A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Development and

Validation
Author(s): Marsha L. Richins and Scott Dawson
Source: The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Dec., 1992), pp. 303-316
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489391
Accessed: 03/01/2009 04:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org
 A Consumer Values Orientation for
Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale
Development and Validation

MARSHA L. RICHINS
SCOTT DAWSON*

This article reviews the construct and measurement of materialism and concludes
that materialism is appropriately conceptualized as a consumer value. The devel-
opment of a values-oriented materialism scale with three components-acquisition
centrality,acquisition as the pursuitof happiness, and possession-defined success-
is described. In validation tests high scorers (compared with low scorers) desired a
higher level of income, placed greater emphasis on financial security and less on
interpersonal relationships, preferred to spend more on themselves and less on
others, engaged in fewer voluntary simplicity behaviors, and were less satisfied with
their lives.

A merica is a consumer society, and many treatises
.have described the dominance of consumption
motives among Americans (see, e.g., Bredemeier and
Toby 1960; de Tocqueville [1835] 1954; Wachtel 1983).
In such discussions of consumption and materialism,
authors tend to speak of consumers as an undifferen-
tiated group, acting individually, perhaps, but guided
equally by the same consuming desire for goods. Hence,
Cushman (1990, p. 600) describes the post-World War
II consumer as "yearn[ing] to acquire and consume,"
Fox and Lears (1983, p. xii) see Americans as engaged
in "a ceaseless pursuit of the 'good life' " through con-
sumption, and Fromm (1967, p. 179) notes that "con-
temporary man has an unlimited hunger for more and
more goods."
While consumer goods do play an important role in
American culture, these analyses obscure differences
among individuals. For some, possessions are essential
to their lives and identities. For example, Lisa Labnon,
a 30-year-old New Hampshire woman, became home-
less when she lost her job and her condominium was
repossessed. She refused to sell her Mercedes and mink
coat, however, because the loss in image and self-esteem
*Marsha L. Richins is associate professor of marketing, University
of Missouri, Columbia, MO 6521 1. Scott Dawson is associate pro-
fessor of marketing at Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207.
The authors thank Russell Belk for his helpful comments at various
stages of the research and on a previous draft of this article, Terri
Root-Shaffer for her contributions in early stages of the project, and
Todd Mooradian for his assistance in data collection. This research
was completed while the first author was at the University of Mas-
sachusetts.
303
would be too great (Gaines 1990). Malcolm Forbes was
well known for his commitment to a lavish material
life-style (Hirschman 1990), and Leona Helmsley com-
mitted crimes to increase her wealth. Others, however,
are content with far less in life, choosing low-paying
charitable or social service work instead of higher-pay-
ing professions (Henkoff 1989). Some relinquish all
personal possessions to enter religious life or join a
commune.
Although it is often useful to treat materialism as a
cultural or structural variable for purposes of comparing
cultures or examining institutions within a culture of
consumption (e.g., Inglehart 1981), much is to be gained
by examining individual differences in materialism as
well. For instance, research that seeks to identify factors
that contribute to individual materialism may provide
insight into the roots of materialism at a cultural level.
Examining materialism at the individual level also per-
mits the study of interactions between materialism and
various marketing activities such as advertising. Finally,
many of the hypotheses about materialism advanced in
the literature are more easily tested at an individual
than a cultural level.
This article describes a scale to measure materialism
among individuals. Prior to reporting scale develop-
ment, the notion of materialism is elaborated and prior
attempts to measure this construct are reviewed.
The Notion of Materialism
The terms "materialism" and "materialistic" are used
freely in ordinary conversation and by writers, fre-
quently without definition. Materialism originally re-
? 1992by JOURNALOF CONSUMERRESEARCH,Inc.* Vol. 19* December1992
All rightsreserved.0093-5301/93/1903-0001$2.00
304
ferred to the philosophical notion that nothing exists
except matter and its movements (see, e.g., Lange [1865]
1925). In popular usage materialism more often refers
to a "devotion to material needs and desires, to the
neglect of spiritual matters; a way of life, opinion, or
tendency based entirely upon material interests," as de-
fined in the Oxford English Dictionary. Rassuli and
Hollander (1986-, p. 10) describe materialism as "a
mind-set . . . an interest in getting and spending," and
Belk (1984, p. 291) defines it as "the importance a con-
sumer attaches to worldly possessions." Mukerji (1983,
p. 8), relying on Polanyi (1944) and Sahlins (1976), re-
fers to materialism as "a cultural system in which ma-
terial interests are not made subservient to other social
goals" and material self-interest is preeminent. When
a large portion of a society avidly desires to consume
goods for reasons that economists have traditionally
defined as nonutilitarian (e.g., status seeking, novelty),
a "consumer culture" is said to exist (e.g., Belk 1988;
Rassuli and Hollander 1986).
Many issues concerning materialism have been con-
sidered in the literature, including causes and conse-
quences of materialism, the behaviors and personality
characteristics of materialists, and moral considerations
(see Belk 1983 and Fournier and Richins 1991 for de-
scriptions of some of these themes). The following dis-
cussion describes only those themes that have consis-
tently appeared when theorists have defined materialism
itself (as opposed to describing related issues such as
the personal or moral consequences of materialism).'
Acquisition Centrality. Materialists place possessions
and their acquisition at the center of their lives. Daun
(1983) describes materialism as a life-style in which a
high level of material consumption functions as a goal
and serves as a set of plans. Materialism thus lends
meaning to life and provides an aim for daily endeavors.
According to Bredemeier and Toby (1960), materialists
worship things, and the pursuit of possessions takes the
place of religion in structuring their lives and orienting
their behaviors. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton
(1981, p. 231) note the dominance materialism can
achieve in one's life when they say of some materialists
that "consumption for the sake of consumption be-
'The following discussion relies on the materialism literature in a
variety of disciplines. Because the characterizations of materialism
in the literature are predominantly unfavorable, this discussion is
necessarily weighted toward the negative. However, it is not the au-
thors' view that all aspects of materialism are inevitably bad. For
instance, the desire for goods on the part of employees may cause
them to work harder or longer, enhancing their incomes and standard
of living. High levels of consumption by consumers can increase the
wealth of business institutions, increasing these firms' ability to make
capital improvements and invest in research and development, which
in turn leads to greater productivity, technological breakthroughs,
and again, higher living standards. In addition, while the literature
assigns to materialists a number of characteristics that are viewed
negatively in contemporary Western society, its bias leads it to be
silent on the potential positive characteristics of materialists such as
a strong motivation to succeed and self-sufficiency.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
comes a fever that consumes all the potential energy it
can get access to."
Acquisition as the Pursuit of Happiness. One of the
reasons that possessions and their acquisition are so
central to materialists is that they view these as essential
to their satisfaction and well-being in life. Belk (1984,
p. 291) notes that "at the highest levels of materialism
. . .possessions assume a central place in a person's
life and are believed to provide the greatest sources of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction." In a like manner, Ward
and Wackman (1971, p. 426) describe materialism as
''an orientation emphasizing possessions and money
for personal happiness and social progress." The view-
point that pleasure or self-satisfaction is the goal of high
consumption levels is frequently presented in the lit-
erature (e.g., Campbell 1987; Heilbroner 1956; Wachtel
1983). While most individuals are probably involved
to some extent in the pursuit of happiness, it is the pur-
suit of happiness through acquisition rather than
through other means (such as personal relationships,
experiences, or achievements) that distinguishes ma-
terialism.
Possession-defined Success. Materialists tend to judge
their own and others' success by the number and quality
of possessions accumulated. Rassuli and Hollander
(1986, p. 5) describe members of a consumer society as
evaluating others and themselves in terms of their con-
suming life-styles, and in Heilbroner's (1956, p. 23)
analysis, acquisitive, materialistic people value posses-
sions "for the money they cost rather than by the sat-
isfactions they yield." Du Bois (1955) and others have
noted that materialists consider material well-being as
evidence of success and proof of right-mindedness, an
attitude consistent with religious teachings at the time
of the Industrial Revolution (Weber [1930] 1958). The
value of possessions stems not only from their ability
to confer status (Veblen [1899] 1953) but from their
ability to project a desired self-image and identify one
as a participant in an imagined perfect life (Campbell
1987). Materialists view themselves as successful to the
extent they can possess products that project these de-
sired images.
The notions concerning materialism expressed in
theoretical writings are also held by lay persons. Four-
nier and Richins (1991) compared popular and theo-
retical notions of materialism and found that the three
themes described above were strongly represented in
ordinary consumers' conceptions of materialism.
Instrumental and Terminal Materialism
Many religious and social critics have condemned
materialism as inherently bad. Rochberg-Halton (1986;
Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1978, 1981),
however, pointed out that possessions can be a positive
influence in one's life and proposed two forms of ma-
terialism based on the purposes of consumption.
MATERIALISMAND ITS MEASUREMENT
When objects act "as essential means for discovering
and furthering personal values and goals of life," the
materialism is a potentially harmless form labeled
"instrumental materialism" (Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton 1978, p. 8). When consumption fur-
thers no goal beyond possession itself, the materialism
is regarded as a more dangerous form labeled
"terminal."
Unfortunately, Rochberg-Halton's dichotomy is dif-
ficult to use, and his analysis contains contradictions.
For instance, Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton
(1978, p. 8) note that, in terminal materialism, "we
reduce our ultimate goals to the possession of things,"
yet the authors often mention goals of terminal mate-
rialism beyond possession. They note that, in terminal
materialism, people use possessions to generate the envy
and admiration of others or to achieve status. This sug-
gests that these states (being envied, having status) rather
than the acquisition of possessions constitute the ulti-
mate goals of terminal materialism.
In addition, the analysis of instrumental and terminal
materialism is incomplete and the constructs difficult
to operationalize. For example, it is unclear whether
the terms instrumental and terminal materialism refer
to an individual difference variable (in which case in-
dividuals might be classified as primarily terminal or
instrumental in orientation) or serve simply as descrip-
tions of specific behaviors or motives. Furthermore,
there is little guidance in making determinations of in-
strumental versus terminal materialism. Instrumental
materialism is described as possessing "a sense of di-
rectionality, in which a person's goals themselves may
be cultivated through transactions with the object," its
purpose is "the fuller unfolding of human life," and it
is "context-related." In terminal materialism, "there is
*nosense of reciprocal interaction in the relation between
the object and the goal" (Csikszentmihalyi and Roch-
berg-Halton 1981, p. 231). Except in extreme cases, it
may be difficult to determine whether the conditions
for instrumental materialism are being met.
Essentially, the classification as instrumental or ter-
minal appears to rest on a value judgment. Instrumental
materialism "involves the cultivation of objects as es-
sential means for discovering and furthering goals"
(Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981, p. 231),
but only certain kinds of "acceptable" goals are deemed
instrumental. Through his use of examples, it appears
that Rochberg-Halton considers a relationship with an
object to be instrumental if it involves self-actualization,
the development of stronger family or friendship ties,
or the development and expression of aspects of the self
that he approves of. In his analysis, valuing a tool that
allows one to build model planes and fly them in com-
petitions involves instrumental materialism. Owning
an expensive car to impress others and feel better about
one's self or buying a second home to spend more
time with one's mistress and her child represent ter-
305
minal materialism (Rochberg-Halton 1986, pp. 181,
183-184).
Given the difficulties of operationalizing the instru-
mental/terminal forms and the value judgments inher-
ent in Rochberg-Halton's conception of "good" and
"bad" materialism, the distinction between instrumen-
tal and terminal materialism will not be maintained for
our purposes.
MEASURES OF MATERIALISM AND
RELATED CONSTRUCTS
Empirical research on materialism has been, scant
until very recently; however, a variety of materialism
measures have occasionally been mentioned in the lit-
erature. With the exception of Belk's (1984) work, none
of the measures appear to have involved application of
commonly accepted standards for scale development
(Churchill 1979; Nunnally 1978). As practiced in prior
research, approaches to measuring materialism can be
divided into two types: those that infer materialism from
measures of related constructs and those that purport
to measure materialism more directly through the use
of attitude scales. Table 1 describes the measures in
each category.
Materialism has often been assessed by measuring
related constructs and using this to infer the level of
materialism. Dickins and Ferguson (1957), for instance,
assessed materialism by the kinds of wishes expressed
by children and the kinds of jobs they desire when they
grow up.
A few authors have inferred the presence of materi-
alism from scores on early personality-test batteries
(e.g., Burdsal 1975; Justice and Birkman 1972). More
recently Belk (1984, 1985) has developed personality-
trait measures specifically designed to infer the presence
of materialism. His work has been more fruitful than
earlier approaches because he examined the theoretical
linkages between specific personality traits (envy, pos-
sessiveness, and nongenerosity) and materialism and
used psychometric principles to develop his measures.
A limitation of the Belk scales has been inconsistent
and often low reports of scale reliability. In 12 separate
data collections in which reliability was reported in the
literature, coefficient alpha for the individual person-
ality scales ranged from .09 to .81 with a median reli-
ability of .54; a measure summed across the three scales,
frequently used as an indicator of materialism, had a
median reliability of .62.
The most sustained effort to measure materialism
has been carried out by Inglehart (e.g., 1981), who has
attempted to identify postmaterialistic societies in
which individuals emphasize such values as belonging
and self-expression instead of material possessions. In
his surveys, administered primarily in Europe, he lists
12 goals and classifies respondents as possessing ma-
terialist or postmaterialist values by the social goals
they choose as most important. A problem with this
306 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE1
MEASURES OF MATERIALISM REPORTED IN EARLIER STUDIES

