RichinsDawson-1992-A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement_Scale...

7/27/2019 RichinsDawson-1992-A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement_Scale Development and

1/15

A Consumer Values Orientation forMaterialism and Its Measurement: ScaleDevelopment and ValidationMARSHA L. RICHINSSCOTT DAWSON

This article reviews the construct and measurement of materialism and concludethat materialism is appropriately conceptualized as a consumer value. The deveopment of a values-oriented materialism scale with three componentsacquisitiocentrality, acquisition as the pursuit of happiness, and possession-defined success is described . In validation tests high scorers compared w ith low scorers) desired higher level of income, placed greater emphasis on financial security and less ointerpersonal relationships, preferred to spend more on themselves and less oothers, engaged in fewer voluntary simplicity beh aviors, and were less satisfied wittheir lives.

A merica is a consumer society, and many treatiseshave described the dominance of consumptionmotives among Americans (see, e.g., Bredemeier andToby 1960;deTocqueville [1835] 1954;Wachtel 1983).In such discussions of consumption and materialism,authors tend to speak of consumers as an undifferen-tiated group, acting individually, perhaps, but guidedequally by the same consuming desire forgoods.Hence,Cushman (1990, p. 600) describes the post-World WarII consumer as yearn[ing] to acquire and consum e,Fox and Lears (1983,p . xii) see Am ericans as engagedin a ceaseless pursuit of the 'good life' through con-sum ption, and From m (1967, p. 179) notes that con -temporary man has an unlimited hunger for more andmore goods.

While consumer goods do play an important role inAmerican culture, these analyses obscure differencesamon g individu als. For som e, possessions are essentialto their lives and identities. For example. Lisa Labnon,a 30-year-old New Hampshire woman, became home-less when she lost her job and her condominium wasrepossessed. She refused to sell her Mercedes and minkcoat, however, because the loss in image and self-esteem

*Marsha L. Richinsisassociate professor of marketing, Universityof Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. Scott Dawson is associate pro-fessor of marketing at Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207.The authors thank Russell Belk for his helpful comments at variousstages of the research and on a previous draft of this article, TerriRoot-Shaffer for her con tribu tion s in early stages of the project, andTodd Mooradian for his assistance in data collection. This researchwas completed while the first author was at the University of Mas-sachusetts.

would be too great (Gaines 1990). Malcolm Forbes wawell known for his commitment to a lavish materialife-style (Hirschm an 1990), and L eona Helmsley committed crimes to increase her wealth. Others, howeverare content with far less in life, choosing low-payincharitable or social service work instead of higher-paying professions (Henkoff 1989). Some relinquish alpersonal possessions to enter religious life or join commune.Although it is often useful to treat materialism as cultural or structural variable for purposes of comparingcultures or examining institutions within a culture oconsum ption (e.g., Inglehart 1981), much is to be gainedby examining individual differences in materialism awell. For instance, research that seeks to identify factorthat contribute to individual materialism may providinsight into the roots of materialism at a cultural levelExam ining m aterialism at the individual level also permits the study of interactions between materialism andvarious marketing activities such as advertising. Finallymany of the hypotheses about materialism advanced inthe literature are more easily tested at an individuathan a cultural level.

This article describes a scale to measure materialismamong individuals. Prior to reporting scale development, the notion of materialism is elaborated and prioattempts to measure this construct are reviewed.The Notion of Materialism

The terms ma terialism and ma terialistic are usefreely in ordinary conversation and by writers, frequently without definition. Materialism originally re


2/15

3 4 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

ferred to the philosophical notion that nothing existsexcept matter and its movements (see, e.g., Lange [1865]1925). In popular usage materialism more often refersto a devotion to material needs and desires, to theneglect of spiritual matters; a way of life, opinion, ortendency based entirely upon material interests, as de-fined in the Oxford English Dictionary Rassuli andHolland er (1986, p. 10) describe materialism as am i n d - s e t . . . an interest in getting and spending, andBelk (1984, p. 291) defines it as the im porta nce a con-sumer attaches to worldly posses sions. Mukerji (1983,p.8), relying on Polanyi (1944) and Sahlins (1976), re-fers to materialism as a cultural system in which ma-terial interests are not made subservient to other socialgoals and material self-interest is pree min ent. Whena large portion of a society avidly desires to consumegoods for reasons that economists have traditionallydefined as nonutilita rian (e.g., status seeking, novelty),a con sum er cultu re is said to exist (e.g., Belk 1988;Rassuli and Hollander 1986).

Many issues concerning materialism have been con-sidered in the literature, including causes and conse-quences of materialism, the behaviors and personalitycharacteristics of materialists, and m oral considerations(see Belk 1983 and Fournier and Richins 1991 for de-scriptions ofsomeof these themes). The following dis-cussion describes only those themes that have consis-tently appeared when theorists have defined materialismitself (as opposed to describing related issues such asthe personal or moral consequences of materialism).'Acquisition Centrality Materialists place possessionsand their acquisition at the center of their lives. Daun(1983) describes materialism as a life-style in which a

high level of material consumption functions as a goaland serves as a set of plans. Materialism thus lendsmeaning to life and provides an aim for daily endeavors.According to Bredemeier and Toby (1960), materialistsworship things, and the p ursuit of possessions takes theplace of religion in structu ring the ir lives and orientingtheir behaviors. Csikszentmihalyi a nd Rochberg-Halton(1981, p. 231) note the dominance materialism canachieve in one's life when they say ofsome materialiststhat consu mption for the sake of consum ption be-

'The following discussion relies on the materialism literature in avariety of disciplines. Because the characterizations of materialismin the literature are predominantly unfavorable, this discussion isnecessarily weighted toward the negative. However, it is not the au-thors' view that all aspects of materialism are inevitably bad. Forinstance, the desire for goods on the part of employees may causethem to work harder or longer, enhancing their incomes and standardof living. High levels of consum ption by consumers can increase thewealth of business institution s, increasing these firms' ability to makecapital improvements and invest in research and development, whichin turn leads to greater productivity, technological breakthroughs,and again, higher living standards. In addition, while the literatureassigns to materialists a number of characteristics that are viewednegatively in contemporary Western society, its bias leads it to besilent on the p otential positive characteristics of materialists such asa strong motiv ation to succeed and self-sufficiency.

comes a fever that consumes all the potential energy ican get access to.Acquisition as the Pursuit of Happiness One ofthreasons that possessions and their acquisition are so

central to materialists is that they view these as essentiato their satisfaction and well-being in life. Belk (1984p. 291) notes that at the highest levels of materialism. . . possessions assume a central place in a person'life and are believed to provide the greatest sources osatisfaction and dissatisfaction. In a like manne r. Wardand Wackman (1971, p. 426) describe materialism a an orientation emphasizing possessions and monefor personal happine ss and social prog ress. The viewpoin t tha t pleasu re or self-satisfaction is the goal of highconsumption levels is frequently presented in the literature (e.g., Campbell 1987; Heilbrone r 1956; Wa chte1983). While most individuals are probably involvedto some extent in the pursuit of happiness, it is the p ursuit of happiness through acquisition rather thanthrough other means (such as personal relationshipsexperiences, or achievements) that distinguishes materialism.

ossession definedSuccess Materialists tendtojudtheir own and othe rs' success by the num ber an d qualityof possessions accumulated. Rassuli and Hollande(1986, p. 5) describe members of consum er society aevaluating others and themselves in term s of their consuming life-styles, and in Heilbroner's (1956, p. 23analysis, acquisitive, materialistic people value possessions for the money they cost rathe r than by the satisfactions they yield. Du Bois (1955) and others havenoted that materialists consider material well-being aevidence of success and proof of right-mindedness, anattitude consistent with religious teachings at the timeofthe Industrial Revolution (Weber [1930] 1958). Thevalue of possessions stems not only from their abilityto confer status (Veblen [1899] 1953) but from theiability to project a desired self-image and identify oneas a participant in an imagined perfect life (Campbel1987). Mate rialists view them selves as successful to theextent they can possess products that project these desired images.

