dgmick.weebly.com€¦ · web viewmoral judgments of the purchases made by materialists: the . why...
Post on 26-Jun-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Moral Judgments of the Purchases Made by Materialists:The Why and When of Bad or Better
Yi Zhanga, David Glen Mickb, & Kathryn S. Wesslingc
Abstract
While history and recent opinion polls reveal that Americans are conflicted about the moral acceptability of materialism in their society, consumer researchers have rarely considered materialism in terms of its moralism across buying situations. We conducted several experiments to examine this phenomenon. We show first that the total amount spent increases negative moral judgments of purchases by a higher materialist and that the perceived shamefulness of buying events mediates moral judgments of a higher versus lower materialist’s purchases. We then focus on boundary conditions and demonstrate that retail promotions (e.g., “Buy One, Get One Free”) as well as purchase intentions (buying gifts) can moderate (reduce) the harshness of moral judgments of a higher materialist’s purchases. Discussion focuses on how these findings shed new light on Americans’ denigration and justification of materialism, and a variety of future research is suggested.
key words: materialism, moral judgments, buyer behavior, retail promotions, purchase intentions
a Yi Zhang (e-mail: zhan34yx@jmu.edu), corresponding author, is a visiting assistant professorin Marketing at the College of Business, James Madison University. b David Glen Mick (e-mail: dmick@virginia.edu) is the Robert Hill Carter Professor in Marketing at the McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia. c Kathryn S. Wessling (email: wessling@wharton.upenn.edu) is a visiting assistant professor at the Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania.
AcknowledgementsThe authors thank Kent Grayson, Jonathan Haidt, Marsha Richins, Rashmi Adaval,and Aric Rindfleisch for helpful suggestions in the development of this project. This work issupported by funding from the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business and its McIntire School of Commerce, and from the College of Business, James Madison University.
1
Materialism has been conceptualized as the importance a person places on the acquiring and
owning of possessions as an essential way to accomplish life’s objectives and desired end states
(Pieters, 2013; Richins & Dawson, 1992). And although it has been widely scrutinized,
consumer researchers have rarely considered materialism in terms of its morality (see Duh, 2015;
Shrum et al., 2014). This gap is noteworthy if for no other reason than Campbell’s (1998, p.
152) assertion that consumerism “probably reflects the moral nature of contemporary existence
as much as any other widespread modern practice.” It is not obvious, though, as to why and
when the purchases made by materialists would be judged as right or wrong. There are historical
and countervailing views about materialism, including a robust, almost universal, attraction to its
underlying acquisitiveness and an equally strong disillusionment with its fallout (Belk, 1983).
In the United States materialism is a characteristic cultural value (Kohls, 1984; Richins &
Dawson, 1992). As such, it has been periodically celebrated as a manifestation of the right of
free choice and a compensation for self-sufficiency and hard work (Schudson, 1991; Twitchell,
1999). But materialism has also been disdained, including among Americans themselves. One
random-sample survey of 800 found that 82% agreed that “most of us buy and consume far more
than we need” and, as a whole, respondents opined that greed and selfishness were
overshadowing other ideals related to family, community, and responsibility (Harwood Group,
1995; see also Wurthnow, 2009). Through a different data lens via a Wall Street Journal story
about designer clothes-closets for children (Dizik, 2017), numerous posted comments were not
only highly negative, but also fiercely moralistic, e.g., “Beyond ridiculous”; “Shameful and
embarrassing excess”; and “Marie Antoinette Lives!”
In this paper we address three previously unexplored questions about moral judgments of
purchases by materialists. First, as a baseline issue within a given buying event, which common
2
components particularly influence moral judgments of the materialist’s purchase: price per se,
quantity per se, or total amount spent? Second, in view of Americans’ stated disapproval of
materialism, is a given purchase morally judged more severely if the buyer is a higher versus
lower materialist, and if so, what role does a pivotal moral emotion such as shamefulness play in
accounting for that judgment? However, and third, given the potential for purchase occasions to
provoke among Americans their right of uninhibited choice, do certain retail tactics (e.g.,
promotions like “Buy One, Get One Free”) or different purchase intentions (e.g., gifting versus
personal indulging) subdue shamefulness, and, thereby, alleviate the harshness of morally
judging a purchase by a higher materialist? Answering these questions could advance
understanding of what impels the moralism of materialism in America and, more importantly,
begins to reveal how moral reproach may be appeased by what marketers offer and what
consumers bring to a purchase decision. Accordingly, new light would be shed on American
consumerism and its simultaneous vilification and justification.
Literature review and conceptual development
Materialism and its moralism
As Wilk (2001) and Kirmani (2015) maintain, both consumption generally and materialism
especially are moral issues because they repeatedly evoke need-fulfillment versus desire-
fulfillment, the timing and warranting of gratifications, and the interests of self versus others, to
name but three universal ethical quandaries. These sorts of dilemmas are central to assessments
of American materialism that have long harbored conflicting perspectives on its rectitude.
The negative orientation. As researchers have noted (e.g., Duh, 2015; Shrum et al., 2014; Van
Boven, Campbell, & Gilovich, 2010; Rindfleisch & Burroughs, 2004), materialism has been
traditionally viewed as an objectionable weakness among human beings. Csikszentmihalyi
3
(2004) argues that higher materialists are people who voraciously and myopically obtain things
at the expense of other pursuits that are more psychologically-enriching, socially-benefiting, or
spiritually-uplifting. According to historians and other analysts, the moral disparagement of
materialism in the U.S. is based considerably on ethical principles inherited from certain
religious denominations that took hold during the nation’s origination (especially Puritans) and
continue to guide the values of large segments of the population to this day (Shi, 1986; Uhlmann
& Sanchez-Burks, 2014). These principles include the advocating of work over leisure, thrift
over spending, delayed gratification over immediate gratification, and necessities over
superfluities (Campbell, 1998; Shi, 1986; Uhlmann, Poehlman, Tannenbaum, & Bargh 2011).
