination (i.e., the delay of an intended action despite the negative consequences; Steel, 2007) has been found to be a particularly strong predictor of internet addiction (Davis et al., 2002; Geng et al., 2018; Hernández et al., 2019). Although procrastination and problematic internet use are considered to be highly inter-correlated (see Davis et al., 2002), the constructs are still considered as distinct from each other (Thatcher et al., 2008). Both academic procrastination (i.e., situational procrastination) and general/life routine procrastination (i.e., dispositional procrastination; Uzun et al., 2014) have been positively associated with internet addiction. Procrastinators may also find mukbang watching an easy way of postponing decisions and actions given that mukbang videos have been reported to be entertaining and engaging in a way that viewers sometimes forget how much time they spend watching mukbang or end up spending much more time than they initially intended for watching mukbang (Kircaburun, Harris, et al., 2021; Kircaburun et al., 2022).

Importantly, procrastination has previously been demonstrated to (both partially and sequentially) mediate the relationship between personality traits and technology-based addictions (Wang et al., 2019). A study with 271 Dutch emerging adults found that trait procrastination was related to lack of conscientiousness, lack of extraversion, and facets of neuroticism (Schouwenburg & Lay, 1995). More specifically, less conscientious, more introverted, and more neurotic individuals tended to demonstrate more procrastinating behavior. A model testing study with 251 Chinese university students showed that individuals who were less agreeable and more open to experience were more prone to procrastinate (Zhou, 2020).

Even though Big Five personality traits and their relationship with procrastination have been extensively studied over the years, it is only more recently that the association between dark personality traits and procrastination have been investigated. A study with 190 German university students and employees reported Dark Triad traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) were positively correlated with decisional and behavioral procrastination (Müller et al., 2021). A study with 357 adults suggested that all Dark Tetrad traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism) were positively related to active procrastination (e.g., deliberately delaying decisions and actions; Hughes & Adhikari, 2021). Consequently, the core facets of dark personality traits have been suggested to share many features of procrastination including low self-regulation (Lyons & Rice, 2014). The present study extrapolated the aforementioned relationships, and hypothesized that procrastination may mediate the relationship between personality traits (i.e., the Big Five personality traits, dark personality traits) and online addictions, including AMW.

Aims and Hypotheses

The primary aim of the present study was to explore the direct and indirect associations of Big Five personality traits (i.e., extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) and dark personality traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, spitefulness) with AMW via procrastination. Based on the aforementioned rationale, the following hypotheses are proposed: (i) Big Five personality traits (i.e., extroversion, low neuroticism, conscientiousness, low openness, agreeableness) will be negatively associated with procrastination and AMW (Kayiş et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2019); (ii) dark personality traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, spitefulness) will be positively associated with procrastination and AMW (Kircaburun & Griffiths, 2018b; Sindermann et al., 2018); procrastination will be positively associated with AMW (Wang et al., 2019); and (iv) procrastination will mediate the relationships of the Big Five personality traits and dark personality traits with AMW (Wang et al., 2019).

Methods

Participants, Procedure, and Ethics

The online survey was promoted in online courses of a distance learning center of Yaşar University. Informed consent was taken from all participants acknowledging that they participated in the study voluntarily and anonymously. Participants were not compensated for their participation in the study. A total of 222 Turkish university students (69% female), aged between 19 and 35 years (mean = 21.68 years, SD = 1.94), were recruited for the study. In order to participate in the study, participants had to have watched mukbang in the previous week. Participants had to tick a box indicating that they had watched mukbang in the previous week in order to continue filling out the survey. Participants were asked to answer all questions in order to advance in and complete the survey. Data were not analyzed before finalizing the data collection. The data collection process was ended once an adequate sample size was reached to analyse the present research variables (i.e., 10 times the number of parameters in path analysis and confirmatory factor analysis; Kline, 2011). Yaşar University’s ethical board approved the study before the recruitment of the participants, and complied with the Helsinki declaration.

Measures

Mukbang Addiction Scale (MAS): The MAS Kircaburun, Stavropoulos, et al., 2021) was used to assess addictive mukbang watching. The MAS comprises six items (e.g., “How often in the past year have you spent a lot of time thinking about mukbang or planned watching mukbang?”), rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “very rarely” to “very often,” that reflects six core elements of behavioral addiction (i.e., salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, relapse) outlined in the components model of addiction (Griffiths, 2005). Higher scores reflect more addictive mukbang watching. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was excellent in the present study (α = .91).