The notions concerning materialism expressed intheoretical writings are also held by lay persons. Four-nier and Richins (1991) compared popular and theoretical notions of materialism and found that the threethemes described above were strongly represented inordinary consumers' conceptions of materialism.Instrumental and Terminal Materialism

Many religious and social critics have condemnedmaterialism as inherently bad. Rochberg-Halton (1986Csikszentm ihalyi and Roc hberg-H alton 1978, 1981)however, pointed out that possessions can be a positiveinfluence in one's life and proposed two forms of materialism based on the purposes of consumption


3/15

MATERIALISM AND ITS MEASUREMENT 3 5

When objects act as essential me ans for discoveringand furthering personal values and goals of life, thematerialism is a potentially harmless form labeled instrum ental m aterialism (Csikszentmihalyi andRochberg-Halton 1978, p. 8). When co nsum ption fur-thers no goal beyond possessionitself the materialismis regarded as a more dangerous form labeled terminal .Unfortunately, R ochberg-H alton's dichotomy is dif-ficult to use, and his analysis contains contradictions.For instance, Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton(1978, p. 8) note that, in terminal m aterialism, wereduce our ultimate goals to the possession of things,yet the authors often mention goals of terminal mate-rialism beyond possession. They note that, in terminalmaterialism, p eople use possessions to generate the envyand adm iration of others or to achieve status. This sug-gests that these states (being envied, having status) ratherthan the acquisition of possessions constitute the ulti-mate goals of terminal materialism.In addition, the analysis of instrum ental and term inalmaterialism is incomplete and the constructs difficultto operationalize. For example, it is unclear whetherthe terms instrumental and terminal materialism referto an individual difference variable (in which case in-dividuals might be classified as primarily terminal orinstrumental in orientation) or serve simply as descrip-tions of specific behaviors or motives. Furthermore,there is little guidance in making determ inations of in-strumental versus terminal materialism. Instrumental

materialism is described as possessing a sense of di-rectionality, in which a person's goals themselves maybe cultivated through transactions with the object, itspurpose is the fuller unfolding of hum an life, and itis context-related. In terminal materialism, there isno sense of reciprocal interaction in the relation betweenthe object and the goal (Csikszentmihalyi and Roch-berg-Halton 1981, p. 231). Except in extreme cases, itmay be difficult to determine whether the conditionsfor instrumental materialism are being met.Essentially, the classification as instrumental or ter-minal appears to rest on av luejudgm ent. Instrumentalmaterialism involve s the cultivation of objects as es-sential me ns for discovering and furthering goals(Csikszentmihalyi and R ochberg-Halton 1981, p. 231),but only certain kinds of acceptable goals are deem edinstrumen tal. Through his use of examples, it appearsthat Rochberg-Halton considers a relationship with anobject to be instrumental if it involves self-actualization,the development of stronger family or friendship ties,or the developm ent and exp ression of aspects of the selfthat he approves of. In his analysis, valuing a tool thatallows one to build model planes and fly them in com-petitions involves instrumental materialism. Owningan expensive car to impress others and feel better aboutone's self or buying a second home to spend moretime with one's mistress and her child represent ter-

minal materialism (Rochb erg-Halton 1986, pp. 181,183-184).Given the difficulties of operationalizing the instru-me ntal/term inal forms and the value judgm ents inher-ent in Rochb erg-Halton's conception of goo d and b ad materialism, the distinction between instrume n-tal and terminal m aterialism will not be maintained forour purposes.

MEASURES OF MATERIALISM ANDRELATED CONSTRUCTSEmpirical research on materialism has been scantuntil very recently; however, a variety of materialismmeasures have occasionally been mentioned in the lit-erature. W ith the exception of Belk's (1984) work, no neofthemeasures appear to have involved application ofcommonly accepted standards for scale development

(Churchill 1979; Nunnally 1978). As practiced in priorresearch, approaches to measuring materialism can bedivided into two types: those that infer m aterialism frommeasures of related constructs and those that purportto measure materialism more directly through the useof attitu de scales. Table 1 describes the m easures ineach category.Materialism has often been assessed by measuringrelated constructs and using this to infer the level ofmaterialism. Dickins and Ferguson (1957), for instance,assessed materialism by the kinds of wishes expressedby children an d the k inds of jobs they de sire when theygrow up .A few authors have inferred the presence of materi-alism from scores on early personality-test batteries(e.g., Burdsal 1975; Justice and Birkm an 1972). Morerecently Belk (1984, 1985) has developed personality-trait measures specifically designed to infer the presenceof ma terialism . His work has been m ore fruitful thanearlier approaches because he examined the theoreticallinkages between specific personality traits (envy, pos-sessiveness, and nongenerosity) and materialism andused psychometric principles to develop his measures.A limitation of the Belk scales has been inconsistentand often low reports ofsc lereliability. In 12 separatedata collections in which reliability was reported in the

literature, coefficient alpha for the individual person-ality scales ranged from .09 to .81 with a median reli-ability of.54;a measure sum med across the three scales,frequently used as an indicator of materialism, had amedian reliability of .62.The most sustained effort to measure materialismhas been carried ou t by Inglehart (e.g., 1981), who hasattempted to identify postmaterialistic societies inwhich individuals emphasize such values as belongingand self-expression instead of material possessions. Inhis surveys, adm inistered primarily in E urope, he lists12 goals and classifies respondents as possessing ma-terialist or postmaterialist values by the social goalsthey choose as most important. A problem with this


4/15

306 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCHTABLE

MEASURES OF M ATERIALISM REPORTED IN EARLIER STUDIESStudy Subjects How m easured'' ReliabilityI. Measures that infer materialismfrom related constructs:

Dickins and Ferguson (1957) Ohiidren aged 7- 8 and11-12

Justice and Birkman (1972) Employed adults, prisoninmates

Bengston and Lovejoy (1973) Three-generation families

Burdsal(1975)Jackson, Ahmed, and Heapy(1976)

lngiehart(1981)

Belk(1984)

II. Attitude measures ofmaterialism:

Campbell (1969)

Wackman, Reale, and Ward(1972)iVIoschis and Churchill (197 8)De Young (1985-1986)

Richins(1987)

Heslin, Johnson, and Blake(1989) =

College students, militarypersonnelAdults and collegestudents in severalculturesAdults in Europe and theUnited States

College students, adults

College students, adults

AdolescentsAdolescentsAdults

Adults

Students

Content analysis of responses to five open-endedquestions: If you could make three vi/ishes andthey would all come true, what w ould you w ishfo r?Subscale of the Birkman vocational interest andattitude survey; materialism inferred from true-false questions concerning social perceptionsand self-imageMaterialism/human ism factor scores based on .78rankings of 16 values: finan ces ,possessions, serv iceMaterialistic motivations inferred from factor scoreson Cattell's motivational analysis testAcquisitiveness subscale of the six-dimensional Approxim ately .80achievement scale; includes Likert scale,semantic differential, and adjective checklistitemsMaterialist and postmaterialist goals; 12 goalsranked by importance: maintain a stableeconomy, try to make our cities andcountryside more beautifulPersonality traits of envy, nongenerosity, and Subscales .09 - .81 ;possessiveness; 24 Likert scale items: I am entire .48- .73bothered when I see people who buy anythingthey want , I don't like to lend things, even togood friends, I tend to hang on to things Ishould probably throw out