Studya Subjects How measuredb Reliability

I. Measures that infer materialism

from related constructs:

Dickins and Ferguson (1957) Children aged 7-8 and Content analysis of responses to five open-ended ...
11-12 questions: "If you could make three wishes and
they would all come true, what would you wish
for?"
Justice and Birkman (1972) Employed adults, prison Subscale of the Birkman vocational interest and ...
inmates attitude survey; materialism inferred from true-
false questions concerning social perceptions
and self-image
Bengston and Lovejoy (1973) Three-generation families Materialism/humanism factor scores based on .78c
rankings of 16 values: "finances,"
" possessions," "service"
Burdsal (1975) College students, military Materialistic motivations inferred from factor scores ...
personnel on Cattell's motivational analysis test
Jackson, Ahmed, and Heapy
(1976) Adults and college Acquisitiveness subscale of the six-dimensional Approximately .80
students in several achievement scale; includes Likert scale,
cultures semantic differential, and adjective checklist
items
Inglehart (1981) Adults in Europe and the Materialist and postmaterialist goals; 12 goals
United States ranked by importance: "maintain a stable
economy," "try to make our cities and
countryside more beautiful"
Belk (1984) College students, adults Personality traits of envy, nongenerosity, and Subscales .09-.81;
possessiveness; 24 Likert scale items: "I am entire .48-73
bothered when I see people who buy anything
they want," "I don't like to lend things, even to
good friends," "I tend to hang on to things I
should probably throw out"
II. Attitude measures of
materialism:

Campbell (1969) College students, adults Materialism; eight items, forced-choice format: "If ...
things were such that everybody in the world had
stereophonic record players and champagne,
wars would probably be obsolete"
Wackman, Reale, and Ward
(1972) Adolescents Materialism; 5 items, Likert scale format: "It's really ...
true that money can buy happiness"
Moschis and Churchill (1978) Adolescents Materialism; 6 items, adaptation of Wackman et al. .53-.71
(1972)
De Young (1985-1986) Adults Nonmaterialism; four items with five-point scales: .78
"do not evaluate everything in dollars," "get
more pleasure from the non-material"
Richins (1987) Adults Materialism; six items, two subscales, Likert scale .73, .61
format: "It is important to me to have really nice
things"
Heslin, Johnson, and Blake
(1 989)c Students Materialism subscale of the spender scales; six .76d
items, Likert scale format

NOTE.-Ellipses indicate that data are unavailable.

aWhere a scale has been used in more than one study, the source with the greatest amount of scale information is reported.
bEntryincludes a description of the scale followed by sample items.
cScale development is in progress.
dMeasure is a test-retest correlation; all other reliabilitiesare Cronbach's alpha.

materialism measure for consumer-behavior research influences on day-to-day consumption choices. In ad-
is that the goals Inglehart lists are distant from most dition, this approach does not directly measure the
consumers' daily concerns, cannot be easily affected complex, multidimensional nature of materialism and,
by individual action, and are not likely to have large because of its ordinal level of measurement, does not
MATERIALISMAND ITS MEASUREMENT
assess individual differences in the strengthof material
values.
Finally, some authors have used attitude measures
that assume a more direct assessment of materialism.
These measures usually involve Likert scale response
formats and are described in Table 1. With the excep-
tion of the materialism component of the spender scales
(Heslin, Johnson, and Blake 1989), still in the process
of development, none of these measures has been rig-
orously tested.
MATERIALISM AS A CONSUMER
VALUE
The preceding review shows that materialism has
been measured in a variety of ways-by measuring per-
sonality traits, by examining the importance of various
social goals, and by assessing attitudes. All the existing
measures seem to suffer from at least one of two im-
portant limitations. First, many of the measures do not
possess adequate levels of reliability for use in anything
except exploratory research. This is not surprising, per-
haps, given the difficulty of measuring a complex con-
struct like materialism.
Second, the construct validity of many of the mea-
sures has not been established. Because none of the
measures except Belk's have involved the psychometric
procedures of construct definition, scale refinement, and
validity assessment, they are of limited usefulness.
Measures that infer materialism from scores on other
variables such as personality traits or social goals require
further scrutiny. Peter (1981, p. 134) notes that a valid
construct measure should assess "only the character-
istics of the construct it is purported to assess" and
should not be "contaminated with elements from the
domain of other constructs" (see also Nunnally 1978).
Thus, using measures of personality traits to infer ma-
terialism may be inappropriate unless materialism is
itself viewed as a personality trait.
To determine the appropriate measurement approach
for materialism, it is necessary to examine the nature
of the construct itself. As suggested in the literature re-
view, theoretical and popular notions indicate that ma-
terialism represents a mind-set or constellation of at-
titudes regarding the relative importance of acquisition
and possession of objects in one's life. For materialists,
possessions and their acquisition are at the forefront of
personal goals that dictate "ways of life." They value
possessions and their acquisition more highly than most
other matters and activities in life. The organizing
function of acquisition goals among materialists, the
centrality of acquisition-related activities to their lives,
and the prioritizing of possessions vis-a-vis other things
in life suggests that materialism is a value.
Rokeach (1973, p. 5) defined a value as "an enduring
belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of
existence is personally or socially preferable to an op-
posite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of ex-
307
istence" and, further, that a value "has a transcendental
quality to it, guiding actions, attitudes, judgments, and
comparisons across specific objects and situations and
beyond immediate goals to more ultimate goals" (p.
18). Recall that materialistic consumers are said to make
a religion out of things (Bredemeier and Toby 1960),
they believe that possession of things is the ultimate
source of happiness (Belk 1984), and materialism or-
ganizes their lives to such an extent that it creates a life-
style (Daun 1983). These descriptions fit Rokeach's and
others' characterizations of values. Defining material-
ism as a value is consistent with the notion that mate-
rialism reflects the importance a person places on, pos-
sessions and their acquisition as a necessary or desirable
form of conduct to reach desired end states, including
happiness. (For more discussion of the value conception
of materialism, see Fournier and Richins 1991; Richins
and Dawson 1990.) Our conception of materialism,
then, is that it is a value that guides people's choices
and conduct in a variety of situations, including, but
not limited to, consumption arenas. With respect to
consumption, materialism will influence the type and
quantity of goods purchased. Beyond consumption,
materialism will influence the allocation of a variety of
resources, including time. A materialist, for instance,
might choose to work longer hours and earn more
money instead of using that time for leisure activities.
All this suggests that those who place a high value on
material possessions and their acquisition will behave
differently from those who place a lower value on things.
To the extent behavior patterns associated with mate-
rialism are fixed and pervasive, there may be personality
traits associated with materialism (see, e.g., Fromm
1976). Belk's (1984) measures reflect some of the traits
most commonly said to be associated with materialism.
A number of writers have adopted a value conception
of materialism. This is clearest among those who have
dealt with materialism at a cultural level. Mukerji
(1983), Fox and Lears (1983), and others describe ma-
terialism and the culture of consumption as a value
system. Content-analytic studies designed to identify
trends in materialism as reflected in advertising and
popular literature (e.g., Belk 1987; Spiggle 1986) have
spoken of "material values," and consumer behavior
texts frequently describe materialism as a dominant
American value (e.g., Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard
1990; Hawkins, Best, and Coney 1989; Mowen 1990).
In consumer behavior, values most frequently have
been measured with ranking scales such as those de-
veloped by Rokeach (1973) and Kahle (see Kahle,
Beatty, and Homer 1986) in which respondents are pre-
sented with a (sometimes large) set of end states or be-
haviors and asked to rank them according to their im-
portance. Although this approach is useful in identifying
value configurations by revealing the relative impor-
tance an individual or a cultural group places on various
behaviors or end states, ranking methods are limited in
several ways. First, the information gained about any
308
one particular value is very superficial. To know that
an individual ranks "warm relationships with others"
fourth in a given set does not reveal very much about
the role these warm relationships play in the person's
life. We do not know why relationships are valued or
the benefits that are expected to accrue from these re-
lationships. Ranking methods also make comparison
across individuals impossible. Of two individuals who
have ranked "warm relationships" fourth, we cannot
tell which one considers warm relationships more im-
portant, nor can we tell whether someone ranking warm
relationships second actually considers them more im-
portant in an absolute sense than someone ranking them
third or fourth.
There are practical problems with ranking methods
as well. Ranked data are ipsative, and the analysis of
ipsative data is fraught with problems (Hicks 1970). In
addition, respondents find it difficult to rank large
numbers of items such as those found on the Rokeach
value batteries. Decreasing the number of items, as with
Kahle et al.'s (1986) approach, can result in the over-
simplification of complex psychological phenomena.
Rating methods are sometimes used to avoid the prob-
lems of ranked-values data (Alwin and Krosnick 1985),
but rating has its own problems, including a large num-
ber of ties among valued end states and behaviors. Rat-
ing data suffers equally with ranking in terms of super-
ficiality of measurement.
To avoid the problems inherent in ranking and rating
procedures, we took a different approach to measuring
materialism. We maintained the conceptualization of
materialism as a value but attempted to obtain greater
depth by measuring beliefs relevant to the value. Thus,
we considered materialism to be a set of centrally held
beliefs about the importance of possessions in one's life
(cf. Rokeach's definition of value) and measured the
three belief domains described above: acquisition cen-
trality, the role of acquisition in happiness, and the role
of possessions in defining success. Our final measure is
not intended to assess all beliefs relevant to material
values but rather those that emerged consistently from
analysis of lay and theoretical notions as described
above.
Propositions Concerning Materialism
The remainder of this article describes development
of a materialism measure that meets the goals described
above. To partially assess the validity of the resulting
scale, it was used to test several propositions concerning
materialism that have been discussed widely in the lit-
erature.
Proposition 1. Materialistic people value acquisi-
tion and the means to acquire possessions more highly
than those low in materialism. They also value posses-
sions and their acquisition more than other life goals
and more than their relationships with other people
(Fromm 1976; Schudson 1984). For most writers, this
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
