Materialism: The construct, measures, antecedents, and consequences.

Larsen, Val ; Sirgy, M. Joseph ; Wright, Newell D. 等

INTRODUCTION

What is materialism? In common usage, this word refers to the belief that material objects are important and valuable. Thus, a materialistic person is someone who values material objects highly and, shifting from a psychological to a sociological perspective, a materialistic culture is one in which most people value material objects highly. This is a neutral definition of the word's core meaning. But the word generally has a secondary meaning as well, an implicit--usually negative--value judgment. Thus, when people are described as being materialistic, they are usually held to have an inordinate preoccupation with material things to the exclusion of more important spiritual or intellectual concerns. In this article, we set aside these negative, value-judgment connotations of the term and, thus, leave open the possibility that materialism may have positive as well as negative consequences. As we use the term, then, materialism merely denotes the degree to which individuals or groups value material possessions. People exhibit high materialism if material possessions are important to them, low materialism if material possessions are unimportant.

Materialism is an increasingly important topic because it has increased, especially among young people (U.S. Department of Education, 1988). In a recent national study, Easterlin and Crimmins (1988, 1991) found that, compared with their counterparts in the 60's and 70's, young people today place more emphasis on earning a lot of money but less emphasis on work. That is, they are more eager to have things, less willing to sacrifice to get them. Green and Astin (1985) found that, on political and social questions, college students were more liberal than earlier generations, but ironically, also more materialistic.

Using content analysis of magazine advertising as an indicator of consumption values, Belk and Pollay (1985a) examined the evolution of consumer values longitudinally and found that materialism in the U.S. has increased during this century. In the 80 years surveyed, they found that pleasure appeals steadily increased, with ads portraying more comfortable and luxurious lifestyles. Consumption was increasingly represented as an end in itself, rather than as a means to some other end such as consumer well being.

While materialism does seem to be increasing and while critics often hold marketers responsible for this, in their view, unfortunate increase (Lasch, 1979), there is not a great deal of empirical work that examines the antecedents and consequences of materialism. This paper reviews available evidence on possible antecedents and consequences and suggests research propositions which might be investigated in future research.

FOUR PERSPECTIVES ON MATERIALISM

Despite calls for the development of such a theory (Solomon, 1983), no comprehensive theory of materialism yet exists. Consequently, this paper will be organized not by an integrated theory but by conceptual framework, a modified and expanded version of a 2 x 2 matrix proposed by Belk (1983). As Figure 1 illustrates, this matrix is based on a broad classification of materialism's antecedents (innate/learned) and two alternative value judgments about its consequences (good/bad).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

This first section of the paper discusses one or more thinkers located in each cell of Belk's matrix. The second major section discusses scales that have been developed to measure materialism, scales which generally reflect the perspective of one of the matrix cells. The third major section examines antecedents of materialism, initially treating possible innate causes of materialism, then discussing external factors that may result in a learned predisposition to be materialistic. The fourth major section discusses negative and positive consequences of materialism.

Innate and Good

In the first cell, materialism is held to be innate and good. Human beings are born with a desire for material possessions, and those possessions produce pleasures which are their own justification. Thus, hedonism is a reasonable and salutary lifestyle. The value system implicit here is relatively simple. It represents a kind of pre-critical natural attitude.

This point of view, sometimes called Epicureanism, was articulated by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, who distrusted abstract reasoning, believing that nothing was more real than the immediate sensations of pleasure and pain (Copleston, 1963). Epicurus demonstrated that adopting a hedonistic perspective need not imply a life of crude animalism. Wise hedonists understand that certain actions and possessions may give short-term pleasure but long-term pain. They manage their lives in such a way as to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. To the extent that material possessions produce more pleasure than pain, they should be sought and enjoyed.

Innate and Bad

In the second cell, materialism is held to be innate and bad. Human beings are viewed as being born inherently corrupt or fallen, imbued with an unreasonable and unholy desire to amass things. Left to their own materialist impulses, they will wallow in at least four of the seven deadly sins: greed, envy, gluttony, and pride. As this catalog of sins suggests, this view has been most prominently embodied in religion, and it probably represents an ancient critical response to the natural attitude represented in the first cell. Though religions--as we shall see--differ greatly in their attitude toward materialism, most seek to moderate material desires in the name of a higher spiritual reality. Most call upon adherents to wholly or partly transcend the desire for material things by means of divine grace, meditation, or ascetic renunciation. Attention is thus turned from the distraction of material things to the real business of the soul--the quest for salvation.

In Christianity, this view is articulated in Jesus's parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16: 19-31) and in St. Paul's spirit/body dualism (Romans 7: 14-25). In Hinduism, it is articulated by Upanishadic seers who claim that salvation is best attained by freeing the soul from the tyranny of things (Noss, 1969, p. 97). In Buddhism, it is represented in the Buddha's great renunciation of his princely life (Hesse, 1922; Noss, 1969). Pushed to its logical extreme, the lifestyle implied by this cell is the ascetic life of a monk or wandering holy man. Though it remains important, in the United States the influence of this perspective diminished greatly between 1880 and 1930, giving way to the perspective typical of the next cell (Leach, 1993; Lears, 1983).

Acquired and Good

In cell three, materialism is viewed as being acquired and good. Though people are not born with a desire for and a capacity to create wealth, they should be taught to desire comfort for themselves and accompanying prosperity for the larger society. Social progress results when people want a nice home, several cars, a good education for their children, an ample investment portfolio, and are taught how to attain these things.

This cell represents the middle class or bourgeoisie point of view (Gay, 1984; LaWita, 1994; Lippman, 1943). It has been articulated by spokespersons such as George Guilder (1981) and George Will (1991), who argue that consumption contributes to fulfillment. But while especially characteristic of free market conservatives like Guilder and Will, it tends to be the pre-critical attitude of Americans across the political spectrum. As we shall see, this perspective was implicit in the work of Mochis and other consumer behavior researchers who first undertook the empirical study of materialism in marketing.

Acquired and Bad

In cell four, materialism is viewed as being acquired and bad. Human beings are not born with a tasteless and unreflective lust for material abundance, for some individuals and groups have sought to be part of nature rather than its master. To preserve itself, consumer capitalism must foster in people the unnatural and false belief that happiness flows from a superabundance of possessions. This belief is bad both because it is false and because the lifestyle it leads to is environmentally unsustainable. Modern middle class consumers are blinded by a kind of "false consciousness," a set of illusions which lead them to believe they are expressing themselves and meeting their own needs when, in reality, they are pawns of a social system that consumes them.

Spokespersons for this point of view include the more deeply critical environmentalists--Paul Ehrlich (Ehrlich, Ehrlich & Holdren, 1977), Dave Foreman (1987)--and neo-Marxist critical theorists like Jorgen Habermas (1973). It has been articulated in marketing by exponents of critical theory (Murray & Ozanne, 1992) and by self-described radicals (Kilbourne, 1987). In research focused specifically on materialism, this perspective is reflected quite clearly in the work of Belk (1983, 1984, 1985, 1987a, 1987b) and Pollay (1986), somewhat less clearly in the work of Richins and Dawson (1990, 1992).

MATERIALISM MEASURES

A number of materialism measures have been developed. One convenient source, the Handbook of Marketing Scales (Bearden, Netemeyer & Mobley, 1993), contains measures developed by Moschis and Churchill (1978), Inglehart (1981), Tashchian, Slama, and Tashchian (1984), Belk (1984, 1985), Richins (1987), Scott and Lundstrom (1990), Richins and Dawson (1992), and a description of a copyrighted scale developed by Yamauchi and Templer (1982). Along with the scales, this source reports indices of reliability and validity provided by the original authors. Reported reliabilities were for Moschis and Churchill .60, Tashchian, Slama, and Tashchian .82, Belk .64 to .73, Richins .61 to .73, Scott and Lundstrom .80, Richins and Dawson .80 to .88, and Yamauchi and Templer .69 to .80.

Of these measures, those by Belk and Richins have been most widely used in marketing. But while Belk's scale (or one of his subscales) has been used in a number of studies, reliability has been either unreported (Belk, 1989b; Wallendorf & Arnould, 1988) or low (Dawson & Bomossy, 1990; Ger & Belk, 1990; Rudmin, 1990). When Cole et al. (1992) assessed the validity as well as the reliability of the Belk (1985) and Richins (1987) scales, their survey (N = 234) did not replicate Belk's original factor structure (possessiveness, nongenerosity, and envy), and the reliability of both his overall scale (.54) and his subscales (.42, .29, .57) was low. The Richins scale performed better, producing a .80 Cronbach's alpha for five of the seven items. There was some convergence across the two scales (.49) and both scales exhibited some nomological validity, for they correlated negatively (as hypothesized) with the measure of life satisfaction (-.365, -.348, and -.374 for the Belk and -.317, -.274, and -.287 for the Richins measures).