Such insights explain in part why lay persons in Fournier and Richins’ (1991) study labelled
materialists as envious, possessive, and self-centered, and why respondents in the Harwood
Group’s research (1995) worried that American society is “losing its moral center.”
Empirical consumer research that has probed the murky side of materialism has been
voluminous (Duh, 2015; Kasser, 2002; Shrum et al., 2014). For example, higher materialists are
less happy and more likely depressed (Roberts et al., 2005); they experience more loneliness,
lower self-esteem, and lower self-actualization (Chaplin & John, 2007; Kasser & Ahuvia, 2002;
Pieters, 2013); and they rate their social relations less satisfactorily (Kasser & Ryan, 2001).
The positive orientation. Positive moralizing about materialism and capitalism was common
among early economists, including Adam Smith. They argued that competitive markets not only
serve consumer demands more effectively and efficiently, but also facilitate prosperity, justice,
and liberty. This supportive view of material acquisition can also be seen in socioeconomic
foundations of the U. S. established through governmental initiatives in territorial expansion
(Kitayama et al., 2010) and through influential Protestant-reformation sects that approved of
4
wealth accumulation as God’s bounty for a virtuous life (e.g., Calvinists). In addition, the
country was established on the moral meta-principle of an inalienable birthright to pursue
happiness, and it was enshrined in the envisionment of America as a land of abundance,
opportunity, and unlimited economic activity (Cross, 2000; Markus & Schwartz, 2010; Shi,
1986). Across the years, the rise of mass production and marketplace competition amplified
demand and drove down retail prices, while encouraging Americans to attain happiness by
spending more of their income on discretionary items, especially those secured at lower expense
(Cross, 1993; Eisenberg, 2013; Scitovsky, 1992). Consequently, some analysts have declared
that materialism has immensely succeeded (Campbell, 1998; Twitchell, 1999; Schudson, 1991).
Empirical consumer research on the positive orientation toward materialism has been
comparatively less, but growing. For instance, higher materialism has been found to stabilize
life after serious disruptive events (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 1997). It can also elevate moods
via luxury consumption (Hudders & Pandelaere, 2012) and allay sadness by reinstating a sense
of control through shopping (Rick et al., 2014). In addition, material consumption may ward off
threats to basic needs such as belonging and self-worth (Shrum et al., 2014).
A study involving young American adults also found that those scoring higher on a
materialism scale exhibited higher shopping frequency, greater product expertise, and more
responsiveness to price promotions (Goldberg, Gorn, Peracchio, & Bamossy, 2003). On this
latter issue, retailers have long used promotions (e.g., coupons, discounts, trade-ins) to prod
consumers to buy now, more, and again (Grewal et al., 2011). Interestingly, consumers take
personal credit (for themselves) and project personal credit (to other consumers) for the benefits
obtained through promotions, also known as the smart-shopper phenomenon (Schindler, 1989).
People attribute the benefits of deals to shopping efforts and skills that generate a sense of
5
accomplishment, pride, and favorable self-image, which represent non-monetary motives and
benefits that go beyond cost savings (Bicen & Madhavaram, 2013; Schindler, 1989, 1998). The
experience of such active purchasing among materialists, according to Fournier and Richins
(1991), also includes thrill, euphoria, and jubilance. Taken all together, higher materialists seem
particularly drawn to promotions and their non-monetary value that tap into quintessential
American cultural tenets surrounding resourcefulness and free choice.
In sum, materialism is a multifaceted phenomenon, and it is neither solely negative nor solely
positive across people, societies, and situations. Why and when it is experienced or interpreted
one way or another remains to be ascertained. And although materialism has been analyzed for
its moral aspects by philosophers, historians, and religious leaders, empirical consumer work has
not heretofore addressed such concerns directly, particularly the factors and the process
underlying moral judgments of purchases made by higher materialists. To begin addressing
these issues, we turned to guidance from moral psychology.
Moral psychology
Both psychologists and consumer researchers have long studied how people judge each
other, in order to learn more about human nature and consumer behavior respectively.
Examining people’s moral judgments surrounding consumption circumstances is a relatively
recent development, e.g., fashion counterfeits as a function of self-construal (Kim & Johnson,
2014); purchases by low-income individuals who receive governmental assistance (Olson et al.,
2016), and (un)desirable behaviors in the presence of varied background colors (De Bock et al.,
2013). Work that expressly focuses on the everyday person’s judgments of materialists goes
back at least to Fournier and Richins (1991) and has continued periodically. One project, for
instance, addressed negative stereotypic impressions about the self-centeredness, extrinsic
6
motivations, and other characteristics of materialists (Van Boven et al., 2010). Nevertheless,
there are scant insights on moral judgments of purchases made by materialists.
We follow these aforementioned research streams in concentrating on the moral judgments
or acceptability of the materialist’s buying behavior from a third-party observer’s perspective.
We adopt this approach to avoid biases in ethical self-judgments. For instance, prior research
has shown that people generally see themselves as being more moral than they actually are
(Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011) and they often perceive their own moral lapses as less
objectionable than the same by other persons (Valdesolo & Desteno, 2008). A parallel quasi-
duplicity is manifested in the Harwood Group’s survey (1995) in which American consumers
professed that their own level of materialism was lesser than others’.