emphasis on possessions is the essence of materialism
(e.g., Belk 1984; Bredemeier and Toby 1960; Mukerji
1983).
Proposition 2. Materialistic people are self-centered.
Many have noted that an overemphasis on material
possessions results in selfishness, and Belk (1983) has
reviewed religious and other writings that espouse this
view. An overriding concern with possessions and ac-
quisition for oneself is inherently incompatible with
sharing and giving to others. Wachtel (1983) has ob-
served that self-interest and the pursuit of individual
rather than community goals predominate where afflu-
ence and acquisition are emphasized.
Proposition 3. Materialists will pursue a life of ma-
terial complexity rather than material simplicity. An
emphasis on material possessions is often linked with
positive attitudes toward growth (e.g., Heilbroner 1956;
Inglehart 1981; Looft 1971), a reliance on technology
to solve problems (e.g., Mukerji 1983), and an uncon-
cern for the things of nature or the environment (e.g.,
Lasch 1978; Linden 1979). Voluntary simplicity is the
opposite perspective. It is a life-style of moral respon-
sibility, spiritual growth, and self-actualization that is
manifested in the economic behaviors of low con-
sumption, ecological responsibility, and self-sufficiency
(Elgin 1981; Shama and Wisenblit 1984). These char-
acteristics are so contrary to the spirit of materialism
that Rudmin and Kilbourne (1992) have described vol-
untary simplicity as "deliberately denied materialism."
Thus, there should be a negative relationship between
materialism and voluntary-simplicity behaviors.
Proposition 4. Materialists tend to be less satisfied
than others with their lot in life. Although materialists
expect acquisition to make them happy, many writers
have observed that the lust for goods can be insatiable;
the pleasures of a new acquisition are quickly forgotten
and replaced with a desire for more. This cycle leads
inevitably to dissatisfaction and discontent (Brickman
and Campbell 1971; Scitovszky 1976). Empirical tests
using earlier measures of materialism support this hy-
pothesis (Belk 1984; Dawson 1988; Richins 1987).
SCALE DEVELOPMENT
Item Generation
Item generation for the materialism scale relied on
both popular and theoretical notions of materialism.
In exploratory research, a convenience sample of 11
adult consumers was asked to describe in an open-ended
format the attitudes and values of materialistic people
they knew and of materialistic people in general. The
sample included nearly equal numbers of males and
females and was spread across age and income cate-
gories. Frequently mentioned attitude descriptions were
converted into items. In addition, the researchers con-
structed items to represent the three domains of ma-
MATERIALISMAND ITS MEASUREMENT
TABLE 2
DESCRIPTIONOF CONSUMER DATA COLLECTIONSAND ASSOCIATED MEASURES
Response rate
Survey and location (%) Finaln
1. Medium-sized northeastern
city 36.0 144
2. Large western city 33.3 250
3. Large western city 31.3 235
4. Northeastern college town and
northeastern ruralarea 43.0 and 39.7 86 and 119
terialism described above. Another source of items was
characterizations of materialistic people in the literature
and those mentioned by social critics. Finally, a few
items were adapted from earlier studies in which ma-
terialism and related constructs were measured (Belk
1984; Heslin et al. 1989; Richins 1987; Wackman,
Reale, and Ward 1972; Yamauchi and Templer 1982).
Items were cast to reflect values and attitudes about
possessions rather than specific behavior or personality
traits. A Likert scale format was used for all items with
response categories of strongly agree, agree, neutral,
disagree, and strongly disagree.
During initial data collection efforts, more than 120
items were generated. Redundant, ambiguous, leading,
and other faulty items were eliminated in initial screen-
ing. Subsequent screening was based on empirical tests
of reliability, validity, and social desirability bias.
Item Refinement-Student Samples
Early data collections for item refinement were un-
dertaken at three major universities in different parts
of the country (the South, the Northeast, and the West).
Reliability, social desirability, and validity assessments
based on student samples have been described elsewhere
(Richins and Dawson 1990) and resulted in a pool of
48 items that were retained for further analysis.
Consumer Samples
Additional item refinement and validation tests were
carried out with more heterogeneous samples obtained
through four consumer mail surveys. All involved ran-
domly chosen samples of households in which initial
mailings were followed by a reminder letter and second
copy of the questionnaire mailed two weeks later. Fur-
ther details of the data collections and associated ques-
tionnaires are shown in Table 2.
Exploratory factor analysis, reliability assessment,
and social desirability tests were performed on data from
309
Measures
48 materialism items; 10 social desirability items (Crowne
and Marlowe 1960)
30 materialism items; trait scales (Belk 1984); spending items
(see text)
30 materialism items; Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale;
desired income
30 materialism items; 13 voluntary simplicity items (Leonard-
Barton 1981); list of values (Kahle et al. 1986); five life-
satisfaction items (Andrews and Withey 1976)
the first survey (n = 144). Thirty materialism items were
retained as a result of these analyses. Factor analysis
and additional reliability assessments were performed
for these 30 items using data from the later data col-
lections (all with sample sizes greater than 200; see Table
2). These analyses resulted in a scale containing 18 items
that behaved consistently across the samples and possess
adequate reliability. The final set of items is shown in
Table 3.
Structure of the Measure
Exploratory factor analysis from the first survey sug-
gested a scale with three moderately correlated factors.
To show the relationships among scale items, Table 3
provides the pattern matrix from the principal com-
ponents analysis (with oblique rotation) with data from
survey 2. The matrix is typical of those obtained from
all data collections, and the three factors correspond to
the elements of materialism noted in construct defini-
tion. The first factor (labeled "success") represents the
use of possessions as an indicator of success in life,
which corresponds to the third domain of materialism
described in the literature review. The second factor
("centrality") concerns the importance of acquisition
and possession generally, and the third ("happiness")
concerns the perception that possessions are needed for
happiness. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed
with the data from surveys 2, 3, and 4. Although the
chi-square statistics were significant in the three anal-
yses, other indicators suggested an acceptable fit of the
model. Adjusted goodness-of-fit indices ranged from .86
to .88, and in every analysis the t-values for maximum
likelihood estimates all exceeded 5.0.
Because the latent constructs were moderately or
highly correlated in all analyses (phi coefficients
ranged from .39 to .79), the chi-square for a single
factor model was compared with chi-square for the
three factor model. The difference in chi-square test
310 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 3
EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANAYLSIS OF MATERIALISM ITEMS
Item
Success:
I admire people who own expensive homes,
cars, and clothes.
Some of the most important achievements
in life include acquiring material
possessions.
I don't place much emphasis on the amount
of material objects people own as a sign
of success.*
The things I own say a lot about how well
I'm doing in life.
I like to own things that impress people.
I don't pay much attention to the material
objects other people own*
Centrality:
I usually buy only the things I need.*
I try to keep my life simple, as far as
possessions are concerned.*
The things I own aren't all that important to
me.*
I enjoy spending money on things that
aren't practical.
Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure.
I like a lot of luxury in my life.
I put less emphasis on material things than
most people I know.*
Happiness:
I have all the things I really need to enjoy
life.*
My life would be better if I owned certain
things I don't have.
I wouldn't be any happier if I owned nicer
things.*
I'd be happier if I could afford to buy more
things.
It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I
can't afford to buy all the things I'd like.
NOTE.-Only loadings greater than .35 are shown. An asterisk indicates reverse
scored items. A five-point Likertscale response format was used.
Reliability
Coefficient alpha was calculated separately for the
items comprising the three factors and for the 18 items
Factor
as a single scale. The seven centrality items produced
1 2 3 alpha coefficients between .71 and .75 in the latter three
surveys. For the six-item success subscale alpha ranged
from .74 to .78, and for the five happiness items, alpha
was between .73 and .83. When combined into a single
.70
scale, alpha for the 18 items varied between .80 to .88.
Test-retest reliability (three-week interval) was cal-
.69 culated on data from a sample of 58 students at an urban
university. The reliability correlations were .82, .86, and
.82 for the centrality, happiness, and success subscales,
-.68
respectively, and .87 for the combined scale.
.58
.56 Social Desirability
-.43 While materialism may be more socially acceptable
today than in some past eras, because of recent media
-.78 attention to the negative aspects of materialism we con-
-.62
sidered it important to test the measure for susceptibility
to social desirability bias. Social desirability was mea-
-.60 sured in the first consumer data collection with 10 items
from the Marlowe-Crowne scale (Crowne and Marlowe
.60 1960). These items were chosen from the larger scale
.54
.52
because they have been shown to possess greater sen-
sitivity than other items and are appropriately keyed
-.49 for current standards of desirable behavior (Ballard,
Crino, and Rubenfeld 1988). Correlations with the so-
-.80
cial desirability measure were -.12, -.03, and -.06 for
the centrality, happiness, and success subscales, re-
.65 spectively, and -.09 for the combined scale. The low
correlations suggest that social desirability bias was not
-.58 a problem for these measures.
.58
Descriptive Statistics
.37 .55
The distributions for the overall materialism measure
and its three components were approximately normal