This negative relationship with life satisfaction is consistent with Belk's (1984) and Richins' (1987) previous findings and with their a priori expectations. However, the findings may be an artifact of the measures. Both researchers seem to view materialism as being acquired and bad. Belk's scale and both of Richins' scales (1987) and Richins and Dawson (1992) tend to associate negative emotions with materialism, positive emotions with a lack of materialism. Thus, items Belk coded positive for materialism begin with phrases such as: I get very upset ..., I worry ..., I don't like.... Items coded negative for materialism begin: I don't get particularly upset ..., I enjoy..., I don't mind.... Items Richins coded positive for materialism begin: My life would be better if ..., It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that ..., I'd be happier if.... Of the two items in the happiness subscale coded negative for materialism, one begins, "I wouldn't be any happier if..." and the other reads, "I have all the things I need to enjoy life." As these phrases indicate, life satisfaction tends to be implicit in items coded negative for materialism, life dissatisfaction in items coded positive. Thus, it is possible that, in these scales, the core meaning of materialism--a high valuation of material things--has been confounded with a tendency to experience negative emotions.

Compared with Belk and Richins, earlier researchers on materialism generally adopted a less critical perspective. Moschis and his colleagues, who first introduced the concept into empirical marketing research, conceived of materialism in relatively positive terms as an "orientation emphasizing possessions and money for personal happiness and social progress" (Churchill & Mochis, 1979; Mochis & Moore, 1978, p. 607). They explored the socialization process by which children and adolescents become materialistic and acquire consumption skills, measuring materialism with a scale adapted from Wackman, Reale, and Ward (1972). This scale seems to be less reliable than the Belk and Richins scales but is also less clearly value laden.

The scale proposed in another relatively early study, Tashchian, Slama, and Tashchian (1984), gives a positive valence to materialism (e.g., growth in material consumption helps raise the level of civilization; material growth makes for happier living). But this scale is not suitable for broad use since several items pertain to energy use and conservation. The Inglehart (1981) scale measures two constructs: materialism (approximately the bourgeois perspective in our 2 x 2 matrix) and post materialism (approximately the critical perspective). Unfortunately, this scale tends to tap political, not consumption attitudes (e.g., protect free speech; maintain order in the nation). So the tasks of developing positively valenced and value neutral measures of materialism have not yet been completed.

No marketing researcher has contributed more or been more influential on the topic of materialism than Belk. In addition to developing and validating his scale, he has applied it in cross-cultural contexts (Belk & Bryce, 1986; Ger & Belk, 1990; Tse, Belk & Zhou, 1989) has explored the use of products for self-identification (1988); and has examined the relationship between advertising and materialism (Belk & Pollay, 1984; 1985; Tse, Belk & Zhou, 1989), comic books and materialism (1987, 1989), and Christmas and materialism (1987, 1989). He has also been a leader in the nontraditional naturalistic investigation of materialism (Belk, Sherry & Wallendorf, 1988; Belk, Wallendorf & Sherry, 1989; O'Guinn & Belk, 1989). Using these non-traditional, inter-pretivist methods/measures (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988), Belk and his colleagues have uncovered positive aspects of the relationship between people and things that were not apparent in Belk's positivistic work. They have shown that quite ordinary material objects can become sacred to consumers and can bring deep meaning into their lives (Belk, Wallendorf & Sherry, 1989). Thus, as an inter-pretivist, Belk may be situated in the bourgeois rather than the critical cell of our 2 x 2 matrix.

POSSIBLE ANTECEDENTS OF MATERIALISM

If materialism is an important factor in many consumption choices, then it is important to understand what causes it. In this section we discuss a number of potential causes within the two broad categories--innate and acquired--suggested by our 2 x 2 matrix. Since there is no integrated theory of materialism, ideas about the causes of materialism may be derived from a wide variety of theoretical and ethical perspectives. Generated as they are by different perspectives, the propositions laid down here are only loosely connected to each other and are, in some cases, contradictory. Our purpose is to review past research and generate ideas in the hope that future research will lead to the development of one or more comprehensive theories of materialism

Innate Materialism

As the acquisitive behaviors of various insects, birds, and mammals indicate, it is possible that materialism is, at least to some extent, a biological rather than a socially acquired attribute (Ellis, 1985; Litwinski, 1942; Saunders, 1990; Waller et al., 1990; Wrightsman, 1974). For both theorists and policy makers, it makes a great deal of difference whether materialism is the one or the other (Dittmar, 1992). But distinguishing between nature and nurture is difficult because both usually play a role in causing a phenomenon (Hundert, 1991). And even if materialism has a biological foundation, it may be a manifestation of a more fundamental impulse such as an effectance motivation--the drive to control one's environment (Furby, 1978). Since there is likely to be little controversy about the idea that materialism can be, at least in some degree, an acquired attribute, the idea that needs to be further investigated is the following:

Proposition 1: Some proportion of a person's tendency to value material possessions may be explained biologically and may be present at birth.

Sex Differences. Moschis and Churchill (1978) found that males tended to be more materialistic than females (cf. Jensen & Jensen, 1993). Other researchers have found that even when very young, girls tend to be more interested in people, boys in things (Ley & Koepke, 1982). This difference may be related to the male tendency to value the intrinsic, instrumental function of things, the female tendency to value the expressive, relationship-enhancing function of things (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981). It may also be related to infant boys' preference for hard, arousal-enhancing objects and infant girls' contrary preference for soft, arousal-reducing objects (Furby & Wilke, 1982). It has been suggested by sociobiologists that these differences may have been adaptive for a sexually dimorphous species that existed in a hunting economy (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981). These differences suggest the following proposition:

Proposition 2: Males may be biologically predisposed to be more materialistic than females.

Age Differences. In exploring the possibility that some materialism may be innate, the theories and methods of developmental psychology are likely to prove invaluable, for researchers will need to generate measures of materialism that are applicable to children. Previous work in this discipline, most notably on cognition, suggests that, whether present at birth or not, innate materialism may emerge as part of the development process (Piaget, 1973). Unscientific observation provides some support for this expectation, at least as it applies to Belk's (1984, 1985) conception of materialism. Costello (1986) has observed that children tend to be more possessive, non-generous, and envious than young adults, and young adults exhibit these attributes more than adults. Thus, there is some reason to think that materialism is, in part, developmental.

Proposition 3: Children are likely to be more materialistic than young adults and young adults more materialistic than older adults.

Acquired Materialism

While biology may play a role, some proportion of the tendency to be materialistic is almost certainly acquired. This section discusses factors that may influence the learning of materialism. Some of these antecedents are group difference variables that account for differences in materialism between cultures or subcultures, others are individual difference variables. Though they cannot be entirely separated, in general this section begins with group (macro/sociological) and concludes with individual (micro/psychological) difference variables.

Social Structure. The broad pattern on which a society is organized probably influences the level of materialism in that society. Consequently, well-conceived social taxonomies may prove to be good predictors of materialism. One such taxonomy was developed by Tonnies (1887) and replicated more or less closely by other prominent sociologists (e.g., Durkheim, 1893; Parsons ,1949; Sorokin, 1927).

Tonnies (1887) argued that human association tends to approximate one of two ideal types, Gemeinschaft (roughly community) or Gesellschaft (roughly society). Gemeinschaft is the ancient and traditional pattern of human interaction. It includes all relatively intimate forms of living together, including families, villages, small towns, and religious congregations. Gesellschaft is of more recent vintage. It is an artificial aggregation of human beings who are connected with each other only by a political or commercial contract (Tonnies, 1887, p. 64). Major metropolises where relationships tend to be anonymous and merely commercial are relatively pure examples of Gesellschaft.

Each pattern of social organization has both strengths and weaknesses. Gemeinschaft's strength is that it serves our need for intimacy and stability. In a Gemeinschaft, the group is prior to the individual; consequently, individuals are always situated geographically and socially, are always connected to others not only by blood and proximity but also by conscience (Tonnies, 1887, p. 52). Status tends to be a given, a product of who one is, not of what one does or has. Gemeinschaft's weakness is that it limits one's range of personal and economic choices. Since one's status is established by birth and long acquaintance, it is hard to change.

Gesellschaft's strength is that it fosters freedom, economic efficiency, and their natural by-product, change. It is economically efficient because it rejects special-interest protectionism, e.g., the nepotism that is not only normal but obligatory in a Gemeinschaft. A Gesellschaft commodifies people and things, thereby eliminating non-economic considerations. People move from place to place, from career to career, as the needs of a fluid and dynamic economy dictate. Their status is determined by what they do or own, not by the bare fact of their existence. The Gesellschaft's weakness is its tendency to produce identity crises, to leave people perpetually insecure (Tonnies, 1987, xviii). They are insecure because earned status can be lost if one does not do what is expected (see Fromm, 1956, p. 36).

One overarching proposition and a number of corollaries flow from this basic sociological distinction. The proposition reads as follows.

Proposition 4: Material things are likely to be more highly valued in a Gesellschaft than in a Gemeinschaft.

The rationale for this proposition is that people are more likely to be materialistic when their social status must be established and marked by material goods, as in a Gesellschaft, than when it is given by birth and long acquaintance, as in a Gemeinschaft.

The various corollaries of Proposition 4 specify domains in which it is likely to operate. As indicated in the discussion above, population density is one factor that distinguishes a Gemeinschaft from a Gesellschaft and determines whether one's status is ascribed or achieved. The first corollary is based on this factor.

Corollary 4a: People in cities or urban areas are likely to value material things more highly than people in small towns or rural areas.

Another factor that distinguishes between Tonnies' two ideal types is blood relatedness, for the paradigm instance of Gemeinschaft is the family. Because family members generally have ascribed rather than achieved status, other things being equal, materialism should be lower when people are embedded in an extended-family network than when they are not.