The Unintentional Procrastination Scale (UPS): The UPS (Fernie et al., 2017) was used to assess procrastination. The Turkish adaptation was carried out in the present study by following the standard back-translation process (Beaton et al., 2000). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied using AMOS 23 software, which indicated mostly good fit to the data (χ² = 22.11, df = 9, p < .001, RMSEA = .08 CI 90% [.04, .13], SRMR = .03, CFI = .98, GFI = .97). Items’ standardized factor loadings ranged from .75 to .84 suggesting that all items had a significant role in the scale. The UPS comprises six items (e.g., “I really want to get things finished in time, but I rarely do”) rated on a 5-point Likert scale from “do not agree” to “agree very much.” Higher scores reflect more procrastination behavior. The internal consistency was excellent in the present study (α = .90).

Dark Personality Traits: The Single Item Narcissism Scale—Turkish (Özsoy et al., 2017) was used as a template to assess all dark personality traits. Extant definitions from literature (Jonason & Webster, 2010; Marcus et al., 2014; O’Meara et al., 2011; Özsoy et al., 2017) were used to define each personality dimension and participants rated how much these traits related to themselves, from 1 = “absolutely disagree” to 7 = “absolutely agree” (e.g., I am a narcissist = selfish, self-centered; I am Machiavellian = manipulate and exploit others towards their own end, deceit or lie to get their way; I am a psychopath = callous, insensitive, lack remorse, not concerning about morality of their actions; I am sadistic = enjoying inflicting pain on others, tend to intentionally hurt others; I am spiteful = willing to harm oneself in order to hurt others). The construct validities of the single items used to assess dark personality traits in the present study were assessed by examining the correlation coefficients obtained. There were moderate correlations among all dark personality traits. This is similar to the results of previous studies that used evaluated scales to assess dark personality traits including the Turkish forms of Dark Triad Dirty Dozen and Short Dark Triad (Özsoy et al., 2017).

Big-Five Personality Traits: Single items were used to assess each personality dimension (i.e., extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness). Widely used definitions (Rammstedt & John, 2007; Zuckerman et al., 1993) were used to define each personality trait and participants rated how much these traits related to themselves, from 1 = “absolutely disagree” to 7 = “absolutely agree” (e.g., I am an extrovert [reverse coded] = not outgoing and sociable, reserved, introverted in social situations and relations; I am conscientious = being trustworthy in doing tasks and duties, organized, planned, doing a thorough job; I am open to new experience = being less conservative in life, being open to new experience, having an active imagination; I am agreeable = not conflicting, understanding and easygoing in social relations; I am neurotic = tends to find fault with others, easily irritated, emotionally unstable). The construct validities of the single items used to assess Big Five personality traits in the present study were assessed by examining the correlation coefficients obtained. Extroversion was negatively correlated with neuroticism. Agreeableness had a negative correlation with most of the dark personality traits. Neuroticism was positively correlated with all dark personality traits. These results were similar to the findings of previous investigations carried out with different Turkish samples (Ardic & Özsoy, 2016).

Results

Table 1 illustrates mean scores, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis values, and correlations of the study variables. Pearson’s correlation analysis indicated that AMW was negatively correlated with extroversion (r = −.32, p < .001) and positively correlated with procrastination (r = .31, p < .001), narcissism (r = .37, p < .001), Machiavellianism (r = .45, p < .001), psychopathy (r = .60, p < .001), sadism (r = .63, p < .001), and spitefulness (r = .52, p < .001). Next, AMOS 23 software was used to test the saturated mediation model (Figure 1). In path analysis, 10,000 bootstrapping samples and 95% interval confidence were used. According to the guidelines by Kline (2011), the sample size of the present study was adequate for conducting a path analysis because it was more than 10 times the amount of the number of parameters in path analysis. However, since the number of male and female participants was not adequate (Kline, 2011), group differences in variable scores and model results were not examined separately for males and females.

Table 1.

Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, Skewness-Kurtosis Values, and Pearson’s Correlations of the Study Variables (N = 222).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Addictive mukbang watching	—
Procrastination	.31***	—
Extroversion	−.32***	−.43***	—
Neuroticism	.12	.29***	−.29***	—
Agreeableness	−.06	.00	−.13	.07	—
Openness	−.06	−.06	.11	−.03	.39***	—
Conscientiousness	.11	−.20**	−.00	.04	.31***	.45***	—
Narcissism	.37***	.27***	−.16*	.25***	−.15*	−.10	−.05	—
Machiavellianism	.45***	.26***	−.26***	.21**	−.12	−.19**	−.14*	.63***	—
Psychopathy	.60***	.25***	−.35***	.19**	−.16*	−.23**	−.07	.52***	.64***	—
Sadism	.63***	.23**	−.32***	.13*	−.09	−.20**	−.02	.54***	.61***	.83***	—
Spitefulness	.52***	.23**	−.25***	.17*	−.14*	−.20**	−.05	.50***	.59***	.69***	.72***	—
M	9.99	13.29	5.20	3.77	4.80	5.23	4.80	2.65	2.23	1.95	1.69	2.26
SD	5.25	5.00	1.80	1.94	1.62	1.76	1.71	1.78	1.68	1.65	1.54	1.73
Skewness	1.69	.37	−.76	.10	−.61	−.87	−.44	.85	1.31	1.65	2.23	1.31
Kurtosis	2.73	−.66	−.42	−1.05	−.21	−.15	−.58	−.32	.84	1.63	3.92	.75

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model of the study variables.

Since the present study was cross-sectional in which data regarding all dependent and independent variables were collected using same assessment instrument, common method bias was examined. Harman’s one-factor test was used to investigate common method bias by including all scale items into one factor and running a dimension reduction test in SPSS (see Podsakoff et al., 2012 for a review). As a result, since the total variance extracted by one factor did not exceed the recommended threshold of 50% (34.05% in the present study), the present authors concluded that the results were not affected by a common method bias.

Big Five personality traits (i.e., extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) and dark personality traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, spitefulness) were included into model as distal predictors. Procrastination was the mediator and AMW was the outcome variable. Standardized estimates of total, direct, and indirect effects on AMW are shown in Table 2. Extroversion was negatively indirectly associated with AMW via procrastination (β = −.07, p < .01; 95% CI [−.14, −.02]). Conscientiousness (β = .18, p < .01; 95% CI [.06, .31]), sadism (β = .18, p < .05; 95% CI [.07, .60]), and procrastination (β = .19, p < .01; 95% CI [.05, .32]) were directly positively related to AMW. The tested model explained 48% of the variance in AMW (Figure 2).

Table 2.

Standardized Estimates of Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects on Addictive Mukbang Watching (N = 222).

	Effect	S. E.	C.I. (LB, UB)
Extroversion→Addictive mukbang watching (total effect)	−.12*	.06	(−.23, −.01)
→Addictive mukbang watching (direct effect)	−.06	.06	(−.18, .07)
→Procrastination→Addictive mukbang watching (indirect effect)	−.07**	.03	(−.14, −.02)
Conscientiousness→Addictive mukbang watching (total effect)	.14*	.06	(.03, .24)
→Addictive mukbang watching (direct effect)	.18**	.06	(.06, .31)
→Procrastination→Addictive mukbang watching (indirect effect)	−.05**	.02	(−.10, −.01)
Sadism→Addictive mukbang watching (total effect)	.34*	.14	(.07, .60)
→Addictive mukbang watching (direct effect)	.34*	.14	(.07, .60)
→Procrastination→Addictive mukbang watching (indirect effect)	.00	.02	(−.05, .04)

Note. Only the significant total effects are shown in the table. Full report is available upon request. S.E. = standard error; C.I. = confidence interval; LB = lower bound; UB = upper bound.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 2.

Final model of the relationships among variables in total sample.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate direct and indirect relationships of the Big Five personality traits (i.e., extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) and dark personality traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism, spitefulness) with addictive mukbang watching (AMW) via procrastination. Partially consistent with the study’s expectations, extroversion and conscientiousness were indirectly negatively related to AMW via procrastination. Furthermore, conscientiousness and sadism were positively directly associated with AMW. The indirect effect of neuroticism on AMW via procrastination was non-significant.