constructand notesthat,in doingso, researchershaveassumedeither

was significant in tests of all three data sets, indicating
that the three-factor model is superior in fitting the
data.
While confirmatory factor analysis served to explicate
the three hypothesized manifestations of the underlying
construct, the three factors were summed for purposes
of validation. This approach was followed because
analyses showed that the three factors normally act in
concert with respect to external variables. Carver ( 1989)
has noted that, in these situations, using the summed
index instead of subscales is appropriate and advanta-
geous in terms of parsimony and clarity of communi-
cation.2
2Carver(1989) hasdiscussedat lengththe appropriateness
of com-
biningcomponentscoresinto a summedmeasurerepresenting a latent
that the underlyingconstructis assessedindirectlyby measuresof its
variousmanifestations(the latentvariableapproach)or that the con-
structis somethingmore than the sum of its component parts(the
synergisticapproach).For purposesof the materialismmeasure,we
make the formerassumption-that the three subscalesare manifes-
tations of materialismand the latent variableapproachis thus ap-
propriate.Carverdescribesthe advantagesof summingthe compo-
nents in such a case and discussesthe patternsof resultsthatjustify
summed vs. separatecomponent analysis.In the researchreported
here, all hypotheseswere investigatedusing both the summed scale
andthe componentscales.On average,the summedmultidimensional
index relatesto the diverseconstructsin the hypothesistests better
than does any one componentdimension.In such cases, "the higher
level information (i.e., the consistent relation of the multifaceted
[summed]constructto many outcome variables)is more important
than the lowerlevel [individualsubscale]information,"and the use
of the summedconstructmeasureinsteadof individualsubscalesis
preferred(Carver1989,p. 580). For this reason,summedscaleresults
are presentedhere. Results of hypothesistests at the subscalelevel
are availablefrom the authors.
MATERIALISMAND ITS MEASUREMENT 311

in all surveys (largest value for skew = .67; largest value TABLE 4
for kurtosis = 1.01). Means, standard deviations, and DESCRIPTIVESTATISTICS FOR THE MATERIALISMSCALE AND
ranges for surveys 2, 3, and 4 are presented in Table 4. ITS COMPONENTS
The relationships between demographics and the
materialism measures were assessed. With the exception Scale Mean SD Range Skew Kurtosis
of age, all correlations were quite low and no consistent
patterns emerged. For the four materialism measures Centrality component:
Survey 2 19.8 4.2 9-33 .20 .44
(three components plus the overall scale) in the three Survey 3 19.3 4.0 9-32 .12 -.13
later data collections, the median point biserial corre- Survey 4 19.3 4.0 9-31 -.07 .14
lations with sex and with marital status were .05 and Happiness component:
.01, respectively. Median correlations for household Survey 2 13.3 4.2 5-25 .14 -.60
size, education, and income were .02, -.06, and .04. Survey 3 13.1 3.5 5-22 .23 -.24
Survey 4 12.8 4.1 5-25 .37 -.26
For age, however, all correlations except one were neg- Success component:
ative; the median correlation was -.19. This result is Survey 2 14.7 3.9 6-24 .06 -.38
consistent with the notion that materialism declines af- Survey 3 14.3 3.7 6-26 .52 .49
ter middle age (see Belk 1985). Survey 4 13.8 4.1 6-30 .67 1.01
Overall scale:
Survey 2 47.9 10.2 23-80 .16 .00
Survey 3 46.7 8.3 20-71 .08 .39
SCALE VALIDATION Survey 4 45.9 9.8 23-84 .45 .83

Earlier in the article, four propositions concerning

materialism were described. In validity assessment,
multiple tests were performed for each proposition.
Materialists and the Value of Acquisition
According to theorists, materialistic people value ac-
quisition and the means to acquire possessions more
highly than those low in materialism. In addition, they
value acquisition more than other life goals. Three
analyses were carried out to examine these ideas.
Respondents in survey 3 were asked in an open-ended
format to indicate the level of annual household income
that "would satisfy your needs." People who desire a
lot of possessions will need more money to acquire those
possessions and thus are expected to report a higher
desired level of income. For purposes of analysis, re-
spondents were divided into terciles based on their ma-
terialism scores; the desired income level of respondents
in the top (n = 76) and bottom (n = 71) terciles were
compared. Respondents high in materialism felt they
needed significantly more income (X = $65,974) than
those low in materialism (X = $44,761; t = 3.65, df
= 120.1,p<.001).3
A second test of the importance of the means to ac-
quire was carried out using Kahle's List of Values (LOV)
scale (Kahle et al. 1986). Respondents in survey 4 were
asked to read the nine values in a revised version of the
scale and then to rank the four values that were most
important to them. Respondents were divided into ter-
ciles based on their materialism scores and the per-
centage of respondents including each value in their
top three choices was examined. Table 5 shows per-
centages for respondents in the top (n = 71) and bottom
(n = 68) terciles.4
As expected, respondents higher in materialism were
more likely to value "financial security" and less likely
to value "warm relationships with others" than respon-
dents low in materialism (p < .01). They were also less
likely to choose "a sense of accomplishment" as an im-
portant goal (p < .01).
Finally, the importance materialists place on financial
matters relative to other goals was examined. Table 5
shows the median ranking for values in the LOV scale.
For respondents low in materialism, four values were
rated as more important than "financial security": self-
respect, warm relationships, family security, and a sense
of accomplishment. For those high in materialism, only
self-respect and family security were rated as more im-
portant; warm relationships were approximately tied in
importance with financial security. This analysis sup-
ports the belief that materialists tend to value the means
to acquire (financial security) more highly than some
of the life goals valued by those low in materialism.
However, the contentions of Fromm (1976) and others
that materialists sacrifice personal relationships in their
pursuit of wealth and possessions were not supported.
Respondents low in materialism do appear to place
considerably more importance on interpersonal rela-
tionships than on financial security, but high-materi-
alism respondents gave interpersonal relationships
equal footing with financial concerns.
Two separate tests, one concerning values and the
other concerning desired income, indicate that the ma-
terialism scale effectively identifies consumers who