Corollary 4b: People who live with or near immediate or extended family are likely to value material things less than those who don't. And the larger and closer the family network, the lower the level of materialism.

This corollary and the next may be supported by studies showing that people who are proximate to kin and close friends tend to be less well-off financially than those who are less proximate (Coleman 1977, 1983; Rainwater, Coleman, and Handel 1979). These studies may reflect a tradeoff between a gemeinschaftlich maintenance of close relationships and a gesellschaftlich acquisition of material wealth.

Length of acquaintance is another factor that distinguishes between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. People who have lived in one place for a long time may be more secure in their personal and social identities, but such place attachment will often exact an economic cost in foregone opportunities. Corollary 4c is based on this supposition.

Corollary 4c: The longer people have lived in a given place, the less materialistic they are likely to be.

Nations differ in the degree to which they approximate Tonnies' ideal types. But as a general rule, industrialized nations tend to be more gesellschaftlich, less-developed nations more gemeinschaftlich (Punetha, Giles &Young, 1987). As a consequence, material goods are likely to be more important in industrialized countries. Pasadeos (1992) found, in a study comparing advertising in Germany and Spain, that level of economic development seems to influence level of materialism: German ads depict more "having," Spanish ads more "being and doing." Corollary 4d follows from these differences among countries.

Corollary 4d: The more developed a nation is economically, the more materialistic its people are likely to be.

The United States is the paradigm Gesellschaft. Except for the small number of indigenous people, all Americans are here because they or their ancestors left places where the family had been

longer settled. In this new country composed of people who have diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, tradition has a much lighter weight than it has in places where a particular group have lived together for centuries (de Toqueville, 1945/1840). And consistent with their immigrant history, Americans have tended to remain mobile, moving from place to place more frequently than citizens of most other nations. In their ever new settings, Americans have had to prove their worth by what they own or do. This history has been reinforced by an individualistic ideology that sets the United States apart even from other nations of immigrants such as Canada and Australia. Empirical evidence that Americans are especially materialistic (Miller, 1991) reinforces this rationale. Taken all together, these factors suggest Corollary 4e.

Corollary 4e: People in the United States are likely to value material things more than people in other nations.

Religion. As we suggested in the discussion of our 2 x 2 matrix, most religions seek to moderate the desire for material pleasures so that adherents will not be distracted from the joys of the spirit (Lamb, 1992; Lau, 1989). Among the religiously committed, the result seems to be a lower valuation of material things (Gallup, 1991; Gallup & Jones, 1992; Goltz & Larson, 1991; Jensen & Jensen, 1993). Proposition 5 expresses this idea.

Proposition 5: Religious people may be less materialistic than nonreligious people.

While almost all religions constrain materialism in some degree, denominations differ in their attitude toward the acquisition of material things, some being very critical, others celebrating acquisition, if it is subordinate to some larger religious vision (O'Guinn & Belk, 1989; Wright & Larsen, 1992). Proposition 6 focuses on this difference among denominations. Proposition 6: Adherents of different religions are likely to differ in their level of materialism.

Since there are many different denominations, there are many potential corollaries to

Proposition 6. But though this proposition is in some ways more applicable to other places (e.g., India with its rich and sophisticated tradition of religious thought), we focus on several denominational distinctions which are relevant in North America.

In Protestant theology, salvation is generally held to flow from the grace of God, not from the sacraments or other works (Bonhoffer, 1959). However, grace being imperceptible, Protestants have tended to view material blessings as a sign of God's grace (Falwell, 1980) and have, therefore, diligently sought after them. Weber (1930) and Tawney (1944) went so far as to argue that the rise of Protestantism was responsible for the rise of capitalism with its material abundance. Recent research suggests that Protestants continue to exhibit a strong commitment to the work ethic and associated acquisitiveness (Chusmir & Koberg, 1988; Giorgi & Marsh, 1990).

For Catholics, on the other hand, capitalism may be more problematic, there being "a long Catholic tradition of suspicion toward capitalism and all its works" (Berger, 1985, p. 32). Michael Novak (1993), a prominent lay Catholic writer, has held the Church and its unease with capitalism in some measure responsible for the lack of material progress in South America and other predominantly Catholic regions. And to a degree not matched by Protestants, Catholics have traditionally honored as a spiritual ideal the ascetic lifestyle of the monastery. These factors suggest

Corollary 6a.

Corollary 6a: Protestants are likely to be more materialistic than Catholics, and Protestant nations more materialistic than Catholic nations.

Important as they are, differences between Protestants and Catholics are eclipsed by differences between Protestant sects. Mainline Protestants such as Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians have been more inclined to embrace a left-leaning social gospel (the critical perspective in our matrix), evangelicals such as Baptists, Nazarenes, and Missouri Synod Lutherans more inclined to embrace the ideology of the right (bourgeois perspective) (Jelen & Wilcox, 1992; Leege, 1992; Falwell, 1980). Some evangelical thinkers have even adopted traditional economic concepts such as return on investment, proclaiming "the gospel of prosperity" in which contributions to the church are framed as a kind of investment that will result in material blessings (Barnhart, 1988; Cardwell, 1984; O'Guinn & Belk, 1989). These considerations lead to corollary 6b.

Corollary 6b: Members of evangelical Protestant denominations are likely to be more materialistic than members of mainline denominations.

It is possible that religious groups who have suffered religious persecution (e. g., Jews, Mormons, Baha'is) or been outside the denominational mainstream (North American Hindus and Buddhists, Coptic Christians in Egypt) may value things more than groups which have not had these experiences. Denominations that have been persecuted may have had ample opportunity to learn the survival value of wealth. Those outside the denominational mainstream may appreciate more than others the capacity of wealth to enhance social status.

Corollary 6c: Members of religions that have suffered sustained persecution may value material possessions more than members of unpersecuted sects.

Corollary 6d: Members of religions outside the denominational mainstream may value material possessions more than members of mainstream sects.

Politics. One key dimension of political ideology--relative valuation of economic freedom and economic equality--may be correlated with materialism since it bears directly on the ownership of property. Materialism will probably be higher in people who espouse a free market ideology (Friedman 1962; Hayek 1960) than in those who embrace a redistributionist ideology (Galbraith 1958). This idea is expressed in Proposition 7.

Proposition 7: People who value economic freedom more than economic equality are likely to be more materialistic than those with the opposite values.

As a general rule, Republicans (or conservatives) are more likely than Democrats (or liberals) to value economic freedom, Democrats (liberals) more likely than Republicans (conservatives) to value economic equality (Rokeach, 1971). Since free markets tend to be efficient and produce abundance and since the quest for equity sometimes exacts a price of reduced material abundance (Kaitala & Pohjola, 1990), it seems likely that Republican advocates of economic freedom will be more materialistic than Democratic advocates of economic equality. Hicks (1974) and Tang and Tzeng (1992) provide empirical support for this supposition.

Corollary 7a: Republicans are likely to be more materialistic than Democrats, conservatives more materialistic than liberals.

Because the United States has a first-past-the-post electoral system which favors large coalitions over small single-issue parties, American ideological and party labels tend to be rather imprecise, gathering together people with quite diverse views. The label conservative is a case in point. Conservatives can be divided into rather distinct camps, the free market conservatives (called liberals in Europe) and the social conservatives (sometimes called Tories). Free market conservatives embrace change and material progress, social conservatives are often suspicious of it (Hayek, 1960; Kirk, 1986) as the essays of prominent southern agrarians, collected in I'll Take My Stand (Rubin, 1976) make very clear.

Corollary 7b: Free-market conservatives are likely to be more materialistic than social conservatives.

Like conservatives, liberals can be divided into distinct camps, social (ACLU) liberals and economic (redistributionist) liberals (Heilbroner, 1979; Thurow, 1975). These groups may differ in level of materialism.

Corollary 7c: Social liberals are likely to be more materialistic than economic liberals.

While materialism is very likely related to both religion and politics, the precise nature of the relationship is problematic, for while it is possible that a religion or political ideology might foster materialism, it is also possible that materialism might motivate the choice of a religion or ideology. Consequently, religion and politics are properly viewed as antecedents of materialism only in cases where people were raised in that tradition. In cases where the belief system was chosen as an adult, correlations with materialism should probably be viewed as an effect of materialism, not as a cause.

Advertising. No potential cause of materialism has received more attention and criticism than advertising. While empirical results do not always support the assumption (e. g., Ellison & Cole, 1982), in their hypotheses, most researchers and commentators (e.g., Belk & Pollay, 1985; Lasch, 1979; Richins, 1987; Williams 1980) agree: advertising causes an increase in materialism. The following proposition expresses this consensus expectation.

Proposition 8: The more exposed people are to advertising, the more materialistic they are likely to be.

Arising out of this proposition are corollaries which specify groups who are exposed to a great deal of advertising and who should, therefore, be more materialistic. We focus on two of these groups, children and the poor. Children watch, on average, four hours of television and more than 50 commercials a day, more than 18,000 commercials a year (Goldberg & Gorn, 1978; National Institute of Mental Health, 1979; Schudson, 1984), so if advertising increases materialism, they should be relatively materialistic. Advertising should also affect the poor more than other income groups, since they watch more television (Leiss, Kline & Jhally, 1990; Mander, 1977; Marchand, 1985).