Materialism; eight items, forced-choice format: Ifthings were such that everybody in the world hadstereophonic record players and champagne,wars would probably be obsoleteMaterialism; 5 items, Likert scale format: It' s reallytrue that money can buy happinessMaterialism; 6 items, adaptation of Wackm an et al. 5 3 - 71(1972)Nonm aterialism; four items with five-point scales: .78 do not evaluate everything in dollars , ge tmore pleasure from the non-materialMaterialism; six items, tw o subscales, Likert scale .73, .61format: It is important to me to have really nice

th ingsMaterialism subscale of the spender scales; six .76''items, Likert scale format

NOTE.Ellipsesindicate that dataa reunavailable.Whereascalehasbeen usedinmore thanon estudy,th esource withth egreatest amounto fscale information is reported.Entry includesadescriptionof thescale followedbysampleitems.Scale development is inprogress.Measureis atest-retestcorrelation;a llother reliabilitiesa reCronbach'salpha.

materialism measure for consumer-behavior researchis that the goals Inglehart lists are distant from mostconsumers daily concerns, cannot be easily affectedby individual action, and are not likely to have large

influences on day-to-day consumption choices. In ad-dition, this approach does not directly measure thecomplex, multidimensional nature of materialism and,because of its ordinal level of measurement, does not


5/15

MATERIALISM AND ITS MEASUREMENT 3 7

assess individual differences in the str ngthof materialvalues.Finally, some authors have used attitude measuresthat assume a more direct assessment of materialism.These measures usually involve Likert scale responseformats and are described in Table 1. With the excep-tion of the m aterialism c om pone nt of the spender scales(Heslin, Johnson, and Blake 1989), still in the processof development, none of these measures has been rig-orously tested.

MATERIALISM AS A CONSUM ERVALUEThe preceding review shows that materialism hasbeen measured in a variety of waysby m easuring per-sonality traits, by examining the importance of varioussocial goals, and by assessing attitud es. All the existingmeasures seem to suffer from at least one of two im-portant limitations. First, many of the measures do notpossess adeq uate levels of reliability for use in anyth ingexcept exploratory resea rch. This is not surp rising, per-haps, given the difficulty of measuring a complex con-struct like materialism.Second, the construct validity of many of the mea-sures has not been established. Because none of themeasures except Belk's have involved the psychometricprocedures of construct definition, scale refinement, andvalidity assessment, they are of limited usefulness.Measures that infer m aterialism from scores on othervariables such as personality t raits or social goals requ irefurther scrutiny. Peter(1981,p. 134) notes that a validconstruc t measu re should assess only the character-istics of the construct it is purp orted to assess andshould not be contam inated with elements from thedomain of other constructs (see also Nunnally 1978).Thus, using measures of personality traits to infer ma-terialism may be inappropriate unless materialism isitself viewed as a personality trait.To determine the appropriate m easurement approachfor materialism, it is necessary to examine the natureoftheconstruct itself As suggested in the literature re-view, theoretical and p opular notions indicate that ma-terialism represents a mind-set or constellation of at-

titudes regarding the relative importance of acquisitionand possession of objects in one 's life. For m aterialists,possessions and their ac quisition are at the forefront ofpersonal goals that dictate ways of life. They valuepossessions and their acquisition m ore highly than mostother matters and activities in life. The organizingfunction of acquisition goals among materialists, thecentrality of acquisition-related activities to their lives,and th e prioritizing of possessions vis-a-vis other thingsin life suggests that materialism is a value.Rokeach (1973,p. 5) defined a value as an end uringbelief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state ofexistence is personally or socially preferable to an op-posite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of ex-

istence and, further, that a value has a transcend entalquality to it, guiding actions, attitudes, judgm ents, andcomparisons across specific objects and situations andbeyond imm ediate goals to more ultimate goals (p.18).Recall that materialistic consum ers are said to m akea religion out of things (Bredemeier and Toby 1960),they believe that possession of things is the ultimatesource of happiness (Belk 1984), and materialism or-ganizes their lives to such an e xtent that it creates a life-style (Daun 1983). These descriptions fit Rokeach 's andothers' characterizations of values. Defining material-ism as a value is consistent with the n otion that mate-rialism reflects the importance a person places on pos-sessions and their acquisition as a necessary or desirableform of conduct to reach desired end states, includinghappiness. (For m ore discussion of the value conceptionof materialism, see Fournier and Richins 1991;Richinsand Dawson 1990.) Our conception of materialism,then, is that it is a value that guides people's choicesand conduct in a variety of situations, including, butnot limited to, consumption arenas. With respect toconsumption, materialism will influence the type andquantity of goods purchased. Beyond consumption,materialism will influence the allocation of variety ofresources, including time. A materialist, for instance,might choose to work longer hours and earn moremoney instead of using that time for leisure activities.

All this suggests that those w ho place a high va lue onmaterial possessions and their acquisition will behavedifferently from those who place a lower value on things.To the extent behavior patterns associated with mate-rialism arefixedand pervasive, there m ay be personalitytraits associated with materialism (see, e.g., Fromm1976). Belk's (1984) mea sures reflect som e ofthe traitsmost comm only said to be associated with m aterialism.A number of writers have adopted a value conceptionof materialism. This is clearest among those who havedealt with materialism at a cultural level. Mukerji(1983), Fox and Lears (1983), and others describe ma-terialism and the culture of consumption as a valuesystem. Content-analytic studies designed to identifytrends in materialism as reflected in advertising andpopular literature (e.g., Belk 1987; Spiggle 1986) havespoken of material values, and consum er behaviortexts frequently describe materialism as a dominantAmerican value (e.g., Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard1990; Hawkins, Best, and Coney 1989; Mowen 1990).In consumer behavior, values most frequently havebeen measured with ranking scales such as those de-veloped by Rokeach (1973) and Kahle (see Kahle,Beatty, and H om er 1986) in which respondents are pre-sented with a (sometimes large) set of end states or be-haviors and asked to rank them according to their im-portan ce. Although this approach is useful in identifyingvalue configurations by revealing the relative impor-tance an individual or a cultural group places on variousbehaviors or end states, ranking methods are limited inseveral ways. First, the information gained about any


6/15


one particular value is very superficial. To know thatan individual ranks warm relationships with oth ersfourth in a given set does not reveal very much aboutthe role these warm relationships play in the person'slife. We do not know why relationships are valued orthe benefits that are expected to accrue from these re-lationships. Ranking methods also make comparisonacross individuals impossible. Of two individuals whohave ranked warm relationships fourth, we cannottell which one considers warm relationships more im-portant, nor can we tell whether someone ranking warmrelationships second actually considers them more im-portant in an absolute sense than someone ranking themthird or fourth.

There are practical problems with ranking methodsas well. Ranked data are ipsative, and the analysis ofipsative data is fraught with problems (Hicks 1970). Inaddition, respondents find it difficult to rank largenum bers of items such as those found on the Rokeachvalue batteries. Decreasing the number ofitems,as withKahle et al.'s (1986) approach, can result in the over-simplification of complex psychological phenomena.Rating methods are sometimes used to avoid the prob-lems of ranked-values data (Alwin and Krosnick 1985),but rating has its own problem s, including a large nu m-ber of ties among valued end states and behaviors. Rat-ing data suffers equally with ranking in terms of super-ficiality of measurement.To avoid the problems inherent in ranking and ratingprocedures, we took a different approach to m easuringmaterialism. We maintained the conceptualization ofmaterialism as a value but attempted to obtain greaterdepth by measuring beliefs relevant to the value. Th us,we considered materialism to be a set of centrally heldbeliefs about the importance of possessions in one's life(cf. Rokeach's definition of value) and measured thethree belief domain s described above: acquisition cen-trality, the role of acquisition in happiness, and the roleof possessions in defining success. Our final measure isnot intended to assess all beliefs relevant to materialvalues but rather those that emerged consistently fromanalysis of lay and theoretical notions as describedabove.Propositions Concerning MaterialismThe remainder of this article describes developmentof a m aterialism measure th at meets the goals describedabove. To partially assess the validity of the resultingscale, it was used to test several prop ositions concerningmaterialism that have been discussed widely in the lit-erature.