3Thehomogeneityof varianceassumptionwas not met for this 4Resultsare similar when comparingthose who did and did not
test, necessitatingthe use of separatevarianceestimatesand resulting include a value in their topfour choices except that the significance
in a nonintegervalue for degreesof freedom. level declinesto .05 for significantcomparisons.
312 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 5
PERCENT INCLUDING A VALUE IN THEIR TOP THREE CHOICES AND MEDIAN RANKING
FOR RESPONDENTS HIGH AND LOW IN MATERIALISM

High materialism Low materialism

(n =71) (n =68)

Percent Percent
Goal choosing Mediana choosing Mediana z-test

Financial security 46.5 4 22.1 5 3.02**

Warm relationships with others 45.1 4 64.7 3 -2.32**
Sense of accomplishment 22.5 5 45.6 4 -2.88**
Self-respect 54.9 3 63.2 2 -.99
Family security 56.3 3 50.0 3 .74
Self-fulfillment 35.2 5 27.9 5 .93
Fun and enjoyment in life 16.9 ... 13.2 ... .61
Being well-respected 12.7 ... 7.4 ... 1.04
Sense of belonging 9.9 ... 5.9 ... .87

aRespondents ranked their four most important goals; unranked goals were assigned a rank of five; the median is not reported for goals chosen by less than 30
percent of respondents (indicated by ellipses).
**p < .01.

highly value the means to acquire. However, because
the analysis of values with ranked data suffers from
limitations mentioned earlier, future investigations into
the links between materialism and values would benefit
from the use of more sensitive values measures.
Materialism and Self-Centeredness
One of the common statements about materialists is
that they are self-centered and unconcerned about oth-
ers. Three tests of this proposition were carried out. In
survey 2, respondents were asked to assume they had
been unexpectedly given $20,000. They were then given
a list of six ways in which the money could be spent,
plus an "other" category. Three versions of the ques-
tionnaire were administered in a split-ballot procedure,
the only difference among the questionnaires being the
order of listing of the spending categories. Spending
categories were developed from pretests in which adult
respondents were asked in an open-ended format how
they would spend an unexpected gift of $20,000.
For purposes of analyses, respondents were again di-
vided into terciles based on their materialism scores;
Table 6 shows spending intentions for respondents in
the top and bottom terciles. On average, respondents
high in materialism said they would spend three times
as much on things for themselves as would low-mate-
rialism respondents (p < .001), would contribute less
than half of what low materialists would to charitable
or church organizations (p < .001), and would give less
than half as much to friends and family (p < .0 1). They
also would spend less on travel (p < .05).
A second test of the relationship between materialism
and selfishness comes from an item in the voluntary
simplicity life-style measure used in survey 4. (The re-
lationship between materialism and voluntary simplic-
ity is more fully examined below.) The scale contains
an item asking how often respondents contribute to
ecological or conservation organizations. The correla-
tion between this item and the materialism scale was
-.21 (p < .01).
The third assessment of selfishness was the measure
of nongenerosity developed by Belk ( 1984) administered
in survey 2. This scale measures nongenerosity with
possessions and other nonmonetary resources and con-
tains items such as "I don't like to lend things, even to
good friends" and "I enjoy having guests stay in my
home" (reverse scored). The correlation between the
materialism scale and the nongenerosity scale (alpha
= .63) was .25 (p < .001).
These analyses support the hypothesis that materi-
alists prefer to retain their resources for their own use
and are less willing than others to share what they have,
both in terms of their money (as measured by the
spending 'analysis) and their possessions (as evidenced
by the correlation with the nongenerosity scale). This
reluctance to share extends to those with whom they
have close social ties (friends and family) and more so-
cially distant entities such as charitable and ecological
organizations.
Materialism and Voluntary Simplicity
Although Rudmin and Kilbourne (1992) have noted
that "the essential feature of voluntary simplicity is not
the manifest behavior, but the underlying values and
beliefs which . . . motivate that behavior," Leonard-
Barton (1981) posits that the values of voluntary sim-
plicity are likely to result in certain kinds of behaviors,
which she includes in the voluntary-simplicity life-style
scale. To assess the relationship between materialism
and voluntary simplicity, a shorter (1 3-item) version of
MATERIALISMAND ITS MEASUREMENT 313

TABLE 6 between voluntary-simplicity life-style and materialism

AMOUNTINTENDEDTO BE SPENT IN DIFFERENTCATEGORIES did emerge, supporting the contentions of Rudmin and
BY RESPONDENTS HIGHAND LOW IN MATERIALISM Kilbourne (1992) and others.