Corollary 8a: Children are likely to be more materialistic than adults because they watch more television.

Corollary 8b: The poor are likely to be more materialistic than other income groups because they watch more television. For cultural, legal, and infrastructural reasons, countries differ in their level of advertising.

Corollary 8c follows from these differences.

Corollary 8c: People in countries with high levels of advertising are likely to value material possessions more than those in countries with low levels.

In a study of the relationship between television viewing, materialism, and life satisfaction, Richins (1987) found that the correlation between television viewing and materialism was significant, but only for viewers who thought TV ads were realistic. Proposition 9 reflects this finding.

Proposition 9: The effects of television viewing on materialism may be moderated by the perceived realism of ads such that ads increase viewer materialism when viewers perceive the ads to be realistic.

This moderator should have especially pronounced effects on children, for they often do not distinguish the program from the advertisements and, thus, fail to perceive the commercials' selling intent (National Institute of Mental Health, 1979). In addition, they are relatively unbridled by reality constraints. These considerations imply a corollary identical to Corollary 8a in effect but different in cause.

Corollary 9: Children may be more materialistic than adults because they are more likely to perceive ads as being realistic.

According to Puto and Wells (1984), there are two kinds of advertising: informational and transformational. These two kinds may have different effects on materialism. Informational advertising clearly and logically reports factual data about a product, seeking to inform its audience. It speaks to specific needs the consumer already has but doesn't know how to satisfy. Transformational advertising associates product use with attractive psychological or social states which would not be associated with the product without exposure to the advertising.

In most countries, the law and/or custom constrain advertising for some or all product classes (Boddewyn, 1981; United Nations, 1979). A study by Tse, Belk, and Zhou (1989) of advertising over a seven year period (1979-1985) in three different Chinese societies (mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan) found that ads were more informational in mainland China, more transformational in Hong Kong, and somewhere in between in Taiwan, but becoming more transformational. Thus, ads on the mainland emphasized utilitarian aspects of products. Ads in Hong Kong and, to a lesser extent, Taiwan, emphasized image, luxury, and social display. In these three societies and others where advertising is restricted by law or custom, Proposition 10 may apply.

Proposition 10: Materialism is likely to be higher in countries where transformational advertising (involving symbols of social status, wealth, and conspicuous consumption) is prevalent than in countries where it is not.

Wealth. An economic analysis suggests that poor people will be more materialistic than rich people since material goods they acquire will have more marginal utility. Consistent with this idea, Inglehart (1990) argued that the poor place a higher subjective value on material security because they face greater economic insecurity than the rich. Singhal and Misra (1992) and Rokeach (1971) provide empirical support for this supposition. Rokeach found that the lower a person's income, the more likely they were to rate highly the value of "a comfortable life," probably a good surrogate measure of materialism. This economic reasoning (and Maslow's hierarchy of values which is consistent with it) leads to a proposition identical to Corollary 8b in effect but different in cause.

Proposition 12: Poor people are likely to be more materialistic than rich people because material goods have more marginal utility for them.

Wealth Recency. Symbolic self-completion theory (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982) suggests that there is a strong relationship between commitment to an identity, confidence in that identity, and compensatory actions with regard to that identity. When people are strongly committed to a particular role and yet have doubts about how fully they embody it, they tend to compensate by refusing to admit weaknesses and by accumulating possessions consistent with that role (Braun & Wicklund, 1989). In areas as diverse as athletics, law, and business, it has been shown that people who lack experience or expertise are more likely to acquire and display role-consistent possessions (e.g., clothing) than people who are confident in their role identity (Gollwitzer, Wicklund & Hilton, 1982; Gollwitzer & Wicklund, 1985; Solomon & Anand, 1985). Social class is an especially important domain in which status insecurities and efforts to compensate may be operative. Nouveau riches are most notorious for "vulgar" displays of wealth (Costa & Belk, 1990; LaBarbera, 1988), but the principle may be applicable to other social groups as well.

Proposition 13: The more recent one's attainment of a higher class status, the more materialistic one is likely to be.

Childhood Socialization: Moschis and his colleagues (Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Moschis & Moore, 1982) have shown that parents influence the level of materialism in children. And some parents try to motivate or control their children using material rewards such as food, toys, and other goods (Belk, 1985). While the use of material rewards appears to be counterproductive for motivation and control (Kohn, 1990; 1993; Rubin, 1986), it may socialize the child to be materialistic.

Proposition 14: People whose parents frequently used material goods to reward/punish them are likely to value material possessions more than those whose parents do not use material rewards or punishments.

Conversely, parents who embraced values of the 1960's counterculture generally sought to minimize the importance of material things in the lives of their children (Eiduson, Cohen & Alexander, 1973). It is possible that the children of these parents will exhibit low materialism.

Proposition 15: Children whose parents have embraced countercultural values are likely to be less materialistic than other children.

Locus of Control. Locus of control (LOC) is the degree to which individuals judge the reinforcements they receive to be a product of their own efforts or attributes (internal LOC) or of outside forces (external LOC). It is rooted in beliefs about the causal connection between behavior and rewards/punishments. External LOC types (low on Rotter scale) attribute their success/failure to outside factors like luck, fate, and the behavior of others, while internal LOC types (high on Rotter scale) explain outcomes by their own attributes and choices (Rotter, 1966).

Locus of control may be related to materialism because both pertain to a focus on external versus internal factors. Like external LOC types, people who are materialistic may anchor judgments about status and accomplishment in material things which are inherently external to the self. Like internal LOC types, people who are not materialistic may look at less tangible factors. Kasser and Ryan (1993) found a substantial negative correlation (-.48) between self-actualization and financial aspiration. Hunt et al. (1990) posited a connection between locus of control and materialism and found, as hypothesized, that materialism was related to external locus of control.

Proposition 16: People with an external locus of control are likely to value material things more highly than those with an internal locus.

Quest for Autonomy and Security. As children enter their middle years, they try to establish boundaries between themselves and their parents. Object-relations theorists in clinical psychology have suggested that autonomy is enhanced when a child plays the autonomous possessor role. Along with enhancing autonomy, possessions may compensate for the lost mother figure, thus increasing self-confidence and decreasing insecurity (Solomon, 1986). As for adults, their possession orientation has been found to correlate highly with their desire for and sense of control (Kasser & Ryan, 1993). Proposition 17 expresses these relationships.

Proposition 17: As the need for autonomy increases, materialism is likely to increase.

The Diderot Effect. Consumer researchers have argued that many possessions are elements of a set--called a "Diderot unity" (McCracken, 1988) or "product constellation" (Solomon, 1983)--in which one product implies others that are consistent with it, as a BMW automobile might imply a Rolex watch but be inconsistent with a Timex. According to McCracken (1988), the "Diderot effect" is a function of two factors that maintain cultural consistency in a set of possessions: (a) the drive to avoid purchasing products that are inconsistent with one's existing product constellation, and (b) the drive to realign the constellation if one does acquire an inconsistent product. One realigns by discarding elements of the old set that are now inconsistent, replacing them with new products which create a new, culturally consistent product constellation.

In their advertising and other promotions, marketers generally seek to introduce new possessions and thereby activate the second of these two drives, for the drive to realign a constellation encourages still more new purchases whereas the drive to preserve the existing constellation may discourage new consumption. In some promotions, marketers may create material desires where none previously existed by giving away part of their product (a razor handle), hoping to motivate the consumer to complete the constellation by buying other parts of the product (blades). McCracken argues that successful marketing may create a "Diderot rachet effect" in which gifts or new purchases continually activate the second Diderot drive and thus establish a constant disequilibrium in the product constellation. The cumulative effect may be high materialism, an endless upward spiral in the number and quality of possessions, and yet, perpetual consumer dissatisfaction since the constellation of possessions never attains a stable, culturally consistent equilibrium.

Empirical research supports the existence of the Diderot effect. Wright (1993) found that the purchase of a home led to the disposal of cheap particle board furniture and the acquisition of higher quality furniture along with other products culturally consistent with home ownership, e.g., satellite dishes, home improvement supplies, lawn and garden equipment. Some consumers had consumption plans associated with their new home that spanned as many as five years. On the other hand, when people lost or were forced to dispose of a key possession, similar Diderot effects were invoked, but in the opposite direction. Selling their home and moving to a retirement community caused older consumers to discard possessions acquired over a lifetime. So depending on whether products are acquired or lost, Diderot effects may substantially increase or substantially decrease materialism and, thereby, make one's attitude consistent with one's material circumstances.

Proposition 18: Whether acquired actively through purchase or passively through receiving a gift, new possessions are likely to invoke Diderot effects that increase the pre-acquisition level of materialism; disposing of or losing possessions is likely to invoke Diderot effects that reduce materialism.

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF MATERIALISM

This section discusses possible consequences of materialism. As with the causes, ideas on the consequences of materialism may be derived from a variety of theoretical and ethical perspectives since there is no integrated theory of materialism. Based upon our 2 x 2 matrix, the consequences of materialism are here classified as either bad or good. Both sections, negative and positive, begin with consequences for the society and conclude with consequences for the individual. Negative Consequences of Materialism

In this section we discuss possible negative effects of materialism on the environment, community involvement, family togetherness, attitudes such as possessiveness, nongenerosity, and envy, life satisfaction, and shopping behaviors.