In moral psychology Haidt and Kesebir (2010, p. 800) have defined moral systems as
“interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and
evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness”
(emphasis added), which, as noted, is a focal point in many critiques of materialists (Fournier &
Richins, 1991; Van Boven et al., 2010). Contemporary psychological approaches to
understanding moral systems and related judgments have used experimental designs with written
scenarios for encapsulating moral situations toward which the subjects respond (Christensen &
Gomila, 2012). In addition, for cultivating new theory, psychologists have turned increasingly to
emotionality in the moral judgment process (Greene & Haidt, 2002). According to Haidt and
Kesebir (2010), negative moral emotions are among the most important and they are typically
instigated by violations of social norms surrounding matters of egocentrism in the context of
moral principles. One of the principles they identify is moderation, which is a core issue in
materialism as it pertains to indulgences versus needs or consuming more versus less. They also
7
note that one of the most studied moral emotions is shame (see also Tangney, Stuewig, &
Mashek, 2007). However, since it was outside of their scholarly purposes, Haidt and Kesebir
(2010) do not overtly link egocentrism and the violation of moderation to negative judgments of
buying behavior by American materialists, nor therein the potential role of shame (Cohen, 2003)
or its variant shamefulness (Snyder, 2013). The pejorative public opinions reported in the
Harwood Group’s (1995) research and the caustic reactions to the Wall Street Journal article on
posh children’s closets (Dizik, 2017) imply that shamefulness may be vital to understanding
judgments of materialists’ purchases.
For several reasons we examine perceived shamefulness as a potential mediator of moral
judgments of the purchases made by materialists. First, according to Haidt (2003), shame or
shamefulness is produced by a person’s moral lapse in behavior and the realization that the
person’s character or action is flawed, which can be evinced in greed, gluttony, and
egocentricity. Shame and shamefulness signify an inadequacy of the primary self—a significant
theme in prior theory and research on materialistic consumers (Csikszentmihalyi, 2004)—though
the distinct construct of shamefulness is seldom identified or examined. We also establish this
focus because a recent survey uncovered an association between materialism and shame
(Watson, 2015). However, that work is correlational only, and it has not yet been considered or
tested whether shamefulness might mediate moral judgments of purchases by materialists.
Lastly, social critics have alleged that materialism in America on promotion-intensive shopping
days like Black Friday—which kicks off the Christmas buying season—puts into bold and
shameful relief the “moral bankruptcy” of the nation (Snyder, 2013). But aspects of this
condemnation are unexamined at the level of the individual buyer.
8
In fact, perceptions of shamefulness in materialists’ buying may be reduced when
advantageous retail deals are available. Prior research intimates that under some circumstances
the shamefulness of the buyer’s action may be mollified, as when a materialist saves money and
experiences or exhibits non-monetary psychological benefits by playing the role of savvy
shopper who takes advantage of a promotional offer. It is also possible that other factors may
moderate perceived shamefulness, including variations in the purchaser’s intentions, which is
relevant in a gift-buying context like Black Friday as well as many other gift-acquisition
scenarios that permeate American society and other cultures (Sherry, 1983).
To begin, we explore in experiment 1 three important and common factors that could serve as
potential influences on moral judgments of the materialist’s buying behavior, namely, the price
paid, the quantity bought, and the total amount spent. Then, in a series of follow-up experiments
we investigate the potential mediating role of perceived shamefulness and its moderators in
further profiling the process of morally judging the materialistic buyer.
Experiment 1: Moral judgments as a function of price, quantity, and total amount spent
In this initial experiment, we explore the effects of price, quantity, and total amount spent on
moral judgments of a purchase decision by an ardent materialist. We operationalize a relatively
high materialism value in the buyer by including in the scenario information about his
materialistic attitudes and lifestyle (per Richins and Dawson’s (1992) three-dimensional
conceptualization). This included the centrality of acquisition in his life, his use of acquisitions
to pursue happiness, and his inclination to define success through possessions.
If how much the materialistic buyer pays is central to affecting judgments of the morality of
his purchase, then we would expect that participants in the study will judge the purchase more
harshly when the item price is higher (versus lower). In parallel, we expect people will judge the
9
purchase more harshly if the quantity acquired is greater (versus fewer). On the other hand,
moral judgments of the materialist’s purchase may depend less precisely on price or quantity
singularly, and more directly on the total amount spent. If so, then the purchase with the highest
total amount spent should be least morally acceptable and the one with the lowest total amount
spent should be the most morally acceptable. At the same time, conditions of equal or near-equal
total amount spent should reveal similar moral judgments, regardless of differences in item price
or quantity acquired.
Participants and design
We recruited participants from the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; n = 399, 51%
female; Mage = 34.8 years, SD = 11.3, all in the U.S.). Participants read about an in-store scenario
(vignette) involving a hypothetical consumer named Scott who purchases either one pair or four
pairs of jeans at the retail price of $29.95 or $129.95 per pair (see Appendix A). These two price
points were chosen after consideration of MTurk’s demographics (Huff & Tingley, 2015), and
recognizing via Google searches that new jeans can vary in price from under $10 to several
hundreds of dollars.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four purchase-scenario conditions in a 2
(price: $29.95 vs. $129.95) x 2 (quantity: one pair vs. four pairs) between-subjects design. After
reading the vignette, participants recorded their moral judgment of the purchase using a sliding
scale of three items: –5 = “Not morally right” to 5 = “Morally right”; “Unjust” to “Just”; and
“Unfair” to “Fair” (Cronbach’s alpha = .85). Responses were averaged and higher scores
corresponded to a more morally correct judgment.