Proposition 1 Materialistic people value acquisi-tion and the means to acquire possessions more highlythan those low in materialism. They also value posses-sions and their acquisition more than other life goalsand more than their relationships with other people(Fromm 1976; Schudson 1984). For most writers, this

emphasis on possessions is the essence of materialism(e.g., Belk 1984; Bredemeier and Toby 1960; Mukerji1983).ropos t on 2 Materialistic peo ple are self-centered.

Many have noted that an overemphasis on materialpossessions results in selfishness, and Belk (1983) hasreviewed religious and other writings that espouse thisview. An overriding concern with possessions and ac-quisition for oneself is inherently incompatible withsharing and giving to others. Wachtel (1983) has ob-served that self-interest and the pursuit of individualrather than community goals predominate where afflu-ence and acquisition are emphasized.Proposition 3 Materialists will pursue a life of ma-terial complexity rather than material simplicity. Anemphasis on material possessions is often linked withpositive attitudes toward growth (e.g., Heilbroner 1956;Inglehart 1981; Looft 1971), a reliance on techn ologyto solve problems (e.g., Mukerji 1983), and an uncon -cern for the things of nature or the environment (e.g.,Lasch 1978; Linden 1979). Voluntary simplicity is theopposite perspective. It is a life-style of moral respon-sibility, spiritual growth, and self-actualization that ismanifested in the economic behaviors of low con-sumption, ecological responsibility, and self-sufficiency(Elgin 1981; Shama and W isenblit 1984). These char-acteristics are so contrary to the spirit of materialismthat Rudmin and Kilbourne (1992) have described vol-untary simplicity as deliberately denied materi alism .Thus, there should be a negative relationship betweenmaterialism and voluntary-simplicity behaviors.Proposition 4 Materialists tend to be less satisfiedthan others with their lot in life. Although materialistsexpect acquisition to make them happy, many writershave observed th at the lust for goods can be insatiable;the pleasures of new acquisition are quickly forgottenand replaced with a desire for more. This cycle leadsinevitably to dissatisfaction and discontent (Brickmanand C ampbell 1971; Scitovszky 1976). Empirical testsusing earlier measures of materialism support this hy-pothesis (Belk 1984; Dawson 1988; Richins 1987).

SCALE DEVELOPMENTItem GenerationItem generation for the materialism scale relied onboth popular and theoretical notions of materialism.In exploratory research, a convenience sample of 11adult consumers was asked to describe in an open-endedformat the attitudes and values of materialistic peoplethey knew and of materialistic people in general. Thesample included nearly equal numbers of males andfemales and was spread across age and income cate-gories. Frequently mentioned attitude descriptions wereconverted into items. In addition, the researchers con-

structed items to represent the three domains of ma-


7/15

M A T E R I A L I S M A N D I T S M E A S U R E M E N T 309TABLE 2

DESCRIPTION OF CONSUMER DATA COLLECTIONS AND ASSOCIATED MEASURES

Survey and location Response rate Final Measures1 . Medium-Sized northeasterncity2. Large western city3. Large western city4 . Northeastern college tow n andnortheastern rural area

36.033.331 .3

43.0 and 39.7

1 4425 0235

86 and 119

48 materialism items; 1 0 social desirability items Crowneand Marlowe 1960)30 materialism items; trait scales Belk 1 984); spending itemssee text)30 materialism items; Rosenberg 1965) self-esteem scale;desired income30 materialism items; 1 3 voluntary simplicity items Leonard-Barton 1 981); list of values Kahle et al. 1986); five life-satisfaction items Andrews and Withey 1976)

terialism described above. Another source of items wascharacterizations of m aterialistic people in the literatureand those mentioned by social critics. Finally, a fewitems were adapted from earlier studies in which ma-terialism and related constructs were measured (Belk1984; Heslin et al. 1989; Richins 1987; Wackman,Reale, and W ard 1972; Yam auchi and Te mpler 1982).Items were cast to reflect values and attitudes aboutpossessions rather than specific b ehavior or person alitytraits. A Likert scale format was used for all items withresponse categories of strongly agree, agree, neutral,disagree, and strongly disagree.During initial data collection efforts, more than 120items were generated. Redu ndan t, am biguous, leading,and other faulty items were eliminated in initial screen-ing. Subsequent screening was based on empirical testsof reliability, validity, and social desirability bias.

Item RefinementStudent SamplesEarly data collections for item refinement were un-dertaken at three major universities in different partsof the country (the South, the N ortheast, and the W est).Reliability, social desirability, and validity assessmentsbased on stude nt sam ples have been described elsewhere(Richins and Dawson 1990) and resulted in a pool of

48 items that were retained for further analysis.Consumer Samples

Additional item refinement and validation tests werecarried out with more heterogeneous samples obtainedthrough four consumer mail surveys. All involved ran-domly chosen samples of households in which initialmailings were followed by a rem inder letter and secondcopy of the questionnaire mailed two weeks later. Fur-ther details ofthedata collections and associated ques-tionnaires are shown in Table 2.Exploratory factor analysis, reliability assessment,and social desirability tests were performed on da ta from

the first survey{ = 144). Thirty m aterialism items wereretained as a result of these analyses. Factor analysisand additional reliability assessments were performedfor these 30 items using data from the later data col-lections (all with sample sizes greater than 200;seeTable2).These analyses resulted in a scale containin g 8 itemsthat behaved consistently across the samples and possessadequate reliability. The final set of items is shown inTable 3.Structure of the Measure

Exploratory factor an alysis from the first survey sug-gested a scale with three moderately correlated factors.To show the relationships among scale items. Table 3provides the pattern matrix from the principal com-ponents analysis (with oblique rotation) with data fromsurvey 2. The matrix is typical of those obtained fromall data collections, and the three factors correspond tothe elements of materialism noted in construct defini-tion . The first factor (labeled succe ss ) represents theuse of possessions as an indicator of success in life,which corresponds to the third domain of materialismdescribed in the literature review. The second factor( centrality ) concerns the importance of acquisitionand possession generally, and the third ( happiness )concerns the perception that possessions are needed forhappiness. Confirmatory factor analysis was performedwith the data from surveys 2, 3, and 4. Although thechi-square statistics were significant in the three anal-yses, other indicators suggested an acceptable fit of themodel. Adjusted goodness-of-fit indices ranged from .86to .88, and in every analysis the i-values for maximumlikelihood estimates all exceeded 5.0.

Because the latent constructs were moderately orhighly correlated in all analyses (phi coefficientsranged from .39 to .79), the chi-square for a singlefactor model was compared with chi-square for thethree factor model. The difference in chi-square test


8/15

310 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCHT LE

EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANAYLSISO F MATERIALISM ITEMSFactor

Item 1Success:Iadmire people who own expensive homes,

cars, and clothes. .70Someof the most important achievementsin life include acquiring materialpossessions. .69Idon t place much emphasis on the amountof material objects people own as a signof success.* .68The things I own say a lot about how wellI m doing in life. .58I like to own things that impress people. .56Idon t pay much attention to the material

objects other peopleown* - .4 3Centrality:Iusually buy only t he things I need.* - . 78I try to keep m y life simple, as far as

possessionsare concerned.* -. 62The things I own aren t all that important tome.* - .60Ienjoy spending money o n things thataren t practical. .60

Buying things givesme a lot of pleasure. .54I like a lot of luxury in my life. .52I put less emphasis o n material things thanmost peopleI know.* - . 4 9Happiness:Ihave all the things I really need to enjoyl ife.* -.80My life would be better if I owned certainthings I don t have. .65Iwouldn t be any happier if I owned nicerthings.* -.58I d behappier if I could afford to buy morethings. .58Itsometimes bothers m e quite a bit that Ican t afford to buy all the things I d like. .37 .55

NOTE.Onlyloadings greater than .35 areshown.An asterisk indicates reversescoreditems. A five-point Likert scale response format was used.