Environmental Degradation. The production and consumption of material goods clearly has an effect on the surrounding environment. However, the precise nature of that effect is controversial. Stances in the controversy are presented in alternative propositions (19 and 26) that highlight negative and positive effects.

The critical perspective (cell 4 of our matrix) highlights negative effects of materialism on the environment. Thus, Durning (1992) points out that Americans daily consume close to their own weight in basic raw materials, in the process spewing out byproducts harmful to the environment: radioactive waste, ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, greenhouse gases, pesticide runoff that pollutes water, sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain, and last but not least, garbage. The Worldwatch Institute (Associated Press, 1992) has pointed out that the richest fifth of humanity is responsible for the bulk of this consumption. They note, too, that developmental policies generally aim to lift the other four fifths of humanity to an equal or greater level of consumption. Strained by the burden of one billion people living like Americans, the environment may be devastated by five billion such consumers and still more by ten billion, the probable population of the earth in the next century. This perspective therefore suggests Proposition 19.

Proposition 19: The higher the level of materialism and material prosperity, the higher the level of environmental degradation.

Community Involvement/Social Alienation. Leiss, Kline, and Jhally (1990) have argued that advertising and other marketing techniques overemphasize the private pursuit of material satisfaction and result in inattention to communal concerns like the upkeep of public spaces and the creation of a safe and pleasing urban environment. This supposition has received empirical support. Kasser and Ryan (1993) found a negative correlation between community feeling and aspirations for financial success. This relationship is expressed in Proposition 20.

Proposition 20: The higher the level of materialism, the lower the level of concern for maintaining community spaces and other social infrastructure.

Cushman (1990) argued that people in the United States presently have an "empty self," a self that is lonely, alienated, and lacks purpose. He attributes this development to increasing industrialization and the supplanting of other values by materialism, developments we elaborated on in our discussion of the Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft distinction. Cushman's argument is expressed in

Proposition 21.

Proposition 21: The higher the level of materialism, the higher the level of alienation.

Family Contentiousness. Money and its uses are a major cause of family difficulties (Broderick, 1979). When people are materialistic, family conflicts about money and material possessions may be especially common.

Proposition 22: The higher the level of materialism, the higher the level of conflict in a family over money and possessions.

Marriage partners often quarrel over the purchase and use of material things. If one or both partners spends irresponsibly or asserts personal control of jointly owned property, these conflicts may be more likely to arise. Since materialism may motivate possessiveness and irresponsible spending, it may also increase conflict between spouses (Paduska, 1992).

Corollary 22a: The more materialistic a couple, the greater the likelihood of spousal conflict over consumption choices.

Peggy Charen, president of Action for Children's Television, has argued that children have become more insistent and contentious about toy purchases as a result of changes in children's programming and the marketing of toys. The findings of Goldberg and Gorn (1978) and Rubin (1986) support this claim. Rubin found that preschool children and elementary school students who watched a lot of television were more likely to argue with their parents about food and toy purchases than children who were light television viewers.

Corollary 22b: The more materialistic a child, the greater the likelihood of conflict with parents over consumption choices.

Possessiveness, Nongenerosity, and Envy. If one accepts Belk's definition of materialism, it is tautologous to suggest that materialism causes possessiveness, nongenerosity, and/or envy, for he views these attributes as defining subdimensions of materialism. However, if our more neutral definition is used--i.e. materialism is a tendency to value material objects highly--the relationship between materialism and possessiveness becomes an empirical question. One could conceivably value objects highly while not feeling possessive toward one's own or envious of others' property. One might even generously share highly-valued possessions.

That said, materialism, as we define it, is likely to foster possessiveness, nongenerosity, and envy. Most people incorporate their possessions into their self-concept, thus creating an "extended self" (Belk 1988). For materialistic people, this material component of self is more salient than for nonmaterialistic people. As a consequence, materialistic people risk more when they loan and suffer more when they lose an object. Because their risk and suffering are greater, they are likely to be especially protective of their property, hesitant to loan it out, careful to guard it from theft.

Proposition 23: The more materialistic people are, the more likely they are to be possessive, envious, and/or nongenerous.

Life Satisfaction. Religious teachers (Jesus, Mahavira) and philosophers (Plato 1973; Hegel 1977) have long celebrated the joys of the spirit and intellect above and in opposition to those of material things. Belk draws upon the existentialism of Sartre (1943) to support a claim that people can't find happiness through materialism. In Belk's reading, Sartre distinguishes among three levels of existence: having, doing, and being. In having, the lowest of the three states, people tend to be preoccupied with acquiring material goods. In doing, they are preoccupied with action rather than possession or consumption. In being, the highest level of existence, they find serenity in their identity as free beings, in who they are rather than in what they "have" or "do."

Empirical work done to date seems to support this long-standing position of religious leaders and philosophers. In this stream of research, no relationship among variables has been more widely supported than the negative correlation between materialism and life satisfaction. In a meta-analysis of studies treating the correlation (Belk, 1985; Cole et al., 1991; Dawson & Bamossy, 1990, 1991; Richins, 1987; Richins & Dawson, 1992; Sirgy et al., 1993), Wright and Larsen (1993) found a stable, medium-sized negative correlation.

This relationship may result from materialistic people comparing themselves with those who are more affluent. Such social comparisons may create feelings of dissatisfaction with one's standard of living, and since materialistic people value material possessions highly, the feelings of dissatisfaction may spill over on other life domains, thus causing overall life dissatisfaction (Wachtel & Blatt, 1990).

On the other hand, as Wright and Larsen (1993) note and as our discussion of the negative valence of materialism scales suggests, this finding may be an artifact of the researchers' perspective, methods, and measures. Thus, though it has considerable support, the relationship proposed in Proposition 24 needs to be further investigated. This is all the more true because it has immense policy implications.

Proposition 24: People who are materialistic are less likely to be satisfied with their lives than people who are nonmaterialistic.

Shoplifting. Shoplifting is a major problem for retailers in the United States and elsewhere. Surveys indicate that as many as 60 percent of consumers have shoplifted at some point in their lives (Klemke, 1982; Kraut, 1976), and more that 200 million shoplifting incidents occur annually in the United States (Baumer & Rosenbaum, 1984). Shoplifters report three main reasons for shoplifting, one experiential (thrill seeking), one social (peer pressure), and one economic (desire to possess stolen objects) (Baumer & Rosenbaum, 1984). Thus, materialism appears to play a role in motivating this behavior. As Marchand (1985, p. 234) has observed, marketers induce consumers to adopt "a new logic of living in which the older values of discipline, character-building, self-restraint and production-oriented achievement [become] subordinate to the new values of pleasure, external appearance, and achievement through consumption." In the context of these new more materialistic values, increased shoplifting is not surprising. Proposition 25 follows from these considerations.

Proposition 25: The more materialistic consumers are, the more likely they are to engage in shoplifting.

Positive Consequences of Materialism

In this section we discuss possible positive effects of materialism on the environment, income distribution, wealth creation, and career choices.

Environmental Protection: As mentioned in our discussion of Proposition 19, the critical perspective (cell 4 of our matrix) suggests that materialism has a negative effect on the environment. People with the bourgeois perspective (cell 3) take a different view. Discussing problems like nuclear waste disposal, ozone depletion, and global warming, they argue that current science doesn't sustain the claim that there is a serious problem and that, to the extent there is, technological fixes are available or can be developed (Ray, 1990). Drawing upon economic theory (Grossman & Krueger, 1994), they argue that material progress actually results in a cleaner environment since environmental cleanliness is an economic good. As with other goods, rich people can afford more environmental protection and cleanliness than poor people. As evidence they point to the fact that the worst environmental problems tend to exist in the poorest countries where consumption (and resources for environmental protection) are low. Since materialism may lead to greater wealth creation (Proposition 30), this reasoning leads to the conclusion expressed in Proposition 26.

Proposition 26: The higher the level of materialism and material prosperity in a country, the higher the level of environmental protection.

Income Distribution. The income distribution pattern in a society is an important societal attribute, an attribute that is closely tied up with level of development and that may be influenced by the level of materialism in the society. On the broad relationship between income distributions and level of economic development, the data are clear. Placing economic development on the x axis and degree of income inequality on the y, the relationship takes the form of an inverted U, called the "Kuznets curve." Incomes are relatively equal at very low levels, relatively unequal at moderate levels, and relatively equal again at the highest levels of economic development (Lecaillon et al., 1984). What is unclear and controversial are the causes of this pattern. Economists and sociologists offer alternative hypotheses (Simpson, 1990) that have different implications for how materialism affects income distributions, though both suggest that where materialism is high, incomes will tend to become more equal.

Economists (Chenery & Syrquin, 1975; Isaacs, 1981; Kuznets, 1963) build upon the ideas expressed in proposition 12--that poor people have a higher marginal utility for wealth and will, therefore, be more motivated to seek it. As a consequence, once a developmental path opens up, they have a greater incentive to work hard to amass greater wealth. Over time, their greater striving makes them more wealthy and closes the gap between them and the rich. In this analysis, the level of societal materialism should be highest at moderate levels of development where income differentials are large but the relatively poor masses believe a path is open for them to achieve wealth.

Proposition 27: Societal materialism is likely to be highest where development is moderate and income disparities relatively large.