Procrastination was positively related to AMW. This preliminary finding is consistent with the extant literature that has identified procrastination as one of the important risk factors for elevated addictive use of online activities (Geng et al., 2018). For instance, procrastination was found to mediate the relationship between low self-control and social media addiction (Ekşi et al., 2019). Procrastination has also been found to play a partial explanatory role between sensation seeking and adolescent smartphone addiction (Wang et al., 2019). Similar to other online activities, watching mukbang videos can also attract procrastinators due to their entertainment and social aspects where mukbangers eat food while interacting with the viewers (Kircaburun, Harris, et al., 2021). Given the pleasurable and (sometimes) sensational aspects of watching someone eat food (Kircaburun, Harris, et al., 2021), excessive (and in a minority of cases, addictive) mukbang watching can be another type of procrastination for some individuals.

Conscientiousness was not significantly correlated with AMW in the correlation analysis. However, it was directly positively related to AMW in the model. This may be because another variable acted as a suppressor variable and affected the relationship between conscientiousness and AMW (Ludlow & Klein, 2014). Conscientiousness was also indirectly negatively associated with AMW via procrastination. More specifically, low conscientiousness was associated with elevated procrastination, and in turn, elevated procrastination was related to elevated AMW. The negative association between conscientiousness and procrastination is in line with previous studies postulating that conscientiousness has a strong inverse relationship with procrastination and that less conscientious individuals are highly prone to lose focus on a determined task and procrastinate (Lee et al., 2006). It may be that recreational mukbang watching transforms into AMW for some of the less conscientious individuals because of its time-passing features that allow individuals postpone taking decisions and working on more important duties and tasks.

Procrastination fully mediated the relationship between extroversion and AMW. Low extroversion (i.e., introversion) was positively related to procrastination. This finding is consistent with the extant literature suggesting that introverts are more prone to engaging in procrastination (Tibbett & Ferrari, 2015). It may be that introverts’ lower enthusiasm for real life social interaction and higher motivation to be left alone engaging in solitary activities leads them to procrastinate their academic and/or work duties and everyday activities (Steel & Klingsieck, 2016). It may be that conscientiousness and extroversion had more robust reverse relationship with procrastination, leading less conscientious and more introverted individuals to more procrastination-driven AMW than those with other personality traits that have weaker correlations with procrastination (e.g., agreeableness, openness to experience) in the present sample. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to investigate the associations of Big Five personality dimensions with AMW by examining other demographic and psychological mediators and moderators and using longer and more detailed assessment tools that capture facets of Big Five traits to obtain greater clarification on the aforementioned associations.

All dark personality traits were positively moderately correlated with AMW. However, sadism was the only personality trait that was significantly directly associated with AMW in the model. This indicates that sadistic personality features most led to the problematic watching of mukbang when compared to other “dark” traits. It may be that individuals who eat food in mukbang videos engage in different behaviors to attract viewers’ attention and entertain them. For instance, while some people engage in food challenges where they try and eat an excessive amount of food in a limited period of time, others demonstrate apparent agony and pain when eating extremely spicy food (Kircaburun, Harris, et al., 2021). These different types of mukbang video that demonstrate harm to others may attract individuals with sadistic tendencies to increasingly watch mukbang.

Given that psychopaths would ignore others’ suffering instead of taking pleasure from it, they might not become dependent on watching mukbang videos simply these videos would not entertain them and/or result in positive mood modification (i.e., an important factor that turn recreational activity to addictive behavior for some individuals; Griffiths, 2005). Furthermore, previous studies have largely shown that Turkish individuals with psychopathic traits score lower on addictive use of online activities when compared to others with higher levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism, sadism, and spitefulness (Kircaburun & Griffiths, 2018b). Despite the persistent positive associations of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and spitefulness with addictive use of internet, social media, and gaming, these traits were non-significant when included into the model with sadism. This may be because mukbang watching is not as attractive as other online activities such as gaming, social media use, and online sex for participants who have higher levels of dark traits other than sadism. It may be that (i) gaming is more addictive for narcissists due to its competitive nature, (ii) social media use is more addictive for Machiavellians and spiteful individuals due to its interpersonal manipulation and stalking features, and (iii) online sex is more addictive for psychopaths who seek out sensation and hypersexual experiences (Kircaburun et al., 2018; Kircaburun & Griffiths, 2018). Nevertheless, further studies that use more in-depth assessment tools for assessing personality traits (e.g., primary and secondary psychopathy, grandiose, and vulnerable narcissism) are needed to examine the relationship between dark aspects of personality and AMW.