ReliabilityCoefficient alpha was calculated separately for theitems comprising the three factors and for the 18 itemsas a single scale. The seven centrality items produced

alpha coefficients between .71 and .75 in the latter threesurveys. For the six-item success subscale alpha rangedfrom .74 to .78, and for the five happiness item s, alphawas between .73 and .83. When combined into a singlescale, alpha for the 18 items varied between .80 to .88.Test-retest reliability (three-week interval) was cal-culated on data from a sample of 58 studen ts at an urbanuniversity. Th e reliability correlatio ns were .82, .86, and.82 for the centrality, happiness, and success subscales,respectively, and .87 for the combined scale.Social Desirability

While materialism may be more socially acceptabletoday than in some past eras, because of recent mediaattentio n to the negative aspects of materialism we con-sidered it important to test the measure for susceptibilityto social desirability bias. Social desirability was mea-sured in the first consum er data co llection with 10 itemsfrom the Marlowe-Crowne scale (Crowne and Marlowe1960). These items were chosen from the larger scalebecause they have been shown to possess greater sen-sitivity than other items and are appropriately keyedfor current standards of desirable behavior (Ballard,Crino , and Rubenfeld 1988). Correlations w ith the so-cial desirability measure were.12,.03,and .06 forthe centrality, happiness, and success subscales, re-spectively, and -.09 for the combined scale. The lowcorrelations suggest that social desirability bias was nota problem for these measures.Descriptive Statistics

The distributions for the overall materialism measureand its three components were approximately normal

was significant in tests of all three data sets, indicatingthat the three-factor model is superior in fitting thedata.While confirmatory factor analysis served to explicatethe three hypothesized manifestations of the underlyingconstruct, the three factors were summed for purposesof validation. This approach was followed becauseanalyses showed that the three factors normally act inconcert w ith respect to external variables. Carver (1989)has noted that, in these situations, using the summedindex instead of subscales is appropriate and advanta-geous in terms of parsimony and clarity of communi-cation.^

^Carver (1989) has discussed at length the appropriateness of com-bining componen t scores into a summed measure representing a latent

construct and notes that, in doing so, researchers have assumed eitherthat the underlying construct is assessed indirectly by measures of itsvarious manifestations (the latent variable approach) or that the con-struct is something more than the sum of its component parts (thesynergistic appro ach). For purposes of the materialism measure, wemake the former assumptionthat the three subscales are manifes-tations of materialism and the latent variable approach is thus ap-propriate. Carver describes the advantages of summing the compo-nents in such a case and discusses the patterns of results that justifysummed vs. separate component analysis. In the research reportedhere, all hypotheses were investigated using both the summed scaleand the component scales. On average, the summed multidimensionalindex relates to the diverse constructs in the hypothesis tests betterthan does any one compon ent dimension . In such cases, the higherlevel information (i.e., the consistent relation of the multifaceted[summed] construct to many outcome variables) is more importantthan the lower level [individual subscale] information , and the useof the summed construct measure instead of individual subscales ispreferred (Carver 1989, p. 580). For this reason, summ ed scale resultsare presented here. Re sults of h ypothesis tests at the subscale levelare available from the authors.


9/15

MATERIALISM AND ITS MEASUREMENT 311in all surveys (largest valueforskew=.67; largest valuefor kurtosis= 1.01). Means, standard deviations,andrangesforsurveys2,3,and 4 arepresentedinTable4.The relationships between demographics and thematerialism measures were assessed. With the exceptionofage,all correlations were quite low and no con sistentpatterns emerged.For the four materialism measures(three components plusthe overall scale)in thethreelater data collections,the median point biserial corre-lations withsex and with marital status were .05 and.01, respectively. Median correlations for householdsize, education, and income were.02, -. 06, and .04.For age, however,allcorrelations except one were neg-ative;the median correlation was-. 19 . This resultisconsistent with the notion that m aterialism declinesaf-ter middle age (see Belk 1985).

SCALE VALIDATIONEarlierin the article, four propositions concerningmaterialism were described. In validity assessment,multiple tests were performed for each proposition.

Materialistsand theValueofAcquisitionAccording to theorists, m aterialistic people value ac-quisition and themeansto acquire possessions morehighly than those lowinmaterialism.Inaddition, theyvalue acquisition more than other life goals. Three

analyses were carriedout toexamine these ideas.Respondents in survey were asked in an o pen-endedformat to indicate the level of annual household incomethat would satisfy your needs. Peoplewhodesirealot of possessions will need m ore m oney to acquire thosepossessions and thusareexpected to report a higherdesired levelofincome.Forpurposesofanalysis,re-spondents were divided into terciles based on their ma-terialism scores; the desired inc ome level of responden tsinthe top{n= 76) andbottom ( = 71)terciles werecompared. Respondents highin materialism felt theyneeded significantly more income{X $65,974) thanthose low in materialism [X =$44,761; t =3.65, df= 120.1, p < . 0 0 1 ) . 5A second testofthe importanceofthe meansto ac-quire was carried out using Ka hle's List of Values (LOV)scale (Kahleetal. 1986). Respondentsinsurvey 4 wereaskedtoread the nine valuesin arevised version of thescaleandthentorankthe four values that were mostimportanttothem. Respondents were divided intoter-ciles based on their materialism scoresand the per-centage of respondents including each value in theirtop three choiceswas examined. Table 5 showsper-

TABLEDESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE MATERIALISM SCALE ANDITS COMPONENTSScaleCentrality component:Survey2Survey3Survey4Happiness component:Survey2Survey3Survey4Success component:Survey2Survey3Survey4Overall scale:Survey2

Survey3Survey4

Mean

19.819.319.313.313.112 814.714.313 847 946.745.9

SD

4.24.04.04.23.54.13.93.74.1

10.28.39 .8

Range

9 339 329 315 255 225 256 246 266 30

23 8020 7123 84

Skew

.20.12 . 0 7

.1 4.2337 6526716.08.4 5

Kurtosis

.4 4 .13.14 . 6 0 . 2 4 . 2 6 . 3 8.491.01

.00.39

.8 3

centagesforresponden ts in the top (=71) and b ottom(=68) terciles. *As expected, respondents higher in materialism weremore likelytovalue financial security andless likelyto value warm relationships with othe rs than respon-dents lowinmaterialism{p .01). They were also lesslikelytochoose asense of accom plishm ent as anim-portant goal{p .01).Finally, the importance materialists place on financialmatters relativeto other goals was examined. Table5shows the median rankingforvaluesin theLOV scale.For respondentslow in materialism, four values wererated as more im port ant than financial security :self-respect, warm relationships, family security, andasenseof accomplishment. For those highinmaterialism, onlyself-respectandfamily security were ratedasmoreim-portant; warm relationships were approximately tiedinimportance with financial security. This analysissup-ports the belief that materialists tend to value the meansto acquire (financial security) more highly than someofthe life goals valued bythose low in materialism.However, the contentionsofFromm (1976) and othersthat materialists sacrifice personal relationshipsintheirpursuitofwealthandpossessions werenotsupported.Respondents low in materialism do appear to placeconsiderably more importance on interpersonal rela-tionships than on financial security,but high-materi-alism respondents gave interpersonal relationshipsequal footing with financial concerns.

Two separate tests,one concerning valuesand theother concerning desired income, indicate that the ma-terialism scale effectively identifies consumers who'The homogeneity of variance assumption was not met for thistest, necessitating the use of separate variance estimates and resultinginanoninteger valuefordegreesof freedom.