Sociologists, on the other hand, tend to emphasize the importance of political power. Marx (1977) was an early exponent of this point of view (Husami, 1980). He argued that ideologies which devalue material acquisition are generally foisted on the masses by an elite that controls the material resources in the society. This wealthy elite establishes nonmaterialistic ideologies to distract attention from the unequal distribution of wealth. Thus, Marx viewed religion, the preeminent non-materialist ideology, as an opiate which sedates the dispossessed majority with hope of a heavenly afterlife full of material abundance (or blissful nonbeing), things denied them in their present circumstances. If the masses abandon nonmaterialist illusions and become more materialistic, they may also become more politically active, demanding a larger share of societal wealth. Some contemporary sociologists (Hibbs, 1977; Lenski, 1966; Muller, 1988) adopt a similar position, suggesting that education and democratization explain the reduction in income inequality as a society develops. Based on this analysis, the level of materialism should be highest where the income distribution is most equal.

Proposition 28: Societal materialism is likely to be highest where development is most advanced and income disparities are relatively small.

Wealth Creation. In materialistic societies, wealthy people tend to be regarded as being meritorious, poor people as being characterologically deficient because they exhibit less money-making prowess (Veblen 1899). Slater (1980) claims these attitudes characterize contemporary Americans, who generally believe the wealthy deserve better treatment. Because wealth has high status in a materialistic society, people in the society, and especially the poor, may be motivated to seek it. Dasgupta (1989) found evidence for this in a study of Indian immigrants to the United States. These relatively poor immigrants from a less materialistic society tended to adopt America's materialistic values, seeking wealth, and then engaging in conspicuous consumption of big houses, expensive cars, and other signs of material success. High motivation and effort to achieve wealth may result in high levels of wealth creation. In other words, societal materialism may be an important cause of societal wealth.

Proposition 30: Where societal materialism is high, wealth creation will also be high. Where materialism is low, wealth creation will be low.

The effects proposed in this section may be moderated by the effect proposed in Proposition 12 which indicates that once wealth is attained, it tends to be devalued (Blumberg, 1974).

Occupational Choice. Level of materialism may be important in the choice of an occupation, for people will generally be better able to indulge a taste for acquisition if they work at a well-paid occupation. Thus, high materialism should motivate people to move into occupations that are well paid. If we assume that wages are an index of an occupation's value to the people who pay the wage (a controversial assumption, but one that probably has at least some merit since supply/demand factors generally affect wages), high materialism may benefit society by keeping unpopular but socially valuable occupations well staffed.

Proposition 31: Materialistic people are more likely than non-materialistic people to be involved in occupations that are well paid.

CONTRADICTORY PROPOSITIONS

A number of the propositions set forth in this article lead to opposite conclusions and, thus, seem contradictory. In some cases, the contradictions are real, in other cases they are only apparent, and in still other cases, they are real but explicable by a moderator. Instances of real contradictions are the mutually inconsistent competing hypotheses embodied in propositions 19 and 26 and in propositions 27 and 28. High materialism and material prosperity cannot both increase (Proposition 19) and decrease (Proposition 26) overall levels of environmental degradation. And materialism cannot be highest both when development is moderate and income disparities large (Proposition 27) and when development is high and income disparities small (Proposition 28). These real contradictions must be resolved by testing the competing hypotheses to see which one receives empirical support.

No such test is required when contradictions are merely apparent. In these cases, the propositions specify independent causal factors that have opposite effects but are not otherwise connected to each other. Implicit in these propositions is the proviso "all other things being equal." Given that proviso, the apparent contradictions disappear. For instance, Proposition 12 suggests that poor people are likely to be more materialistic than rich people whereas Corollary 8c suggests that people exposed to a lot of advertising (rich people in developed nations) are likely to be more materialistic than those exposed to little advertising (poor people in less developed nations). While wealth and exposure to advertising may be positively correlated when nations are the unit of analysis, the two factors are distinguishable. It is, therefore, possible to test the effects of wealth on materialism, holding ad exposure constant as a covariate, and visa versa. The same is true for most other propositions set forth in this article.

There are, however, a number of propositions and corollaries, all tied up in one way or another with degrees of affluence, that make opposite predictions which cannot be easily reconciled. Thus, while it may be compatible with Corollary 8b, Proposition 12 (poor people are likely to be more materialistic than rich people) is not so easily reconciled with corollaries 4d (the more developed the nation, the more materialistic the people) and 4e (Americans are more materialistic than other people). It seems contradictory to claim both that poor people are more materialistic than rich people and that rich nations are more materialistic than poor nations. These two claims may, nevertheless, be compatible if, as relative deprivation theorists claim, the effects of poverty are moderated by levels of aspiration.

Relative deprivation theorists (Runciman, 1972; Stouffer, 1949) argue that three conditions must obtain for people to feel deprived: they must (a) lack some desirable object, (b) know others who have the object, and (c) believe it is feasible for them to obtain the object. The poor by definition lack many desirable things, so they invariably meet the first condition. (This explains why, other things being equal, the poor may be more inclined than the rich to be materialistic.) However, many impoverished people in impoverished societies may not personally know anyone who is well off. Consequently, they may not meet the second condition for feeling relatively deprived and wanting more things. And even if they do know or know of people who are well off, given a hereditary and/or otherwise entrenched social hierarchy in their society, they may not, as the third condition requires, believe that it is feasible for them to acquire things that others have.

In the context of relative deprivation theory, seemingly incompatible propositions and corollaries in this article may be reconcilable. Among approximate social equals, those who are most poor may be most materialistic as Proposition 12 suggests. However, this effect may be moderated by the degree of social mobility in a society. In more developed, more gesellschaftlich societies (Corollary 4d) where social mobility is relatively high (preeminently, the United States, Corollary 4e), the effect of differences in wealth may be magnified by the perception that with effort and luck, most people can acquire more wealth. In traditional, gemeinschaftlich societies, on the other hand, differences in wealth may play a small role because social mobility and, therefore, the aspirations of the poor are limited.

CONCLUSION

A complex, multi-faceted phenomenon, materialism affects consumer behavior in a variety of ways and in many domains. Consumer researchers are increasingly aware of its importance. Belk's (1985) seminal article is among the most influential papers published in the Journal of Consumer Research (Cote, Leong & Cote, 1991), and the Association for Consumer Research has sponsored a conference devoted to materialism (Rudmin & Richins, 1992). But while much important work has been done on this topic, our propositions and corollaries suggest that many questions with important implications for policy makers, marketers, and consumers remain unanswered.

REFERENCES

Abdallah, T. M. (1989). Self-esteem and locus of control of college men in saudi arabia, Psychological Report, 65 (December) 1323-1326.

Associated Press. (1992). Wasteful western ways wreck earth, report says, Roanoke Times & World News, July 26.

Barnhart, J. E. (1988). Jim and Tammy: Charismatic Intrigue Inside PTL, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

Baumer, T. L.& D. P. Rosenbaum. (1984). Combating Retail Theft: Programs and Strategies, Stoneham MA: Butterworth.

Bearden, W. O., R. G. Netemeyer & M. F. Mobley (1993), Handbook of Marketing Scales, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Belk, R. W. (1983). Worldly possessions: Issues and criticisms, In Advances in Consumer Research, 10, eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 514-519.

Belk, R.W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity and relationships to measures of happiness, In Advances in Consumer Research, 11, ed. Thomas F. Kinnear, Ann Arbor MI: Association for Consumer Research, 291-297.

Belk, R.W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world, Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 265-280.

Belk, R.W. (1987a). Material values in the comics, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June), 26-42.

Belk, R. W. (1987b). A child's Christmas in America: Santa claus as deity, consumption as religion, Journal of American Culture, 10 (Spring), 87-100.

Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, (September), 139-168.

Belk, R.W. (1989a). Materialism and the modern U.S. Christmas, in Interpretive Consumer Research, ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 115-135.

Belk, R.W. (1989b). Effects of identification with comic book heroes and villains of consumption on materialism among former comic book readers, In Advances in Consumer Research, 16, ed. Thomas K. Srull, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 414-419.

Belk, R.W. & R. Pollay. (1985a). Materialism and magazine advertising during the twentieth century, In Advances in Consumer Research, 12, eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 394-403.

Belk, R.W.& R. Pollay. (1985b). Images of ourselves: The good life in twentieth century advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (March), 887-897.

Belk, R.W., J. F. Sherry, Jr.& M. Wallendorf. (1988). A naturalistic inquiry into buyer and seller behavior at a swap meet, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 449-470.

Belk, R.W., M. Wallendorf & J. F. Sherry, Jr. (1989). The sacred and profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy on the odyssey, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 1-38.

Belk, R.W. & R. W. Pollay. (1985). Images of ourselves: The good life in the twentieth century advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (March), 887-897.

Berger, P. L. (1985). Can the bishops help the poor? Commentary, 79 (February), 31-35.

Blumberg, P. (1974). The decline and fall of the status symbol: Some thoughts on status in a post-industrial society, Social Problems, 21(4), 480-98.

Boddewyn, J. J. (1981). The global spread of advertising regulation, MSU Business Topics, Spring, 5-13.

Bonhoffer, D. (1959). The Cost of Discipleship, New York: Macmillan.

Braun, O. L. & R. A. Wicklund. (1989). Psychological antecedents of conspicuous consumption, Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(2), 161-187.