Limitations and Conclusion

There are several limitations that should be taken into account when considering the present study’s results. First, this study assessed personality traits using single item scales. Each personality dimension was defined using existing definitions (Jonason & Webster, 2010; Marcus et al., 2014; O’Meara et al., 2011; Özsoy et al., 2017) and participants were asked to rate how much these traits related to themselves. This may be criticized for being brief and not being able to comprise essential content (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). However, the correlation analyses showed that there were adequate construct and convergent validities of the single item scales. Therefore, the single-item measures are arguably adequate (Özsoy et al., 2017). Nevertheless, future studies should replicate the present findings using different assessment tools to assess personality traits. Second, the data were collected using self-report measures, which are susceptible to well-known biases (e.g., social desirability, memory recall). Future studies should use more in-depth methods to examine the present associations. Third, the cross-sectional design prevents determining causal relationships based on the present findings. Future studies should adopt a longitudinal design to understand the directions of the relationships found in the present study.

Despite its limitations, this study is one of the first studies to investigate the personality correlates of AMW, and the mediating role of procrastination between personality traits and AMW. The present study addressed a gap in the literature and examined the individual difference predictors of AMW by providing cross-sectional evidence concerning the relationships of personality traits with AMW while taking procrastination into account. This study advances the current literature on addictive use of online activities by introducing an emerging addictive online behavior (i.e., mukbang watching) which may be associated with other problematic and risky health outcomes. The present findings indicate that extroversion and conscientiousness were negatively indirectly associated with AMW via procrastination, and that procrastination, conscientiousness, and sadism were positively directly related to AMW. The results suggest that maladaptive personality-related procrastination may lead individuals to higher engagement in mukbang watching behavior and experience potential physical and psychological harms from such excessive and problematic use. Although these preliminary findings should be replicated more widely before developing possible prevention strategies, it appears that some individuals engage in problematic mukbang watching behavior and their personality and proneness to procrastination plays contributory role in this behavior.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank participants.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kagan Kircaburun

References

Ardic

Özsoy

(2016, December 15–17). Examining the relationship between the Dark Triad traits and Big Five personality dimensions [Conference session]. Proceedings of the Fifth European Academic Research Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Banking, Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved December 14, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emrah-Oezsoy/publication/311680942_Examining_the_Relationships_between_the_Dark_Triad_Traits_and_Big_Five_Personality_Dimensions/links/5f820444458515b7cf76fcb9/Examining-the-Relationships-between-the-Dark-Triad-Traits-and-Big-Five-Personality-Dimensions.pdf

Balta

Jonason

Denes

Emirtekin

Tosuntaş

Ş. B.

Kircaburun

Griffiths

M. D.

(2019). Dark personality traits and problematic smartphone use: The mediating role of fearful attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 214–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.005

Beaton

D. E.

Bombardier

Guillemin

Ferraz

M. B.

(2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25, 3186–3191.

Brailovskaia

Bierhoff

H. W.

Rohmann

Raeder

Margraf

(2020). The relationship between narcissism, intensity of Facebook use, Facebook flow and Facebook addiction. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 11, 100265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100265

Brand

Wegmann

Stark

Müller

Wölfling

Robbins

T. W.

Potenza

M. N.

(2019). The Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model for addictive behaviors: Update, generalization to addictive behaviors beyond internet-use disorders, and specification of the process character of addictive behaviors. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 104, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.032

Brand

Young

K. S.

Laier

Wölfling

Potenza

M. N.

(2016). Integrating psychological and neurobiological considerations regarding the development and maintenance of specific Internet-use disorders: An Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 71, 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.033

Buecker

Maes

Denissen

J. J.

Luhmann

(2020). Loneliness and the Big Five personality traits: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 34(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2229

Caplan

S. E.

(2002). Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being: Development of a theory-based cognitive–behavioral measurement instrument. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 553–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00004-3

Choe

(2019). Eating together multimodally: Collaborative eating in mukbang, a Korean livestream of eating. Language in Society, 48, 171–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404518001355

10.

Chung

K. L.

Morshidi

Yoong

L. C.

Thian

K. N.

(2019). The role of the dark tetrad and impulsivity in social media addiction: Findings from Malaysia. Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.016

11.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I

12.