Resultsare similar when comparing thosewho did and did notincludeavalueintheir top /ou r choices except thatthe significancelevel declinesto.0 5forsignificant com parisons.


10/15

312 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCHTABLE

PERCENT INCLUDING A VALUE IN THEIR TOP THREE CHOICES AND MEDIAN RANKINGFOR RESPONDENTS HIGH AND LOW IN MATERIALISM

Goal

High materialismn = 71)Percentchoosing

46.545.122.554.956.335.216.912.79.9

Median445335

Low materialismn = 68)

Percentchoosing22.164.745.663.250.027.913.27.45.9

Median'534235

z-tes3.02- 2 . 3 2- 2 . 8 8- . 9 9.74.93.611.04.87

Financial securityWarm relationships with othersSense of accomplishmentSelf-respectFamiiy securitySeif-fulfilimentFun and enjoyment In lifeBeing weil-respectedSense of belonging'Respondents ranked their four most important goals; unranked goals were assigned a rank of five; the median is not reported for qoals chosen bv less than 30

percent of respondents (indicated by ellipses). K M y OU p< .01.

highly value the means to acquire. However, becausethe analysis of values with ranked data suffers fromlimitations mentioned earlier, future investigations intothe links between materialism and values would benefitfrom the use of more sensitive values measures.Materialism and Self-Centeredness

One ofth common statements about materialists isthat they are self-centered and uncon cerned about oth-ers.Three tests ofthisproposition were carried out. Insurvey 2, respondents were asked to assume they hadbeen unexpectedly given $20,000. They were then givena list of six ways in which the money could be spent,plus an oth er category. Three versions of the ques-tionnaire w ere administered in a split-ballot procedure ,the only difference amon g the questionna ires being theorder of listing of the spending categories. Spendingcategories were developed from pretests in which adultrespondents were asked in an open-ended format howthey would spend an unexpected gift of $20,000.For purposes of analyses, respondents were again di-vided into terciles based on their materialism scores;Table 6 shows spending intentions for respondents inthe top and bottom terciles. On average, respondentshigh in materialism said they would spend three timesas much on things for themselves as would low-mate-rialism respondents {p .001), would contribute lessthan half of what low materialists would to charitableor church organizations{p .001), and would give lessthan half as much to friends and family{p< .01). Theyalso would spend less on travel{p .05).A second test of the relationship between materialismand selfishness comes from an item in the voluntarysimplicity life-style measure used in survey 4. (The re-lationship between materialism and voluntary simplic-

ity is more fully examined below.) The scale containsan item asking how often respondents contribute toecological or conservation organizations. The correla-tion between this item and the materialism scale was- . 2 1 ( p < . 0 1 ) .The third assessment of selfishness was the measureof nongenerosity developed by Belk (1984) adm inisteredin survey 2. This scale measures nongenerosity withpossessions and other nonmonetary resources and con-tains items such as I don 't like to lend things, even togood friend s and I enjoy having guests stay in myho m e (reverse scored). The correlation between thematerialism scale and the nongenerosity scale (alpha= .63) was .25{p .001).

These analyses support the hypothesis that materi-alists prefer to retain their resources for their own useand are less willing than others to share what they have,both in terms of their money (as measured by thespending analysis) and their possessions (as evidencedby the correlation with the nongenerosity scale). Thisreluctance to share extends to those with whom theyhave close social ties (friends and family) and more so-cially distant entities such as charitable and ecologicalorganizations.Materialism and Voluntary Simplicity

Although Rudmin and Kilbourne (1992) have notedthat the essential feature of voluntary simplicity is notthe manifest behavior, but the underlying values andbeliefs which . . . motivate that behavior, Leonard-Barton (1981) posits that the values of voluntary sim-plicity are likely to result in certain kinds of behaviors,which she includes in the voluntary-simplicity life-stylescale. To assess the relationship between materialismand volu ntary sim plicity, a shorter (13-item) version of


11/15

MATERIALISM AND ITS MEASUREMENT 313T LE

AMOUNT INTENDED TO BE SPENT IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIESBY RESPONDENTS HIGH AND LOW INM ATERIALISM

Spending categoryBuy things wantorneedGivetochurch organizationor charityGiveorlendtofriendsorrelativesTravelPayoffdebtsSavingsorinvestmentsOther

Highnnaterialism( ) 91

3,445733

1,0892,0904,2817,41394 8

Lo wmateriaiism( ) 85

1,1061,7822,6313,0153,2717,47172 4

f5.38***

-3 . 79** *-3 . 08**- 2 . 0 8 *1.41- . 0 7.27

< 05p< 01

the scale describedbyLeonard-Barton, with somere-vision to item wording and response categories,wasadministered insurvey4. Inanalysis, the three-con-struct structure forthe scale proposedbyCowlesandCrosby (1986) was used because this structure resultedin better prediction than the six-factor structurepro-posed by Leonard-Barton. Cowles and Crosby labeledtheir constructs ma terial simp licity (which involvesbuying used goods andrelyingon bicycles insteadofautomobiles fortransportatio n), self-determina tion(making rather than buying itemsandattemptingtodo home repairs oneself),and ecological awareness(recycling and contributing to ecological organi-zations).RudminandKilbourne have distinguished betweenvoluntary simplicity, reflecting underlying values,andinvoluntary simplicity that results from inadequate re-sources (income) to engagein amore complex life-style.To avoid confounding these two constructs, partial cor-relations controlling for income were used whenas-sessing the relationship between materialism and thevoluntary simplicity indicesform aterial simplicity,self-determination, and ecological awareness; resulting par-tial correlations were - .18,- .15,an d-.24 forthe threerespective indices. The partial correlation when all 13items aresummed was -.28 (p < .01 for all partialcorrelations).The relationship between materialism and thevolun-tary simplicity life-style scale, while significant, isnot es-pecially strong. Thismay be due toweaknessesof thevoluntary simplicity scale itself.Like many other behav-iors, someofthose included in thescale maybedeter-minedasmuchbyone's situationas byone's valuesorattitudes (e.g., biketowork; grow vegetables).Asecondlimitation of the scale is its low reliability (Cronbach'salpha for thescaleandsubscales were between .48 and.62).' Despite these limitations,a significant relationship

between voluntary-simplicity life-style and materialismdid emerge, supporting thecontentionsofRudminandKilbourne (1992) and others.Materialism andSatisfaction

Philosophers have frequently warned tha t the continua lpursuit ofgoodscan lead onlytodissatisfaction. The re-lationship between materialism and satisfactionwasmea-suredindifferent ways in the three validation surveys.Insurvey 4, respondents completed measures of satisfactionwith lifeas awhole, amo untof fun, family life, incomeor standard of living, and relationships with friends usingthe delighted-terdble response scale described by Andrewsand Withey (1976). Materialism was negatively relatedtosatisfaction in allthe aspectsoflife measu red.The rela-tionship wasstrongest for satisfaction with incomeorstandard of living{r -.3 9) and weakestforsatisfactionwith family life (r = .17). Correlations forsatisfactionwith lifeas awhole,fun, and friends were -.32,-.34,and - . 3 1 , respectively (allp


12/15


the construct of materialism as described in the socialsciences literature and in com mon usage. The resultingscale measures three correlated aspects of m aterialism:acquisition centrality, the role of acquisition in the pur-suit of happiness, and the role of possessions in definingsuccess. The scale possesses acceptable reliability, andpreliminary assessments of scale validity were suc-cessful.