Broderick, C. (1979). Couples, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Cardwell, J. D. (1984). Mass Media Christianity: Televangelism and the Great Commission, New York: Lanham.

Chenery, H. & M. Syrquin. (1975). Patterns of Development 1950-1970, London: Oxford University Press.

Churchill, G. A., Jr. & G. P. Moschis. (1979). Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer learning, Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (June), 23-35.

Chusmir, L. H. & C. S. Koberg. (1988). Religion and attitudes toward work: A new look at an old question, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9 (3), 251-262.

Claiborne, C. B. & J. L. Ozanne. (1990). The meaning of custom made homes: Home as a metaphor for living, In Advances in Consumer Research, 17, eds. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 182-185.

Cole, D., N. D. Wright, M. J. Sirgy, R. Kosenko, D. Ratz & H. L. Meadow. (1992). Testing the reliability and validity of two measures of materialism, Developments in Marketing Science, 15, ed. Victoria L. Crittenden, Chestnut Hill, MA: Academy of Marketing Science, 383-387.

Coleman, R. P. (1977). Attitudes toward neighborhoods: How americans want to live, Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Urban Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Working Paper No. 48.

Coleman, R. P. (1983). The continuing significance of social class to marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 265-279.

Colson, C. W. (1985). A call to rescue the yuppies, Christianity Today, 17 (May), 17-20.

Copleston, F. (1965). Modern Philosophy: Fichte to Hegel, New York: Image Books.

Costa, J. A. & R. W. Belk. (1990). Nouveaux riches as quintessential americans: case studies of consumption in an extended family, Advances in NonProfit Marketing, Russell W. Belk ed., 3, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 83-140.

Costello, J. (1986). The objects of kid's affections, Parent's Magazine (November), 252.

Cote, J. A., S. M. Leong & J. Cote. (1991). Assessing the influence of the journal of consumer research: A citation analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (December), 402-410.

Cushman, P. (1990). Why the self is empty, American Psychologist, 45, 599-611.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. & E. Rochberg-Halton. (1981). The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dawson, S. & G. Bamossy. (1990). Isolating the effect of non-economic factors on the development of consumer culture: A comparison of materialism in the netherlands and the united states," in Advances in Consumer Research, eds. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 182-185.

Dawson, S. & G. Bamossy. (1991). If 'we are what we have,' what are we when we don't have? To Have Possessions: A Handbook of Ownership and Property, Special Issue, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 363-384.

Dholakia, N. (1988). Interpreting monieson: Creative and destructive tensions, Journal of Macromarketing, 8 (Fall), 11-14.

Dittmar, H. (1992). The Social Psychology of Material Possessions, New York: St. Martin's Press.

Durkheim, E. (1893). The Division of Labor in Society, New York: Free Press.

Durning, A. T. (1992). Monuments to folly: Malls and materialism are killing the planet, Roanoke Times & World News, September 11.

Easterlin, R. A. & E. M. Crimins. (1988). Recent social trends: Changes in personal aspirations of american youth, Sociology and Social Research, 72 (July), 217-23.

Easterlin, R. A. & E. M. Crimins. (1991). Private materialism, personal self-fulfillment, family life, and public interest: The nature, effects, and causes of recent changes in the values of american youth, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 55 (Winter), 499-533.

Ehrlich, P., A.H. Ehrlich & J. P. Holdren. (1977), Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, San Francisco: Freeman.

Eiduson, B. T., J. Cohen & J. Alexander. (1973). Alternatives in child rearing in the 1970s, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43 (5), 720-731.

Ellis, L. (1985). On the rudiments of possessions and property, Social Science Information, 24(1), 113-43.

Ellison, C. W. & K. C. Cole. (1982). Religious commitment, television viewing, values, and quality of life, Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 1(1), 21-32.

Falwell, J. (1980). Listen America!, Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Foreman, D. (1987). Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching, Tucson, AZ: Ned Ludd Books.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving, New York: Harper and Row.

Furby, L. (1978). Possessions in humans: An exploratory study of its meaning and motivation, Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (1), 49-65.

Furby, L. & M. Wilke. (1982). Some characteristics of infants' preferred toys, Journal of Genetic Psychology, 140 (2), 207-19.

Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The Affluent Society, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gallup, G. H. (1991). Religion has early impact on teen volunteering and giving, Emerging Trends, 13 (6), 4.

Gallup, G. H. & T. Jones. (1992). The Saints Among Us, Ridgefield, CT: Morehouse Publishing.

Gay, P. (1984). The Bourgeois Experience, New York: Oxford University Press.

Ger, G. & R. W. Belk. (1990). Measuring and comparing materialism cross-culturally, In Advances in Consumer Research, 17, eds. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 186-192.

Giorgi, L. & C. Marsh. (1990). The protestant work ethic as a cultural phenomenon, European Journal of Social Psychology, 20 (6) 499-517.

Goldberg, M. E. & G. J. Gorn. (1978). Some unintended consequences of tv advertising to children, Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (1), 22-29.

Gollwitzer, P. M., R. A. Wicklund & J. L. Hilton. (1982). Admission of failure and symbolic self-completion: Extending lewinian theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(2), 358-371.

Gollwitzer, P. M. & R. A. Wicklund & J. L. Hilton. (1985). Self-symbolizing and the neglect of others' perspectives, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (3), 702-715.

Goltz, W. J. & L. E. Larson. (1991). Religiosity, marital commitment, and individualism, Family Perspective, 25 (3), 201-219.

Green, K. C. & A. W. Astin. (1985). The mood on campus: more conservative or just more materialistic? Educational Record, 66 (1), 45-48.

Grossman, G. M. & A. B. Krueger. (1994). Economic growth and the environment, Discussion Papers in Economics, Princeton: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Guilder, G. (1981). Wealth and Poverty, New York: Bantam.

Habermans, J. (1973). Theory and Practice, Boston: Beacon.

Hayek, F. A. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1807). Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heilbroner, R. L. (1979). Beyond Boom and Crash, New York: W. W. Norton.

Henretta, J. A. (1973). The Evolution of American Society, 1700-1815: An Interdisciplinary Analysis, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Hesse, H. (1951). Siddhartha, New York: New Directions.

Hibbs, D. A. (1977). Political parties and macroeconomic policy, The American Political Science Review, 71, 1467-87.

Hicks, J. M. (1974). Conservative voting and personality, Social Behavior and Personality, 2 (1), 43-49.

Hirschman, E. C. (1988). The ideology of consumption: A structural-syntactical analysis of dallas and dynasty, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (December), 244-359.

Hirschman, E. C. (1990). Secular immortality and the american ideology of affluence, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June), 31-42.

Hirschman, E. C. & P. LaBarbera. (1989). The meaning of christmas, In Interpretive Consumer Research, ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 136147.

Hudson, L. A. & J. L. Ozanne. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking knowledge in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 508-521.

Hundert, E. M. (1991). A synthetic approach to psychiatry's nature-nurture debate, Integrative Psychiatry, 7 (2), 76-83.

Hunt, J., J. B. Kernan, A. Chatterjee & R. Florsheim. (1990). Locus of control as a personality correlate of materialism: An empirical note, Psychological Reports, 67 (3), 1101.

Husami, Z. I. (1980). Marx on distributive justice, Marx, Justice, and History, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity, American Political Science Review, 75 (December), 880-900.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Isaacs, L. (1981). Comparative economic inequality, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 22, 62-83.

Jackson, R. L. (1979). Material good need fulfillment as a correlate of self-esteem, Journal of Social Psychology, 108 (1), 139-140.

Jelen, T. G. & C. Wilcox. (1992). The effects of religious self-identification on support for the new christian right, Social Science Journal, 29 (2), 199-210.

Jensen, L. C. & J. Jensen. (1993). Family values, religiosity, and gender, Psychological Reports, 73(2), 429-430.

Jones, A. (1987). The violence of materialism in advanced industrial society: An eco-sociological approach, The Sociological Review, 35 (February), 19-47.

Kaitala, V. & M. Pohjola. (1990). Economic development and agreeable redistribution in capitalism: efficient game equilibria in a two-class neoclassical growth model, International Economic Review, 31 (May), 421-38.

Kasser, T. & R. M. Ryan. (1993). A dark side of the american dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (2), 410-422.

Kilbourne, W. E. (1987). Self-actualization and the consumption process: Can you get there from here? Philosophical and Radical Thought in Marketing, ed. A. Fuat Firat, Nikhilesh Dholakia, and Richard P. Bagozzi, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 217-234.

Kirk, R. (1986). The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, Chicago: Regnery Books.

Klemke, L. W. (1982). Exploring adolescent shoplifting, Sociology and Social Research, 67(1), 59-75.

Kohn, A. (1990). The risks of rewards, Health, (May), 28-30.

Kohn, A. (1993), Punished by Rewards, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kraut, R. E. (1976). Deterrent and definitional influences on shoplifting, Social Problems, 25 (February), 358-368.

Kuznets, S. (1963). Quantitative aspects of the economic growth of nations: The distribution of income by size, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 11, 1-80.

LaBarbera, P. A. (1988). The nouveaux riches: Conspicuous consumption and the issue of self fulfillment, Research in Marketing, 3, ed. Elizabeth Hirschman, JAI Press, Inc., 179-210.