Results
10
Effects of price, quantity, and total amount spent. ANOVA results showed main effects on
moral judgments of the purchase for item price as well as quantity acquired (M$29.95 = .77
versus M$129.95 = –.10, F(1, 395) = 13.11, p < .001, η2 = .03; M1 pair = .69 versus M4 pairs = –.03, F(1,
395) = 9.04, p < .01, η2 = .03). As one might reasonably expect, higher price and greater
quantity each led to harsher moral judgments of the materialist’s purchases. The interaction
between price and quantity was not significant (F(1, 395) = .58, p = NS).
To examine the role of total amount spent, we first look at the buying of the higher quantity
(four pairs of jeans) at the higher price ($129.95), which leads to the largest total amount spent
($519.80). As Figure 1 shows, this condition corresponded to the least favorable moral judgment
of the purchase event. In parallel, buying the lower quantity (one pair) at the lower price
($29.95), which leads to the lowest total amount spent ($29.95), produced the most favorable
moral judgment. However, as Figure 1 also suggests, the planned contrast between four pairs of
jeans at $29.95 each (totaling $119.80) versus a single pair at $129.95 revealed that moral
judgments did not differ when the total amount spent was approximately equivalent
(M$119.80 = .50 vs. M$129.95 = .35, F(1, 395) = .19, p = NS). That is, compared to item price or
quantity acquired, participants more clearly focused on the total amount spent in the purchase
event in determining how morally acceptable it was.
Overall, experiment 1 found that price paid and quantity acquired impacted moral judgments
of the given purchase event. Nonetheless, in light of Figure 1 and the planned contrast reported
above, the total amount spent by the materialist was the more notable and nuanced determinant
of the degree to which participants judged the materialist’s purchase as morally
acceptable. Taking these insights forward, our goal in experiment 2 was to begin comparing
moral judgments of purchases by a higher versus lower materialist, and therein to examine
11
perceived shamefulness as a possible mediator of those judgments, as moral psychology would
suggest. Along with experiment 1, this second experiment helps to set the stage for examining
subsequent moderated mediation in the course of moral judgments as a function of retail
promotions and purchase intentions. In subsequent experiments we also use different product
classes in the purchase events to enhance robustness.
<INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE>
Experiment 2: Moral judgments as a function of buyer materialism and shamefulness
Participants and design
We recruited participants from MTurk (n = 199, 48.7% female; Mage = 33.4 years, SD =
10.6, all in the U.S.) and they were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: a lower versus
higher materialism value held by the buyer. This distinction was operationalized by altering
descriptive wording in the purchase scenario in order to characterize the two levels of the
materialism value based on the three-dimensions of materialism established in Richins and
Dawson (1992) (see Appendix B). Participants read about an in-store scenario involving a
hypothetical consumer named Christine who purchases two new sweaters via a retail promotion
in which the second sweater is modestly discounted at 25% off. Thereby, total amount spent was
held constant in this experiment to facilitate a sharper focus on materialism and shamefulness in
the moral judgment process.
After the vignette was read, we followed Wheatley and Haidt’s (2005) methodology of
measuring first the moral judgment and then the moral emotion. Participants recorded their
moral judgments of the purchase on the same 3-item moral judgment scale as in experiment 1.
Then they recorded their perceived shamefulness using a 3-item shamefulness scale that we
constructed (see Appendix C), with statements such as “I really feel that Christine’s choice in the
scenario was shameful” (Strongly disagree = 1, Strongly agree = 7, Cronbach’s alpha =.93). As
12
a manipulation check, participants also assessed the extent of Christine’s materialism value on an
11-point sliding scale from –5 (“Not at All Materialistic”) to 5 (“Extremely Materialistic”). At
the end of the study, participants completed a scenario-realism check on a –5 (Not at all realistic)
to 5 (“Very realistic”) scale and a funnel debriefing questionnaire (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000) to
check if any experimental demand effects were present.
Results
Manipulation check, realism check, demand check, and factor analysis. As expected,
participants viewed Christine as more materialistic in the higher buyer materialism condition
than in the lower one (Mhigher buyer materialism = 3.76 vs. Mlower buyer materialism = –1.58, t(160) = 17.40, equal
variances not assumed, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.47). The mean rating on the 11-point scenario-
realism scale (-5 to 5) was 3.21, suggesting that participants saw the buying event as reasonably
authentic. In addition, while a few participants suggested that the purpose of the study (or what
the researchers were trying to study) was about people’s attitudes toward other consumers and
their purchases, no participant implied anything as evidence of demand effects about comparing
consumers who were higher or lower in materialism (a manipulation that was embedded in a
between-subjects design).
To establish that moral judgment and perceived shamefulness are two distinct constructs, we
performed a factor analysis with the moral judgment items and the shamefulness scale items
included simultaneously. The analysis revealed two distinct factors (see factor loadings in
Appendix D), accounting for 84.21% of total variance. Each item loaded appropriately onto its
moral judgment or perceived shamefulness factor as expected. Hence, the average score for each
of the measures was used in succeeding analyses.
13
Effect of buyer materialism and mediation analysis. As expected, ANOVA showed that
participants judged Christine’s purchase less morally right when she was characterized as a
higher materialist (Mhigher buyer materialism = 1.16 versus Mlower buyer materialism = 2.62, F(1, 197) = 28.59, p <
.001, η2 = .13). Similarly, ANOVA with perceived shamefulness as the dependent variable
showed that participants viewed Christine’s purchase as more shameful when she was described
as a higher materialist (Mhigher buyer materialism = 3.35 versus Mlower buyer materialism =2.08, F(1, 197) = 35.18,
p < .001, η2 = .15).
To test whether perceived shamefulness mediated the effect of buyer materialism (1 =
higher, 0 = lower) on moral judgments, we mean centered the perceived shamefulness scores
prior to performing bootstrapping analyses based on 10,000 samples (model 4 in Hayes, 2013).