The search for a measure of materialism led us to thestudy of values, and one contribution of this researchis the recognition that values can and sometimes shouldbe measured in ways other than with traditional rankingprocedures. An exam ination of published consum er re-search suggests that the study of values has been some-what neglected. Helgeson et al. (1984) examined con-sum er-behavio r studies from 1950 throug h 1981 andfound that only 0.8 percent of the studies concernedvalues or beliefs. Our own informal review of the morerecent literature (1984-1991) also revealed little re-search on values. Excluding studies of materialism, onlyseven articles in th eJournal of ConsumerResearchandthe Association for Consumer Research proceedingsdealt with consumer values, and the main focus of fourof these was to examine revised lists ofv lues from theranking procedures used by Rokeach (e.g., Kahle et al.1986;Munson and M cQuarrie 1988) rather than to ad-dress substantive issues concerning consumer values.Instead of revising the Rokeach scales, it might be ap-propriate at this time to develop entirely different valuemeasures more suited to the usual application of indi-vidual difference variables in consumer behavior.

In consumer-behavior research, we usually wish tomeasure the intensity of variable using a metric scaleand multiple items so that we can establish reliability,compare individuals or groups, and assess associationswith other v ariables. This is difficult to accom plish withrank data. Furthermore, values are complex phenom-ena, and the use of complex measures is required. It isno more reasonable to measure the value of warm re-lationships with oth ers with a single item than it is tomeasure attitudes toward religion with a single questionon a survey. Single-item measures are also unsatisfac-tory from a reliability perspective (Nunnally 1978). Itis hoped that this research will encourage others to ex-tend the multiple-item measurement philosophy to ad-ditional values important in the study of consumer be-havior.

We also hope that our work will spawn more researchon materialism, including investigations into its ante-cedents and consequences. Such research should in-vestigate the potential positive effects of materialism(both personal and economic) as well as the negativeones more frequently mentioned in the literature. Otherresearch can investigate the relationship between ma-terial values and marketing stimuli such as advertising(e.g., Pollay 1984), store displays, and product char-acteristics. Finally, additional research may seek tobroaden the conceptualization of materialism beyond

that represented here. For instance, measures that assessthe extent to which individuals use material possessionsto assist in defining th e self or as an e xpression of groupmem bership and belonging will allow researchers to ex-amine more broadly consumers' relationships with ma-terial objects.

[Received August 1991. Revised February 1992.]REFERENCES

Alwin, Duane F. and Jon A. Krosnick (1985), Th e Mea-surement of Values in Surveys: A Com parison of Ratingsand Rankings, Public Opinion Quarterly,49 (Winter),535-552.Andrews, Frank M. and Stephen B. Withey (1976), SocialIndicators ofWell Being:Americans Perceptionsof LifeQuality,New York: Plenum.Ballard, Rebecca, Michael D. Crino, and Stephen Rubenfeld(1988), Social Desirability Response Bias and the Mar-lowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, PsychologicalReports,63 (August), 227-237.Belk, Russell W. (1983), Wo rldly Possessions: Issues andCriticisms, in dvances inConsumerResearch,Vol. 10,ed. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor,MI: Association for Consumer Research, 514-519.(1984), Th ree Scales to Measu re Co nstruc ts Relatedto Materialism: Reliability, Validity, and Relationshipsto Measures of Happ iness, inAdvances in ConsumerResearch,Vol. 11,ed. Thom as K innear, Provo, U T: As-sociation for Consumer Research, 291-297.(1985), Ma terialism : Trait Aspects of Living in the

Material World, Journal of Consumer Research, 12(December), 265-280 .(1987), Material Values in the Comics: A ContentAnalysis of Comic Books Featuring Them es of W ealth,Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June), 26-42 .(1988), Third World Consumer Culture, in Re -search in Marketing,Suppl. 4, ed. Erdogan Kumcu andA. Fuat Firat, Greenwich, CT: JAI, 113-127.Bengston, Vern L. and Mary Christine Lovejoy (1973), Va l-ues, Personality, and Social Structure, American Be-havioral Scientist, 16 (July/August), 880-912.Braun, Ottm ar L. and Robert A. Wicklund (1989), Psycho-logical Antecedents of Conspicuous Consumption,Journal of Economic Psychology,10 (June), 1 61-187.Bredemeier, Harry C. and Jackson Toby (1960),Social Prob-lems in America: Co sts and Casualties in an AcquisitiveSociety,New York: Wiley.Brickman, Philip and Donald T. Campbell (1971), Hed onicRelativism and Planning the Good So ciety, in Adap-tation-Level Theory,ed. Mortimer H. Appley, New York:Academic Press, 287-302.Burdsal, Charles, Jr. (1975), An Examination of Second Or-der Motivational Factors as Found in Adults, JournalofGeneticPsychology,127 (September), 8 3-8 9.Campbell, Colin (1987), The Romantic Ethic and the Spiritof Modern Consumerism,New York: Basil Blackwell.Campbell, Donald T. (1969), Variou s Social AttitudeScales, in Measures of Political Attitudes, ed. John P.Robinson and Phillip R. Shaver, Ann Arbor, MI: SurveyResearch Center, University of Michigan, 648-653.


13/15

M TERI LISM ND ITS ME SUREMENT 31 5Carver, Charles S. (1989), Ho w Should M ultifaceted Per-sonality Cotistructs Be Tested? Issues Illustrated bySelf-Monitoring, Attributional Style, and Hardiness, JournalofPersonalityand Social Psychology,56 (April), 577-585.Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), A Paradigm for DevelopingBetter Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal ofMarketing Research,16 (February), 64-73.Cowles, Deborah and Lawrence A. Crosby (1986), M easureValidation in Consumer Research: A Confirmatory Fac-tor Analysis ofthe Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle Scale,\nAdvances in Consumer Research,Vol. 13,ed. RichardJ. Lutz, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,392-397.Crowne, D ouglasP.and David M arlowe (1960), A New ScaleofSocial Desirability Independent of Psychopathology,Journal ofConsultingPsychology, 24 (August), 349-354.Csikszentmihaiyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton(1978), Reflections on Ma terialism, Universityof Chi-cagoMagazine, 70 (3), 6-15.

and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981), The Meaningof Things: Dom estic Symbo ls and the Self Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Cushm an, Philip (1990), Why the SelfIsEmpty, AmericanPsychologist 45 (May), 599-611.Dau n, Ake (1983), Th e M aterialistic Life-style: Some Socio-psychological Asp ects, in Consumer Behavior and En-vironmental Quality, ed. Liisa Uusitalo, New York: St.Martin's, 6-16.Dawson, Scott (1988), Tra it Materialism: Improved Mea-sures and an Extension to Multiple Domains of Life Sat-isfaction, in AM A Winter Educators Conference, ed.Stanley Shapiro and A. H. Walle, Chicago: AmericanMarketing Association, 478-481.de Tocqueville, Alexis ([1835] 1954),Democracy inAmerica,New York: Vintage.De Young, Raymond (1985-198 6), Encouraging Environ-mentally Appropriate Behavior: The Role of IntrinsicMotivation, Journal of Environmental Systems, 15 (4),281-292.Dickins, Dorothy and Virginia Ferguson (1957),Practicesa ndAttitudes of Rural WhiteChildrenan dParents concerningMoney, Mississippi Agricultural Experiment StationTechnical Bulletin 43.Du Bois, Cora (1955), Th e Dom inant V alue Profile ofAmerican Culture, American Anthropologist, 57 (De-cember), 1232-1239.Elgin, Duane (1981), VoluntarySimplicity,New York: Mor-row.Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell, and Paul W. Miniard(1990), ConsumerBehavior Chicago: D ryden.Epstein, Seymour (1980), Th e Self-Concept: A Review andthe Proposal of an Integrated Theory of Perso nality, inPersonality:Basic Aspectsa nd CurrentResearch,ed. Er-vin Staub, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 81-132.Fournier, Susan and Marsha L. Richins (1991), Some Theo-retical and Popular Notions concerning Materialism,Journal of Social Behavior and Persona lity, 6, 403-414.Fox, Richard Wightman and T. J. Jackson Lears (1983), Th eCulture of Consumption: Critical Essays in AmericanHistory, 1880-1980, New York: Pantheon.Fromm , Erich (1967), The Psychological Aspects o ft heGuaranteed Incom e, in The Guaranteed Income, ed.Robert Theobald, Garden City, NY: Anchor, 183-193.