Lamb, M. L. (1992). Theology and money: Rationality, religion, and economics, American Behavioral Scientist, 35 (6), 735-755.

Lasch, C. (1979). The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Lau, S. (1989). Religious schema and values, International Journal of Psychology, 24 (2), 137-156.

LaWitta, B. (1994). French Bourgeoise Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lears, T. & J. Jackson. (1983). From salvation to self realization: Advertising and the therapeutic roots of the consumer culture, 1880-1930, The Culture of Consumption: Critical Essays in American History, 1880-1980, eds. Richard W. Fox and T. J. Jackson Lears, New York: Parthese Books, 3-38.

Leach, W. (1993). Land of Desire, New York: Random House.

Lecaillon, J. (1984). Income Distribution and Economic Development, Geneva: International Labor Office.

Leege, D. C. (1992). Coalitions, cues, strategic politics, and the staying power of the religious right, or why political scientists ought to pay attention to cultural politics, PS, 25 (June), 198-204.

Leiss, W., S. Kline & S. Jhally. (1986). Social Communication in Advertising, New York: Methuen.

Lenski, G. (1966). Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ley, R. G.& J. N. Koepke. (1982). Attachment behaviors outdoors: Naturalistic observations of sex and age differences in the separation behavior of young children, Infant Behavior and Development, 5 (2), 195-201.

Lippman, W. (1943). The Good Society, Boston: Little, Brown & Company.

Litwinski, L. (1942). Is there an instinct of possession? British Journal of Psychology, 33, 28-39.

Mander, J. (1977). Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, New York: Morrow Quill.

Marchand, R. (1985). Advertising the American Dream, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Marx, K. (1977). Karl Marx: Selected Writings, ed. David McLellan, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Moschis, G. P. & G. Churchill, Jr. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November), 599-609.

Moschis, G. P. & R. L. Moore. (1982). A longitudinal study of television advertising effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 279-286.

Muller, E. N. (1985). Income inequality, regime, repressiveness, and political violence, American Sociological Review, 50 (February), 47-61.

Murray, J. B. & J. L. Ozanne. (1991). The critical imagination: Emancipatory interests in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (September), 129-144.

National Institute of Mental Health (1979), Television and Social Behavior: An Annotated Bibliography of Research Focusing on Television's Impact on Children, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Noss, J. B. (1969). Man's Religions, New York: Macmillan. Novak, M. (1993). The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York: McGraw Hill.

O'Guinn, T. C. & R. W. Belk. (1989). Heaven on earth: Consumption and heritage village, USA, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (September), 227-238.

Paduska, B. (1992). Money, marriage, and maslow, American Behavioral Scientist, 35 (6), 756-770.

Parsons, T. (1949). The Structure of Social Action, 2nd ed., Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Pasadeos, Y. (1992). Depictions of materialism in european advertising: A comparison of spanish and german magazine advertisements, In Proceedings of the 1992 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, ed. Leonard N. Reid, 7-8.

Piaget, J. (1973). The Child and Reality, New York: Penguin Books. Plato. (1961). Plato: The Collected Dialogues, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pollay, R. (1986). The distorted mirror: Reflections on the unintended consequences of advertising, Journal of Marketing, 50 (April), 18-36.

Punetha, D., H. Giles & L. Young. (1987). Ethnicity and immigrant values: Religion and language choice, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6 (3-4), 229-241.

Puto, C. P. & W. D. Wells. (1984). Informational and transformational advertising: The differential effects of time, In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 638-643.

Rainwater, L. P., R. P. Coleman & G. Handel. (1979). Workingman's Wife: Her Personality, World, and Life Style, New York: Arno Press.

Ray, D. L. (1990). Trashing the Planet, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway.

Richins, M. L. (1987). Media, materialism, and human happiness, In Advances in Consumer Research, 14, eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 352-356.

Richins, M. L. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June) 71-83.

Richins, M. L. & S. Dawson. (1990). Measuring material values: A preliminary report of scale development, In Advances in Consumer Research, 17, eds. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 169-175.

Richins, M. L. & S. Dawson. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), 303-316.

Ritzer, G. (1988). Sociological Theory, New York: Knopf.

Rokeach, M. (1971). The measurement of values and value systems, Social Psychology and Political Behavior, ed. Gilbert Abcarian and John W. Soule, Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 21-40.

Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (September), 189-199.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external locus of control and reinforcement, Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Rubin, L. D. (1976). I'll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition, Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.

Rubin, N. (1986). Tis the season to be greedy, Parent's Magazine, (December) 134-137, 217-226.

Rudmin, F. W. (1990). German and canadian data on motivations for ownership: Was pythagoras right? In Advances in Consumer Research, 17, eds. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 176-181.

Rudmin, F. W. & M. Richins. (1992). Meaning, Measure, and Morality of Materialism, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Runciman, W. G. (1972). Relative Deprivation and Social Justice, Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Sarte, J. (1943). Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, New York: Philosophical Library.

Saunders, P. (1990). A Nation of Home Owners, London: Unwin Hyman.

Schudson, M. (1984). Advertising, The Uneasy Persuasion, New York: Basic Books.

Scott, C. & W. J. Lundstrom. (1990). Dimensions of possession satisfactions: A preliminary analysis, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 3, 100-104.

Simpson, M. (1990). Political rights and income inequality: A cross-national test, American Sociological Review, 55 (October), 682-693.

Singhal, R. & G. Misra. (1992). Meaning of achievement: The role of socio-cultural background and social class, Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 35(1), 4249.

Slater, P. (1980). Wealth Addiction, New York: Basic Books.

Solomon, M. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionist perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 319-329.

Solomon, M. (1986). Deep seated materialism: The case of levi's 501 jeans, In Advances in Consumer Research, 13, ed. Richard Lutz, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 619-622.

Solomon, M. & P. Anand. (1985). Ritual costumes and status transitions: The female business suit as totemic emblem, Advances in Consumer Research, Eliszabeth Hirschman and Morris Holbrook, eds., Provo: Association for Consumer Research, 315-318.

Sorokin, P. (1927). Contemporary Sociological Theories, New York: Harper.

Stouffer, S. A. (1949). The American Soldier I: Adjustment During Army Life, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tang, T. L. & J. Y. Tzeng. (1992). Demographic correlates of the protestant work ethic, Journal of Psychology, 126 (2), 163-170.

Taschian, A., M. E. Slama & R. Taschian. (1984). Measuring attitudes toward energy conservation: Cynicism, belief in material growth, and faith in technology, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 3 (2), 134-148.

Tawney, R. H. (1944). Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study, New York: Murray.

Thurow, L. C. (1975). Generating Inequality, New York: Basic Books, Inc. de Toqueville, A. (1840). Democracy in America, New York: Vintage Books.

Tonnies, F. (1887/1988). Community and Society, Oxford: Transaction Books.

Tse, D. K., R. Belk & N. Zhou. (1989). Becoming a consumer society: A longitudinal and cross-cultural content analysis of print ads from hong kong, the people's republic of china, and taiwan, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 457-472.

United Nations. (1979). Transnational corporations in advertising, Technical Paper, New York:United Nations.

U.S. Department of Education. (1988). Youth Indicators 1988: Trends in the Well-Being of American Youth, Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.

USA Today. (1991). Materialism is declining, USA Today, April 11.

Veblen, T. (1934/1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class, New York: Modern Library.

Wackman, D. B., G. Reale & S. Ward. (1972). Racial differences in response to advertising among adolescents, In Television in Day-to-Day Life, eds. Eli P. Rubenstein, George A. Comstock, and John P. Murray, Rockville, MD: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 543-551.

Wachtel, P. L. & S. J. Blatt. (1990). Perceptions of economic needs and of anticipated future income, Journal of Economic Psychology, 11(3), 403-415.

Wallendorf, M. & E. J. Arnould. (1988). 'My favorite things': A cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 531-547.

Waller, N. G., B. A. Kojetin, T. J. Bouchard & D. T. Lykken. (1990). Genetic and environmental influences on religious interests, attitudes, and values, Psychological Science, 1 (2), 138-142.

Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Wickland, R. A. & P. M. Gollwitzer. (1982). Symbolic Self-Completion, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Will, G. F. (1991). Selling america: Consumer culture defended, Roanoke Times & World News, April 29.

Williams, R. (1980). Advertising: The magic system, In Problems in Materialism and Culture, London: New Left Books.

Wright, N. D. (1993). Consumption and Home Ownership: The Evolving Meaning of Home, Unpublished dissertation, Department of Marketing, Virginia Tech.

Wright, N. D., C. B. Claiborne& M. J. Sirgy. (1991). The effects of product symbolism on consumer self-concept, In Advances in Consumer Research, ed. John Sherry and Brian Sternthal, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 311-318.

Wright, N. D. & V. Larsen. (1992). Material values in the book of mormon, In Meaning, Measure, and Morality of Materialism, ed. Floyd Rudmin and Marsha Richins, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 50-56.

Wright, N. D. & V. Larsen. (1993). Materialism and life satisfaction: A meta-analysis, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 6, 158-165.

Wrightsman, L. S. (1974). Assumptions about Human Nature: A Social-psychological Approach, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Yamauchi, K. T. & D. I. Templer. (1982). The development of a money attitude scale, Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 522-528.

Val Larsen, Truman State University M. Joseph Sirgy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Newell D. Wright, James Madison University