There was a significant indirect effect of perceived shamefulness (a × b = –.83, 95% CI [–1.28 to
–.49]) mediating the effect of buyer materialism on moral judgments of the purchase behavior.
In the significant indirect path (a = 1.27, p < .001), higher buyer materialism increased perceived
shamefulness by 1.27 units. Holding constant buyer materialism, a unit increase in perceived
shamefulness reduced moral judgments by .66 units (b = –.66, p < .001). The total effect of
perceived shamefulness on moral judgments was significant (c’ = –1.46, p < .001). Because the
direct effect was significant (c = –.63, p = .01), this is complementary (partial) mediation (Zhao,
Lynch, & Chen, 2010).
Discussion
Experiment 2 demonstrated that moral judgments of a purchase event and a moral emotion
such as shamefulness can be treated as two distinct constructs. Also, participants viewed the
higher materialist’s purchase as less morally right than the same purchase by a lower materialist.
By implication, this finding is consistent with prior research on negative typecasts of
14
materialistic persons (Fournier & Richins, 1992; Van Boven et al., 2010). More importantly, the
results newly demonstrate that participants’ perceived shamefulness of the purchase decision
mediated the effect of buyer materialism on moral judgments.
A plausible but unexceptional monetary retail promotion was used in experiment 2 as part of
the purchase event (“Buy One, Get One 25% Off”). The findings in experiment 2 involving the
higher versus lower materialist and the mediational role of shamefulness in the moral judgment
process led us to consider next whether a more attractive monetary retail promotion could lessen
(modulate) perceived shamefulness, and thereby improve moral judgments. This proposition
springs from our discussion on the American ideology of free choice and deal searching, as well
as prior findings on the non-monetary benefits of deal-getting (e.g., pride, accomplishment) and
the responsiveness of materialists to promotions.
Experiment 3: Effect of different levels of monetary promotion on the moral judgment process
Participants and design
Participants were recruited from MTurk (n = 709, 47% females, Mage = 32 years, SD = 11.9,
all in the U.S.). Each was randomly assigned to one cell of a 2 (buyer materialism: higher vs.
lower) x 2 (monetary promotion: higher savings vs. lower savings) between-subjects design (see
Appendix E). As in experiment 2, buyer materialism was manipulated through different lifestyle
and attitudinal information included about the buyer in the purchase scenario. For the monetary
promotion manipulation, we used the previous promotion in experiment 2 (“Buy One, Get One
25% Off”) and a new one representing a more favorable but not unusual deal, namely, “Buy
Two, Get Both 50% Off.” Note that this manipulation accords with lowering the total amount
spent, but does so in the context of a monetary retail promotion.
Procedure
15
Participants read again about a buying scenario involving a consumer named Christine, and
then they were presented with a single-item scale (– 5 “Not morally right” to 5 “Morally right”)
to record their moral judgments of her purchase decision. Participants then filled out the
perceived shamefulness scale as in experiment 2. We also measured participants’ response to the
Richins’ (2004) 6-item materialism scale in order to assess and control for participants’ own
level of materialism. The study concluded with a manipulation check, an attention check (to
ensure that participants were diligent in processing the scenario), and demographic questions.
Across the total sample, 52 (7.3%) failed the attention test that asked them to recall the
number of watches Christine owned after her purchase, and they were subsequently dropped
from the analyses reported below (though the results remained consistent whether these
participants were included or not).
Results
Manipulation check. As expected, participants viewed Christine as more materialistic in the
higher buyer materialism condition than in the lower one (Mhigher buyer materialism = 4.39 vs. Mlower buyer
materialism = –2.30, equal variances not assumed, t(524) = 50.91, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 3.90).
Effects of buyer materialism and monetary promotion. We performed an ANOVA on moral
judgments, with buyer materialism as the independent variable and participants’ materialism as a
covariate. Consistent with experiment 2, participants again judged Christine more harshly in her
purchase decision when she was described as a higher materialist versus a lower materialist (F(1,
654) = 94.53, p < .001, η2 = .13). The effect of participants’ materialism was marginally
significant (F(1, 654) = 2.90, p = .09, η2 < .01). Controlling for it, the estimated marginal means
of the moral judgments were Mhigher buyer materialism = .56 versus Mlower buyer materialism = 2.37.
16
Similarly, an ANOVA with shamefulness as the dependent variable demonstrated that
participants perceived Christine as more shameful in the higher materialist condition (F(1, 654) =
223.66, p < .001, η2 = .25), controlling for participants’ materialism (F(1, 654) =8.03, p < .01, η2
= .01). The estimated marginal means of perceived shamefulness after controlling for
participants’ materialism were Mhigher buyer materialism = 3.83 versus Mlower buyer materialism = 2.06.
An ANOVA also revealed that monetary promotion had a significant main effect on
perceived shamefulness (1= both 50% off, 0 = one 25% off; F(1, 652) = 18.39, p < .001, η2
= .03), and so did buyer materialism (F(1, 652) = 226.00, p < .001, η2 = .26). There was also a
significant interaction between monetary promotion and buyer materialism on perceived
shamefulness (F(1, 652) = 7.75, p <.01, η2 =.01) after controlling for participants’ materialism.
Post-hoc analysis showed that the higher monetary promotion (i.e. lower total amount spent)
reduced the perceived shamefulness of the higher materialist’s purchase (F(1, 652)=23.53, p
<.001, η2 =.04), but had no significant effect on the perceived shamefulness of the lower
materialist’s purchase (F(1, 652) = 1.20, p = NS (see Figure 2)). This data pattern aligns with
and extends experiment 1 insofar as people morally judge a higher materialist’s purchases based
on how much that person totally spends, but not when the buyer is a lower materialist (who is
more morally admired in the first place; cf. Harwood Group, 1995; Van Boven et al., 2010).
<INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE>
Moderated mediation analysis. As in the prior experiment, perceived shamefulness in
experiment 3 mediated the relationship between the buyer’s materialism and moral judgments of
the purchase. We sought to determine whether the monetary retail promotion moderates that
process. Hence, we performed the bootstrapping technique for conditional indirect effects
(model 8 in Hayes, 2013, 10,000 bootstrapping samples) to test specifically whether the link
17
from buyer materialism to perceived shamefulness was qualified by the promotion, using
participant materialism as a covariate. The index of moderated mediation was .60 (95% CI [.13,
1.06]), meaning that the conditional mediation effect of perceived shamefulness was
significantly different between the two monetary promotion conditions. When the deal was a
less attractive monetary promotion (“25% Off” condition)—meaning that the buyer spent more
overall—the indirect effect of shamefulness was –1.99 (95% CI [–2.37 to –1.64]). When the
deal was a more attractive monetary promotion (“Get Both 50% Off” condition), i.e., a lower
total amount spent, the indirect effect of shamefulness was weaker: –1.39 (95% CI [–1.77 to –
1.05]). In other words, the mediation effect of shamefulness on moral judgments of the higher
materialist was notably decreased by the more favorable monetary retail promotion. These
results also cohere with findings from experiment 1 in showing that the total amount spent
matters in moral judgments of the materialist’s buying behavior.
Discussion
Experiment 3 showed that a more attractive retail promotion that directly lowered the total
amount spent by the higher materialist reduced the perceived shamefulness of her purchase and,
thereby, moderated the mediation effect of shamefulness on moral judgments. This finding
conforms to the penchant of Americans to champion individual choice and to seek advantageous
deals that provide associated non-monetary benefits. When American materialists do so in a
given purchase event, they are judged more positively in terms of its moral permissibility.
However, to establish more unequivocally the influence of the deal’s non-monetary benefits
on perceived shamefulness and moral judgments in a given purchase event, the total amount
spent should preferably be held constant. To do this we turned to one of the most common retail
promotions that is not merely monetary, but also a form of deal framing that evokes the concepts
18
of freedom and free choice. Thereby, it should especially resonate with Americans in their moral
judgments of buyers, though it has not been previously investigated. It is the widespread retail
promotion of “Buy One, Get One Free,” also known as a zero price promotion. Research has
shown that a free-product promotion (or zero price) is more salient than equivalent monetary
promotions (Chandran & Morwitz, 2006) and it induces positive affect when consumers are
engaging in related deal-getting behavior (Shampanier et al., 2007). Hence, in the next
experiment (4a) we study this phenomenon as it might also moderate the effect of perceived
shamefulness on moral judgments of a purchase by the higher materialist. In particular, because
a “Buy One, Get One Free” promotion and a “Buy Two, Get Both 50% Off” promotion are
monetarily identical, we test if the free-product offer mitigates perceived shamefulness and its
negative influence on moral judgments, over and above the effect of a two-product, 50%-Off
monetary savings as seen in experiment 3.
Experiment 4a: Effect of a free-product promotion on the moral judgment process
Participants and design
Participants were recruited from MTurk (n = 686; 39% females; Mage = 30.8 years, SD = 10.5,
all in the U.S.). They were randomly assigned to one cell of a 2 (buyer materialism: higher vs.
lower) x 2 (promotions: “Buy One, Get One Free” vs. “Buy Two, Get Both 50% Off”) between-
subjects design. Participants read a scenario involving a buyer named Christine who was
depicted either as a higher or lower materialist (as in experiments 2 and 3). The same measures
from experiment 3 were then implemented. We excluded 67 participants (9.8%) who failed the
attention check, though the results remained consistent when all were included.
Results
19
Effects of buyer materialism and promotions. Controlling for participants’ own levels of the
materialism value (F(1, 616) =19.53, p < .001, η2 = .03), there was a significant main effect of
buyer materialism (F(1, 616) = 42.39, p < .001, η2 = .06) as participants morally judged
Christine’s purchase more unforgivingly when she was described as a higher versus lower
materialist. Similarly, while controlling for participants’ materialism (F(1, 616) =24.29, p
< .001, η2 = .04), participants perceived Christine’s action as more shameful in the higher
materialist condition (F(1, 616) = 153.76, p < .001, η2 = .20). The estimated marginal means of
perceived shamefulness after controlling for participants’ materialism were Mhigher buyer materialism =
3.21 versus Mlower buyer materialism = 1.82.
The promotions factor had a significant main effect on perceived shamefulness of the buying
event (1= free, 0 = both 50% off; F(1, 614) = 11.23, p = .001, η2 = .02), and on moral judgments
(F(1, 614) = 162.23, p < .001, η2 = .21). There was also a significant interaction between
promotions and buyer materialism on perceived shamefulness (F(1, 614) = 17.14, p <.001, η2
=.03), controlling for participant materialism (F(1, 614) = 23.90, p <.001, η2 =.04). Most
informatively, a post-hoc analysis showed that a free-product promotion (versus a monetarily-
equivalent promotion) reduced the perceived shamefulness of the higher materialist’s purchase
(F(1, 614) = 26.00, p <.001, η2 =.04), despite the two promotions offering identical savings (i.e.
the same total amount spent). This promotions manipulation, however, had no effect on the
perceived shamefulness of the lower materialist’s purchase (F(1, 614) = .34, p = NS).