(1976),To Haveor To Be?NewYork: Harper Row.Gaines, Judith (1990), New H ampshire's New HomelessBelie the S tereotyp es, Boston Globe,(December 2), 85-86.Hawkins, Del I., Roger J. Best, and K enneth A. Coney (1989),ConsumerBehavior Homewood, IL: Irwin.Helgeson, James G., E. Alan Kluge, John Mager, and CheriTaylor(1984), Trend s in Consum er Behavior Literature:A Content Analysis, Journal of Consumer Research,10(March), 449-454.Heilbroner, Robert L. (1956), The Quest for Wealth:A Studyof Acquisitive Man,New York: Simon & Schuster.Henkoff Ronald (1989), Is Greed Dead? Fortune(August14),40-46.Heslin, Richard, Blair T. Johns on, an d B rian F . Blake (1989), Saver-Sp ender Scales, inProceedingsofthe Society forConsumerPsychology 988Annual Convention,ed. Da-vid W. Schumann, Washington, DC: Society for Con-sumer Psychology, 179-185.Hicks, Lou E. (1970), Som e Properties of Ipsative, Nor-

mative, and Forced-Choice Normative Measures, Psy-chological Bulletin, 74 (September), 167-184.Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1990), Con sump tion Styles oftheRich and Famous: The Semiology of Saul Steinberg andMalcolm For bes, inA dvances in Consumer Research,Vol. 17, ed. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, andRichard W . Pollay, Provo, UT : Association for C onsum erResearch, 850-855.lnglehart, Ronald (1981), Post-m aterialism in a Environ-ment of Insecurity, AmericanPoliticalScience Review,75 (December), 880-900.Jackson, Douglas N., Sadrudin A. Ahmed, and Nelson A.Heapy (1976), Is Achievement a Unitary Construc t?Journal of Research in Persona lity,10 (March), 1-21.Justice, Blair and Roger Birkman (19 72), An Effort to Dis-tinguish the Violent from the Nonviolent, SouthernMedicalJournal 65 (6), 703-706.Kahle, Lynn R., Sharon E. Beatty, and Pamela Ho mer (1986), Alternative M easurement Ap proaches to ConsumerValues: The List of Values (LOV) and Values and LifeStyles (VA LS), Journal of Consumer R esearch,13 (De-cember), 405-409 .Lange, Frederick Albert ([1865] 1925), The History of Ma-terialism,Lond on: R outledge & Kegan Paul.Lasch, Christopher (1978), The Culture of Narcissism, NewYork: Norton.Leiss, William (1976), The Limits to Satisfaction: On Needsan d C ommodities,Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Leonard-Barton, Dorothy (1981), Voluntary SimplicityLifestyles and Energy Conservation, Journal of Con-sumer Research,8 (December), 24 3-252.Linden, Eugene (1979),Affluence and Discontent: The Anat-omy of Consumer Societies,New York: Viking.Looft, William R. (1971), Th e Psychology ofMore, ^wer-icanPsychologist 26 (June), 561-565 .Moschis, George P. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1978), Consumer Socialization: A Theoretical and EmpiricalAnalysis, Journal ofConsumerResearch, 15 (Novem-ber),599-609.Mowen, John C. (1990), Consumer Behavior, New York:McGraw-Hill.Mukerji, Chandra (1983),FromGraven Images: Patterns ofModern Materialism, New York: Columbia UniversityPress.


14/15

31 6 JOURN L OF CONSUMER RESE RCHMunson, J. Michael and Edward F. McQuarrie (1988), Shortening the Rokeach Value Survey for Use in Con-sumer Researc h, in Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 15,ed. Michael J. Hous ton, P rovo, U T: Associationfor Consumer Research, 381-386.Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory,New York:McGraw-Hill.Oxford English Dictionary 19S9),Oxford: C larendon.Peter, J. Paul (1981), Co nstruc t V alidity: A Review of BasicIssues and Marketing Practices, Journal of MarketingResearch,18 (May), 133-145.Polanyi, Karl (1944), Th eGreatTransformation,New York:Rinehart.Pollay, Richard W. (1984), Th e Identification an d Distri-bution of Values Manifest in Print Advertising 1900-1980, in Personal Values and Consumer Psychology,ed. Robert E. Pitts, Jr., and Arch G. Woodside, Lexing-ton, MA: Lexington, 111-135.Rassuli, Kathleen M . and Stanley C. Hollander (1986 ), De -

sireInduced, Innate, Insatiable? Journal of Macro-marketing, 6(Fall), 4-24 .Richins, Marsha L. (1987), Me dia, Materialism, and H umanHappiness, in Advances in Consumer Research,Vol.14, ed. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo,UT:Association for Consumer Research, 352-356.and Scott Dawson (1990), Me asuring Material Val-ues: A Preliminary Report of Scale Developm ent, inAdvances in Consumer Research,Vol. 17, ed. M arvin E.Goldberg, Gerald G orn, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo,UT: Association for Consumer Research, 169-175.Rochberg-Halton, Eugene (1986),M eaning and Modernity:Social T heory in the Pragm atic Attitude, Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.Rokeach, Milton (1973),The Nature of Human Values, NewYork: Free Press.Rosenberg, Morris (1965), Society and the AdolescentSelfimage, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rudm in, Floyd W., and William E. Kilbourne (1992), TheMeaning and Morality of Voluntary Simplicity: Historyand Hypotheses on Deliberately Denied Materialism,inConsumption and Marketing: Macro Dimensions,ed.Nikhilesh Dholakia and Russell W. Belk, Northridge, CA:PWS-Kent, in press.Sahlins, Marshall (1976),Culture andPracticalReason,Chi-cago:University of Chicago Press.Schudson, Michael {\9S4), Advertising, The Uneasy Persua-sion,New York: Basic.Scitovszky, Tibor (1976), The Joyless Economy, New York:Oxford University Press.Shama, Avraham and Joseph W isenblit (1984), Values ofVoluntary Simplicity: Lifestyle and Motivation, Psy-chologicalReports,55 (August), 231-240.Spiggle, Susan (1986), M easuring Social Values: A Co nten tAnalysis of Sunday Comics and Underground Comix,Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (June), 100-113.Veblen, Thorstein ([1899] 1953),The Theory of the LeisureClass: AnEconomicStudyin the Evolutionof Institutions,New York: American Library.Wachtel, Paul L. (1983), The Poverty of Affluence: A Psycho-logical Portraitof the American Way of Life,NewYorkFree Press.Wackman, Daniel B., Greg Reale, and Scott Ward (1972), Racial Differences in Responses to Advertising amongAdolescents, inTelevision in Day-to-Day Life, ed.EliA. Rubenstein, George A. Comstock, and John P. Mur-ray, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Edu-cation, and Welfare, 543-551.Ward, Scott and Daniel Wackman (1971), Family and MediaInfluences on Adolescent Learning, American Behav-ioral Scientist, 14 (January-February), 415-42 7.Weber, Max [ 1930]1958),The ProtestantEthic andthe Spiritof Capitalism,trans. Talcott Parsons, New York: Scrib-ner's.Yam auchi, Kent T. and Donald I. Templer (1982), The De-velopment of a Money Attitude Scale, Journal of Per-sonality Assessment,46 (October), 522 -528.


15/15

RichinsDawson-1992-A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement_Scale...

Documents

Transcript of RichinsDawson-1992-A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement_Scale...