High Low
materialism materialism
Materialism and Satisfaction
($) ($) Philosophers have frequentlywarned that the continual
Spending category (n = 91) (n = 85) t
pursuit of goods can lead only to dissatisfaction. The re-
Buy things I want or need 3,445 1,106 5.38*** lationship between materialism and satisfaction was mea-
Give to church organization sured in different ways in the three validation surveys. In
or charity 733 1,782 -3.79*** survey 4, respondents completed measures of satisfaction
Give or lend to friends or with life as a whole, amount of fun, family life, income
relatives 1,089 2,631 -3.08**
Travel 2,090 3,015 -2.08* or standard of living, and relationships with friends using
Pay off debts 4,281 3,271 1.41 the delighted-terribleresponse scale describedby Andrews
Savings or investments 7,413 7,471 -.07 and Withey (1976). Materialism was negatively related to
Other 948 724 .27 satisfaction in all the aspects of life measured. The rela-
*p < .05.
tionship was strongest for satisfaction with income or
**p <.01. standard of living (r = -.39) and weakest for satisfaction
***p<.001. with family life (r = -.17). Correlations for satisfaction
with life as a whole, fun, and friends were -.32, -.34,
and -.31, respectively (all p < .01).
the scale described by Leonard-Barton, with some re- Envy involves a coveting of what another has and,
vision to item wording and response categories, was frequently, a resentment of the person who possesses
administered in survey 4. In analysis, the three-con- the desired objects (see Belk 1984). As such, it implies
struct structure for the scale proposed by Cowles and a dissatisfaction with one's own possessions and lot in
Crosby ( 1986) was used because this structure resulted life. Survey 2 contained a measure of envy (Belk 1984;
in better prediction than the six-factor structure pro- alpha = .52); the correlation between materialism and
posed by Leonard-Barton. Cowles and Crosby labeled envy was .47 (p < .00 1).
their constructs "material simplicity" (which involves As a final measure of satisfaction, the Rosenberg
buying used goods and relying on bicycles instead of (1965) self-esteem scale was included in survey 3 (alpha
automobiles for transportation), "self-determination" = .81). Self-esteem has often been described as an eval-
(making rather than buying items and attempting to uation of the self, an assessment of how good or bad
do home repairs oneself), and "ecological awareness" one is (e.g., Epstein 1980). The correlation between
(recycling and contributing to ecological organi- materialism and self-esteem was -.12 (p < .05).
zations). According to critics, the quest for happiness through
Rudmin and Kilbourne have distinguished between possessions is destined to result in dissatisfaction (e.g.,
voluntary simplicity, reflecting underlying values, and Leiss 1976). A number of authors have suggested that
involuntary simplicity that results from inadequate re- materialism and the pursuit of possessions is not the
sources (income) to engage in a more complex life-style. cause but the result of dissatisfaction, that the desire to
To avoid confounding these two constructs, partial cor- possess and consume stems from insecurities or deeper
relations controlling for income were used when as- dissatisfactions with one's self and one's life (e.g., Braun
sessing the relationship between materialism and the and Wicklund 1989; Cushman 1990; Fromm 1976;
voluntary simplicity indices for material simplicity, self- Wachtel 1983). While a thorough research program
determination, and ecological awareness; resulting par- would be necessary to determine the validity of these
tial correlations were -.18, -. 15, and -.24 for the three propositions, the data here suggest that materialists are
respective indices. The partial correlation when all 13 more likely to be dissatisfied with their circumstances
items are summed was -.28 (p < .01 for all partial than with themselves. However, more sensitive mea-
correlations). sures of self-concept are necessary to adequately assess
The relationship between materialism and the volun- the relationship between self variables and materialism.
tary simplicity life-style scale, while significant, is not es-
pecially strong. This may be due to weaknesses of the DISCUSSION
voluntary simplicity scale itself. Like many other behav-
iors, some of those included in the scale may be deter- The research program described here was undertaken
mined as much by one's situation as by one's values or to develop a measure of material values that represents
attitudes (e.g., bike to work; grow vegetables). A second
limitation of the scale is its low reliability (Cronbach's
alpha for the scale and subscales were between .48 and 5Priorresearch has not reported coefficients alpha for the voluntary
.62).5 Despite these limitations, a significant relationship simplicity scale.
314
the construct of materialism as described in the social
sciences literature and in common usage. The resulting
scale measures three correlated aspects of materialism:
acquisition centrality, the role of acquisition in the pur-
suit of happiness, and the role of possessions in defining
success. The scale possesses acceptable reliability, and
preliminary assessments of scale validity were suc-
cessful.
The search for a measure of materialism led us to the
study of values, and one contribution of this research
is the recognition that values can and sometimes should
be measured in ways other than with traditional ranking
procedures. An examination of published consumer re-
search suggests that the study of values has been some-
what neglected. Helgeson et al. (1984) examined con-
sumer-behavior studies from 1950 through 1981 and
found that only 0.8 percent of the studies concerned
values or beliefs. Our own informal review of the more
recent literature (1984-1991) also revealed little re-
search on values. Excluding studies of materialism, only
seven articles in the Journal of Consumer Research and
the Association for Consumer Research proceedings
dealt with consumer values, and the main focus of four
of these was to examine revised lists of values from the
ranking procedures used by Rokeach (e.g., Kahle et al.
1986; Munson and McQuarrie 1988) rather than to ad-
dress substantive issues concerning consumer values.
Instead of revising the Rokeach scales, it might be ap-
propriate at this time to develop entirely different value
measures more suited to the usual application of indi-
vidual difference variables in consumer behavior.
In consumer-behavior research, we usually wish to
measure the intensity of a variable using a metric scale
and multiple items so that we can establish reliability,
compare individuals or groups, and assess associations
with other variables. This is difficult to accomplish with
rank data. Furthermore, values are complex phenom-
ena, and the use of complex measures is required. It is
no more reasonable to measure the value of "warm re-
lationships with others" with a single item than it is to
measure attitudes toward religion with a single question
on a survey. Single-item measures are also unsatisfac-
tory from a reliability perspective (Nunnally 1978). It
is hoped that this research will encourage others to ex-
tend the multiple-item measurement philosophy to ad-
ditional values important in the study of consumer be-
havior.
We also hope that our work will spawn more research
on materialism, including investigations into its ante-
cedents and consequences. Such research should in-
vestigate the potential positive effects of materialism
(both personal and economic) as well as the negative
ones more frequently mentioned in the literature. Other
research can investigate the relationship between ma-
terial values and marketing stimuli such as advertising
(e.g., Pollay 1984), store displays, and product char-
acteristics. Finally, additional research may seek to
broaden the conceptualization of materialism beyond
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
that represented here. For instance, measures that assess
the extent to which individuals use material possessions
to assist in defining the self or as an expression of group
membership and belonging will allow researchers to ex-
amine more broadly consumers' relationships with ma-
terial objects.
[Received August 1991. Revised February 1992.]
REFERENCES
Alwin, Duane F. and Jon A. Krosnick (1985), "The Mea-
surement of Values in Surveys: A Comparison of Ratings
and Rankings," Public Opinion Quarterly, 49 (Winter),
535-552.
Andrews, Frank M. and Stephen B. Withey (1976), Social
Indicators of Well-Being: Americans'Perceptions of Life
Quality, New York: Plenum.
Ballard, Rebecca, Michael D. Crino, and Stephen Rubenfeld
(1988), "Social Desirability Response Bias and the Mar-
lowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale," Psychological
Reports, 63 (August), 227-237.
Belk, Russell W. (1983), "Worldly Possessions: Issues and
Criticisms," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10,
ed. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 514-519.
(1984), "Three Scales to Measure Constructs Related
to Materialism: Reliability, Validity, and Relationships
to Measures of Happiness," in Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 11, ed. Thomas Kinnear, Provo, UT: As-
sociation for Consumer Research, 291-297.
(1985), "Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the
Material World," Journal of Consumer Research, 12
(December), 265-280.
(1987), "Material Values in the Comics: A Content
Analysis of Comic Books Featuring Themes of Wealth,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June), 26-42.
(1988), "Third World Consumer Culture," in Re-
search in Marketing, Suppl. 4, ed. Erdogan Kumcu and
A. Fuat Firat, Greenwich, CT: JAI, 113-127.
Bengston, Vern L. and Mary Christine Lovejoy (1973), "Val-
ues, Personality, and Social Structure," American Be-
havioral Scientist, 16 (July/August), 880-912.
Braun, Ottmar L. and Robert A. Wicklund (1989), "Psycho-
logical Antecedents of Conspicuous Consumption,"
Journal of Economic Psychology, 10 (June), 16 1-187.
Bredemeier, Harry C. and Jackson Toby (1960), Social Prob-
lems in America: Costs and Casualties in an Acquisitive
Society, New York: Wiley.
Brickman, Philip and Donald T. Campbell (1971), "Hedonic
Relativism and Planning the Good Society," in Adap-
tation-Level Theory, ed. Mortimer H. Appley, New York:
Academic Press, 287-302.
Burdsal, Charles, Jr. (1975), "An Examination of Second Or-