Davis

R. A.

Flett

G. L.

Besser

(2002). Validation of a new scale for measuring problematic Internet use: Implications for pre-employment screening. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5, 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102760275581

13.

Demircioğlu

Z. I.

Köse

A. G.

(2018). Effects of attachment styles, dark triad, rejection sensitivity, and relationship satisfaction on social media addiction: A mediated model. Current Psychology, 40, 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9956-x

14.

Donnar

(2017). ‘Food porn’ or intimate sociality: Committed celebrity and cultural performances of overeating in meokbang. Celebrity Studies, 8, 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2016.1272857

15.

Ekşi

Turgut

Sevim

(2019). The mediating role of general procrastination behaviors in the relationship between self-control and social media addiction in university students. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions, 6, 717–745. https://doi.org/10.15805/addicta.2019.6.3.0069

16.

Fernie

B. A.

Bharucha

Nikčević

A. V.

Spada

M. M.

(2017). The unintentional procrastination scale. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 35, 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-016-0247-x

17.

Geng

Han

Gao

Jou

Huang

C. C.

(2018). Internet addiction and procrastination among Chinese young adults: A moderated mediation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 320–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.013

18.

Griffiths

(2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use, 10, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14659890500114359

19.

Hernández

Ottenberger

D. R.

Moessner

Crosby

R. D.

Ditzen

(2019). Depressed and swiping my problems for later: The moderation effect between procrastination and depressive symptomatology on internet addiction. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.027

20.

Hughes

Adhikari

(2021). Time wasters? Active procrastination and the Dark Tetrad. Journal of Individual Differences. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000357

21.

Jonason

P. K.

Webster

G. D.

(2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265

22.

Jones

D. N.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1073191113514105

23.

Kanat-Maymon

Almog

Cohen

Amichai-Hamburger

(2018). Contingent self-worth and Facebook addiction. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.011

24.

Kang

Lee

Kim

K. H.

Yun

Y. H.

(2020). The popularity of eating broadcast: Content analysis of “mukbang” YouTube videos, media coverage, and the health impact of “mukbang” on public. Health Informatics Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1460458220901360

25.

Kardefelt-Winther

(2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of internet addiction research: Towards a model of compensatory internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059

26.

Kayiş

A. R.

Satici

S. A.

Yilmaz

M. F.

Şimşek

Ceyhan

Bakioğlu

(2016). Big five-personality trait and internet addiction: A meta-analytic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.012

27.

Kircaburun

Balta

Emirtekin

Tosuntas

Ş. B.

Demetrovics

Griffiths

M. D.

(2021). Compensatory usage of the internet: The case of mukbang watching on YouTube. Psychiatry Investigation, 18(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2019.0340

28.

Kircaburun

Griffiths

M. D.

(2018a) Instagram addiction and the Big Five of personality: The mediating role of self-liking. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.15

29.

Kircaburun

Griffiths

M. D.

(2018b). The dark side of internet: Preliminary evidence for the associations of dark personality traits with specific online activities and problematic internet use. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 993–1003. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.109

30.

Kircaburan

Harris

Calado

Griffiths

M. D

(2020). The association of addictive mukbang watching with mukbang watching motives, emotion regulation, impulsivity, and psychiatric distress. Journal of Concurrent Disorders, 2(2), 16–22.

31.

Kircaburun

Harris

Calado

Griffiths

M. D.

(2021). The psychology of mukbang watching: A scoping review of the academic and non-academic literature. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(4), 1190–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00211-0

32.

Kircaburun

Jonason

P. K.

Griffiths

M. D.

(2018). The Dark Tetrad traits and problematic online gaming: The mediating role of online gaming motives and moderating role of game types. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 298–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.038

33.

Kircaburun

Savcı

Emirtekin

Griffiths

M. D.

(2022). Uses and gratifications of problematic mukbang watching-the role of eating and social gratification: A pilot study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 146, 28–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.12.036

34.

Kircaburun

Stavropoulos

Harris

Calado

Emirtekin

Griffiths

M. D.

(2021). Development and validation of the Mukbang Addiction Scale. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(4), 1031–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00210-1

35.

Kircaburun

Yurdagül

Kuss

Emirtekin

Griffiths

M. D.

(2021). Problematic mukbang watching and its relationship to disordered eating and internet addiction: A pilot study among emerging adult mukbang watchers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(6), 2160–2169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00309-w

36.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford.