Moderated mediation analysis. We performed the bootstrapping technique to test whether the
promotions factor moderated the mediation effect of shamefulness (model 8 in Hayes, 2013,
10,000 bootstrapping samples), using participant materialism as a covariate. The index of
moderated mediation was significant at .81 (95% CI [.42, 1.22]). This index value revealed that
20
the mediation paths from buyer materialism to perceived shamefulness were significantly
different between the free-product promotion and the monetarily-equivalent promotion. For
illustration, Figure 3 depicts the mediation model separately for each promotion. When the deal
used a strictly monetary framing (“Both 50% Off” condition), the indirect effect of shamefulness
was –1.52 (95% CI [–1.96 to –1.14]). However, when the deal used a free-product framing, the
indirect effect of shamefulness was half as much: –.82 (95% CI [–1.17 to –.53]). Thus, the
mediation effect of perceived shamefulness in the moral judgment process involving a higher
materialist’s purchase was significantly and sizably reduced by a free-product promotion, as
compared to a monetarily-equivalent promotion.
<INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE>
Discussion
In experiment 4a we showed that a free-product promotion (i.e., a zero-price offer) further
reduced the negativity of moral judgments of the higher materialist’s buying behavior. Recall
that in experiment 3 the monetary-savings promotion of “Buy Two, Get Both 50% Off”
improved moral judgments because it was a comparatively better deal (less total amount spent)
than the monetary-savings promotion of “Buy One, Get One 25% Off.” However, that
advantage was superseded in experiment 4a by a monetarily-equivalent free-product offer.
Shampanier et al. (2007) have argued that the zero price of a free-product offer seems to
provide additional perceived value beyond the monetary savings, which mirrors the claims about
non-monetary benefits accruing to smart shoppers. Alternatively, it is possible that, due to
computational difficulty in translating the “Buy Two, Get Both 50% Off” deal into an accurate
and tangible monetary value, participants may be assessing that monetary promotion, which is
based on a percentage discount, to be offering fewer savings than a monetarily-equivalent free-
21
product offering. Therefore, we designed experiment 4b to test this potential competing
explanation by not only matching the total amount spent across the promotional deals, but also
making it salient and unambiguous.
Experiment 4b: Effect of equating the salience of total amount spent
In this experiment we test whether the free-product promotion effect still holds when the total
amount spent is conspicuous. The total amount spent should not impact the moral judgment
process if it is already factored into that judgment, as apparently occurred in experiment 4a.
However, if, as we have suggested, U. S. participants have a relatively automatic tendency to
overvalue a promotion with the culturally- and metaphorically-loaded word of “free,” as
compared to a strictly monetarily-equivalent deal, then making the total amount spent more
prominent should reduce or erase the previously observed free-product effect.
Given the similar moderated-mediation findings from experiments 3 and 4a, in which it was
the higher (versus lower) materialist’s behavior that was judged less morally correct due to
aspects of retail promotions, we simplified experiment 4b by focusing only on a higher
materialist scenario within a between-subjects design of retail promotions (a free-product
promotion versus a monetarily-equivalent promotion). To make the total amount spent salient
across both conditions we included a sentence at the end of the purchase scenario stating that
“She spent a total of $59.95 on her purchases, given that both watches were at a 50% discount”
(or “given that the second watch was free”).
Participants and design
Participants were recruited from MTurk (n = 336; 51% females; Mage = 37.48 years, SD =
12.45; all in the U.S.). The same measures from experiment 4a were implemented. We excluded
22
64 participants (19%) who failed the attention check. Results remained consistent when all were
included.
Results
Controlling for participants’ materialism, the main effect for promotions on perceived
shamefulness when total amount spent was salient was not significant, F(1, 270) < 1, p = .37.
The promotions factor also did not influence moral judgments (F(1, 270) < 1, p = .37). In other
words, when the total amount spent was matched between the two deals and also made
conspicuous and clear-cut, participants no longer perceived the higher materialist’s purchase
behavior within the free-product framing condition as less shameful, or as more morally correct.
Comparing the means of perceived shamefulness across experiments 4a and 4b (see Figure
4), we note that the shamefulness mediation is attenuated by the change to the free-product
promotion condition in which the total amount spent is made salient (4b). Alternatively,
perceived shamefulness and moral judgments regarding the “Both 50% Off” condition were
comparable between experiments 4a and 4b. This suggests that participants in experiment 4a
were neither experiencing difficulty in computing the monetary value of the deal, nor being less
responsive to a percentage-based discount. However, participants viewed the buyer’s behavior
under a free-product promotion more shameful after total amount spent was made prominent
(experiment 4b, see Figure 4). As a result, they morally judged the buyer’s action more harshly.
This overall data pattern intimates that participants in experiment 4a did appraise the free-
product promotion for more than its monetary savings and, relevantly, altered their moral
judgment process.
<INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE>
Discussion
23
Experiment 4b demonstrates again that total amount spent is important to moral judgments of
a materialist buyer, but the effect can be subdued or concealed (experiment 4a) by a deal-framing
approach such as “Buy One, Get One Free,” which has rich meanings that add value while
apparently diverting recognition of the total amount spent. To enhance theoretical and
substantive knowledge, we now turn to a different type of retail promotion that might also
moderate moral judgments of the higher materialist. One of the fastest growing is the trade-in-
for-charity (TIFC) promotion. In this instance, the consumer brings in a used product (which is
then donated to a charity) in exchange for a discount on an immediate new replacement product
(e.g., a 2011 offer by La-Z-Boy Furniture Galleries) or a credit toward a future purchase of a
replacement (e.g., a 2017 offer by eBags, which sells luggage, handbags, backpacks, etc.). Our
expectation was that the altruism inherent to the TIFC promotion exhibits extra effort and self-
sacrifice (implicating a non-monetary motive of virtuousness) that runs contrary to the solely
self-indulgent purchases explored in our prior experiments. If so, then the moral judgments and
perceived shamefulness of the higher materialist who is taking part in a TIFC promotion should
be less severe as compared to a strictly and equivalent monetary promotion.