der Motivational Factors as Found in Adults," Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 127 (September), 83-89.
Campbell, Colin (1987), The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit
of Modern Consumerism, New York: Basil Blackwell.
Campbell, Donald T. (1969), "Various Social Attitude
Scales," in Measures of Political Attitudes, ed. John P.
Robinson and Phillip R. Shaver, Ann Arbor, MI: Survey
Research Center, University of Michigan, 648-653.
MATERIALISMAND ITS MEASUREMENT
Carver, Charles S. (1989), "How Should Multifaceted Per-
sonality Constructs Be Tested? Issues Illustrated by Self-
Monitoring, Attributional Style, and Hardiness," Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (April), 577-
585.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing
Better Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of
Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.
Cowles, Deborah and Lawrence A. Crosby (1986), "Measure
Validation in Consumer Research: A Confirmatory Fac-
tor Analysis of the Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle Scale,"
in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, ed. Richard
J. Lutz, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
392-397.
Crowne, Douglas P. and David Marlowe (1960), "A New Scale
of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology,"
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (August), 349-354.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton
(1978), "Reflections on Materialism," University of Chi-
cago Magazine, 70 (3), 6-15.
and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981), The Meaning
of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cushman, Philip (1990), "Why the Self Is Empty," American
Psychologist, 45 (May), 599-611.
Daun, Ake (1983), "The Materialistic Life-style: Some Socio-
psychological Aspects," in Consumer Behavior and En-
vironmental Quality, ed. Liisa Uusitalo, New York: St.
Martin's, 6-16.
Dawson, Scott (1988), "Trait Materialism: Improved Mea-
sures and an Extension to Multiple Domains of Life Sat-
isfaction," in AMA Winter Educators' Conference, ed.
Stanley Shapiro and A. H. Walle, Chicago: American
Marketing Association, 478-481.
de Tocqueville, Alexis ([1835] 1954), Democracy in America,
New York: Vintage.
De Young, Raymond (1985-1986), "Encouraging Environ-
mentally Appropriate Behavior: The Role of Intrinsic
Motivation," Journal of Environmental Systems, 15 (4),
281-292.
Dickins, Dorothy and Virginia Ferguson (1957), Practices and
Attitudes ofRural White Children and Parents concerning
Money, Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station
Technical Bulletin 43.
Du Bois, Cora (1955), "The Dominant Value Profile of
American Culture," American Anthropologist, 57 (De-
cember), 1232-1239.
Elgin, Duane (1981), Voluntary Simplicity, New York: Mor-
row.
Engel, James F., Roger D. Blackwell, and Paul W. Miniard
(1990), Consumer Behavior, Chicago: Dryden.
Epstein, Seymour (1980), "The Self-Concept: A Review and
the Proposal of an Integrated Theory of Personality," in
Personality: Basic Aspects and Current Research, ed. Er-
vin Staub, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 81-132.
Fournier, Susan and Marsha L. Richins (1991), "Some Theo-
retical and Popular Notions concerning Materialism,"
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 403-414.
Fox, Richard Wightman and T. J. Jackson Lears (1983), The
Culture of Consumption: Critical Essays in American
History, 1880-1980, New York: Pantheon.
Fromm, Erich (1967), "The Psychological Aspects of the
Guaranteed Income," in The Guaranteed Income, ed.
Robert Theobald, Garden City, NY: Anchor, 183-193.
315
(1976), To Have or To Be? New York: Harper & Row.
Gaines, Judith (1990), "New Hampshire's New Homeless
Belie the Stereotypes," Boston Globe, (December 2), 85-
86.
Hawkins, Del I., Roger J. Best, and Kenneth A. Coney (1989),
Consumer Behavior, Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Helgeson, James G., E. Alan Kluge, John Mager, and Cheri
Taylor (1984), "Trends in Consumer Behavior Literature:
A Content Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, 10
(March), 449-454.
Heilbroner, Robert L. (1956), The Questfor Wealth: A Study
of Acquisitive Man, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Henkoff, Ronald (1989), "Is Greed Dead?" Fortune (August
14), 40-46.
Heslin, Richard, Blair T. Johnson, and Brian F. Blake (1989),
"Saver-Spender Scales," in Proceedings of the Society for
Consumer Psychology 1988 Annual Convention, ed. Da-
vid W. Schumann, Washington, DC: Society for Con-
sumer Psychology, 179-185.
Hicks, Lou E. (1970), "Some Properties of Ipsative, Nor-
mative, and Forced-Choice Normative Measures," Psy-
chological Bulletin, 74 (September), 167-184.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1990), "Consumption Styles of the
Rich and Famous: The Semiology of Saul Steinberg and
Malcolm Forbes," in Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 17, ed. Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and
Richard W. Pollay, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research, 850-855.
Inglehart, Ronald (1981), "Post-materialism in a Environ-
ment of Insecurity," American Political Science Review,
75 (December), 880-900.
Jackson, Douglas N., Sadrudin A. Ahmed, and Nelson A.
Heapy (1976), "Is Achievement a Unitary Construct?"
Journal of Research in Personality, 10 (March), 1-21.
Justice, Blair and Roger Birkman (1972), "An Effort to Dis-
tinguish the Violent from the Nonviolent," Southern
Medical Journal, 65 (6), 703-706.
Kahle, Lynn R., Sharon E. Beatty, and Pamela Homer (1986),
"Alternative Measurement Approaches to Consumer
Values: The List of Values (LOV) and Values and Life
Styles (VALS)," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (De-
cember), 405-409.
Lange, Frederick Albert ([1865] 1925), The History of Ma-
terialism, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lasch, Christopher (1978), The Culture of Narcissism, New
York: Norton.
Leiss, William (1976), The Limits to Satisfaction. On Needs
and Commodities, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Leonard-Barton, Dorothy (1981), "Voluntary Simplicity
Lifestyles and Energy Conservation," Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 8 (December), 243-252.
Linden, Eugene (1979), Affluence and Discontent: The Anat-
omy of Consumer Societies, New York: Viking.
Looft, William R. (1971), "The Psychology of More," Amer-
ican Psychologist, 26 (June), 561-565.
Moschis, George P. and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1978),
"Consumer Socialization: A Theoretical and Empirical
Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (Novem-
ber), 599-609.
Mowen, John C. (1990), Consumer Behavior, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mukerji, Chandra (1983), From Graven Images: Patterns of
Modern Materialism, New York: Columbia University
Press.
316
Munson, J. Michael and Edward F. McQuarrie (1988),
"Shortening the Rokeach Value Survey for Use in Con-
sumer Research," in Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 15, ed. Michael J. Houston, Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research, 381-386.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Oxford English Dictionary (1989), Oxford: Clarendon.
Peter, J. Paul (1981), "Construct Validity: A Review of Basic
Issues and Marketing Practices," Journal of Marketing
Research, 18 (May), 133-145.
Polanyi, Karl (1944), The Great Transformation, New York:
Rinehart.
Pollay, Richard W. (1984), "The Identification and Distri-
bution of Values Manifest in Print Advertising 1900-
1980," in Personal Values and Consumer Psychology,
ed. Robert E. Pitts, Jr., and Arch G. Woodside, Lexing-
ton, MA: Lexington, 111- 135.
Rassuli, Kathleen M. and Stanley C. Hollander (1986), "De-
sire-Induced, Innate, Insatiable?" Journal of Macro-
marketing, 6 (Fall), 4-24.
Richins, Marsha L. (1987), "Media, Materialism, and Human
Happiness," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
14, ed. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 352-356.
and Scott Dawson (1990), "Measuring Material Val-
ues: A Preliminary Report of Scale Development," in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, ed. Marvin E.
Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 169-175.
Rochberg-Halton, Eugene (1986), Meaning and Modernity:
Social Theory in the Pragmatic Attitude, Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Rokeach, Milton (1973), The Nature of Human Values, New
York: Free Press.
Rosenberg, Morris (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-
Image, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Rudmin, Floyd W., and William E. Kilbourne (1992), "The
Meaning and Morality of Voluntary Simplicity: History
and Hypotheses on Deliberately Denied Materialism,"
in Consumption and Marketing: Macro Dimensions, ed.
Nikhilesh Dholakia and Russell W. Belk, Northridge, CA:
PWS-Kent, in press.
Sahlins, Marshall (1976), Culture and Practical Reason, Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Schudson, Michael (1984), Advertising, The Uneasy Persua-
sion, New York: Basic.
Scitovszky, Tibor (1976), The Joyless Economy, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Shama, Avraham and Joseph Wisenblit (1984), "Values of
Voluntary Simplicity: Lifestyle and Motivation," Psy-
chological Reports, 55 (August), 231-240.
Spiggle, Susan (1986), "Measuring Social Values: A Content
Analysis of Sunday Comics and Underground Comix,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (June), 100- 113.
Veblen, Thorstein ([1899] 1953), The Theory of the Leisure
Class: An Economic Study in the Evolution of Institutions,
New York: American Library.
Wachtel, Paul L. (1 9 8 3), The Poverty of Affluence: A Psycho-
logical Portrait of the American Way of Life, New York:
Free Press.
Wackman, Daniel B., Greg Reale, and Scott Ward (1972),
"Racial Differences in Responses to Advertising among
Adolescents," in Television in Day-to-Day Life, ed. Eli
A. Rubenstein, George A. Comstock, and John P. Mur-
ray, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, 543-551.
Ward, Scott and Daniel Wackman (1971), "Family and Media
Influences on Adolescent Learning," American Behav-
ioral Scientist, 14 (January-February), 415-427.
Weber, Max ([1930] 1958), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons, New York: Scrib-
ner's.
Yamauchi, Kent T. and Donald I. Templer (1982), "The De-
velopment of a Money Attitude Scale," Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 46 (October), 522-528.