37.

Lee

D. G.

Kelly

K. R.

Edwards

J. K.

(2006). A closer look at the relationships among trait procrastination, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.010

38.

Lee

S.-L.

(2019). Predicting SNS addiction with the Big Five and the Dark Triad. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 13(1), e3. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2019-1-3

39.

Ludlow

Klein

(2014). Suppressor variables: The difference between ‘is’ versus ‘acting as’. Journal of Statistics Education, 22, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2014.11889703

40.

Lyons

Rice

(2014). Thieves of time? Procrastination and the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 61, 34–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.002

41.

Marcus

D. K.

Zeigler-Hill

Mercer

S. H.

Norris

A. L.

(2014). The psychology of spite and the measurement of spitefulness. Psychological Assessment, 26, 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036039

42.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509

43.

Müller

S. M.

Stolze

Brand

(2021). Predictors of social-zapping behavior: Dark Triad, impulsivity, and procrastination facets contribute to the tendency toward last-minute cancellations. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, e110334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110334

44.

O’Meara

Davies

Hammond

(2011). The psychometric properties and utility of the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale (SSIS). Psychological Assessment, 23, 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022400

45.

Özsoy

Rauthmann

J. F.

Jonason

P. K.

Ardıç

(2017). Reliability and validity of the Turkish versions of Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD-T), Short Dark Triad (SD3-T), and Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS-T). Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.019

46.

Pereira

Sung

Lee

(2019). I like watching other people eat: A cross-cultural analysis of the antecedents of attitudes towards Mukbang. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.03.001

47.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

48.

Rammstedt

John

O. P.

(2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

49.

Schouwenburg

H. C.

Lay

C. H.

(1995). Trait procrastination and the big-five factors of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(4), 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)00176-S

50.

Sindermann

Sariyska

Lachmann

Brand

Montag

(2018). Associations between the dark triad of personality and unspecified/specific forms of Internet-use disorder. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 985–992. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.114

51.

Steel

(2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65

52.

Steel

Klingsieck

K. B.

(2016). Academic procrastination: Psychological antecedents revisited. Australian Psychologist, 51, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12173

53.

Strand

Gustafsson

S. A.

(2020). Mukbang and disordered eating: A netnographic analysis of online eating broadcasts. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-020-09674-6.pdf

54.

Tang

J. H.

Chen

M. C.

Yang

C. Y.

Chung

T. Y.

Lee

Y. A.

(2016). Personality traits, interpersonal relationships, online social support, and Facebook addiction. Telematics and Informatics, 33, 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.06.003

55.

Thatcher

Wretschko

Fridjhon

(2008). Online flow experiences, problematic Internet use and Internet procrastination. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2236–2254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.008

56.

Tibbett

T. P.

Ferrari

J. R.

(2015). The portrait of the procrastinator: Risk factors and results of an indecisive personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.014

57.

Uzun

A. M.

Ünal

Tokel

S. T.

(2014). Exploring internet addiction, academic procrastination and general procrastination among pre-service ICT teachers. Online Submission, 4, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.13054/mije.14.18.4.1

58.

Vollmer

Randler

Horzum

M. B.

Ayas

(2014). Computer game addiction in adolescents and its relationship to chronotype and personality. Sage Open, 4, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013518054

59.

Wang

Yang

Zhang

Wang

Zhao

, . . . Lei

(2019). Fear of missing out and procrastination as mediators between sensation seeking and adolescent smartphone addiction. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17, 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00106-0

60.

Young

K. S.

Rodgers

R. C.

(1998, April 11–13). Internet addiction: Personality traits associated with its development [Conference session]. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Bradford, United States. Retrieved September 10, 2020, from https://www.healthyplace.com/addictions/center-for-internet-addiction-recovery/personality-traits-linked-to-internet-addiction

61.

Zhou

(2020). Gender differences in procrastination: The role of personality traits. Current Psychology, 39, 1445–1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9851-5

62.

Zuckerman

Kuhlman

D. M.

Joireman

Teta

Kraft

(1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.757

The Role of Procrastination Between Personality Traits and Addictive Mukbang Watching Among Emerging Adults

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

“Mukbang Addiction”

Personality, Procrastination, and Online Addictions

Aims and Hypotheses

Methods

Participants, Procedure, and Ethics

Measures

Results

Discussion

Limitations and Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References