Experiment 5: Effect of a charity-supporting promotion on the moral judgment process
Experiment 5 employs a sample of participants from an online panel different from MTurk in
order to augment the robustness of prior findings. It also integrates a current and growing retail
trend (the TIFC promotion) as well as visual depictions in the experimental materials to heighten
the realism of the purchase scenario (per advice by Morales, Amir, & Leonard, 2017).
Participants and design
We recruited 109 participants from a U.S.-based online consumer panel (58% females; Mage =
41.4 years, SD = 14.7). Participants read a scenario about a higher materialist named Alexa who
24
purchases a new handbag based on a promotional offer from her favorite retailer (see Appendix
F). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two promotional conditions: a “Donate and
Save” charity promotion [i.e., TIFC] versus a standard “Shop and Save” discount promotion
similar to those used in our prior studies. Both promotions were constituted by a “20% Off” deal
on a regular-price item. The same measures of moral judgment and shamefulness from
experiment 3 were then implemented.
Results
As expected, participants viewed the materialist’s behavior as more morally correct in the
charity promotion condition than in the standard discount promotion: Mcharity promotion = 2.41 versus
Mstandard discount promotion = 1.13, F(1, 107) = 7.50, p < .01, η2 = .06. Participants also viewed the
buyer’s behavior in the TIFC condition as less shameful, Mcharity promotion = 2.86 versus Mstandard discount
promotion = 3.91, F(1, 107) = 12.12, p < .001, η2 = .10.
Discussion
Experiment 5 shows that a retail promotion that saves the materialist money while also
supporting a charity can mitigate negative moral sentiments about the purchase, as compared to a
discount promotion of the same magnitude. Such TIFC and other charity-oriented promotions
are used regularly by millions of American consumers, many of whom, based on prior research,
fit a moderate to higher materialist’s profile.
Retail promotions with a philanthropic element can be construed according to Sherry’s
(1983) framework as a gift to the local or global community. As such, it would be logical to
expect that in a circumstance when the higher materialist acquires a product as a gift for another
person whom they personally know, moral judgments of that purchase should be similarly
upgraded. However, gifts need not be exclusively for someone else. A type of self-care or self-
25
compassion emerges in the concept of self-gifts (Mick, 1996). Among the most common is the
reward of self-gift when consumers engage in a buying act of self-indulgence that is earned or
deserved through effort and achievement in various spheres of life (Mick & Faure, 1998). Worth
noting, this self-gifting rationale complements aspects of the supportive orientation toward
materialism in which acquisition is generally viewed as an endowment for self-sufficiency and
demanding work. Since a self-gift reward is, nonetheless, still a matter of decisive self-
indulgence via personal purchasing intention, an intriguing research question ensues: When the
higher materialist buys a product as a self-gift reward, is the moral judgment and perceived
shamefulness of that action closer to a gifting purchase intended altruistically for someone else
or is it closer to a non-gifting, self-oriented purchase as incorporated in the scenarios from our
prior studies? If the self-gift results are closer to those of a gift intended for someone else, the
findings would indicate that the moderation of the moral judgments of the higher materialist can
be facilitated not only by retail promotions, but also by certain private motivations and life
situations that resonate as socio-cultural norms which the judges of the purchase behavior share
with the buyer.
Experiment 6: Effect of gift intentions (for other or for self) on the moral judgment process
Participants and measures
We recruited participants from MTurk (n= 399, 51% females; Mage = 36.6 years, SD = 11.6,
all in the U.S.) to read a scenario involving a materialistic buyer named Susan who is purchasing
a new pair of jeans (see Appendix G). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three
conditions: Susan purchasing for a friend (gift for other), for herself as a self-reward (self-gift),
or for herself as a non-gift (control). Hence, the two gifting scenarios were contrasted with a
control scenario involving the same buying behavior but without any mention of a gifting
26
intention. The three conditions were identical in total amount spent. The same measures of
moral judgment and perceived shamefulness from experiment 3 were implemented.
Results
We dummy coded the three conditions (1= self-gift, 0 = control, –1 = gift for other) and
analyzed moral judgments and perceived shamefulness in ANOVA. The main effect of gift
intentions (self-gift or gift for other versus control) on moral judgments was significant (F(1,
396) = 29.06, p < .001, η2 = .13). The main effect of gift intentions on perceived shamefulness
was also significant (F(1, 396) = 14.59, p < .001, η2 = .07).
Planned contrasts revealed that the materialist’s purchase of gift for other was judged as
more morally correct than the control (Mgift for other = 2.19 versus Mcontrol = –.09, F(1, 396) = 58.06,
p < .001, η2 = .13), and less shameful (Mgift for other = 3.19 vs. Mcontrol = 4.30, F(1, 396) = 25.79, p
< .001, η2 = .06).
Intriguingly, the materialist’s purchase of a self-gift was also judged as more morally correct
than the control (Mself-gift = 1.14 versus Mcontrol = –.09, F(1, 396) = 16.62, p < .001, η2 = .04), and
less shameful (Mself-gift = 3.39 vs. Mcontrol = 4.30, F(1, 396) = 17.27, p < .001, η2 = .04).
Additionally, the perceptions of shamefulness in regard to the materialist’s self-gift purchase
were not statistically different from those in the materialist’s purchase of a gift for other (F(1,
396) = .82, p = NS).
Discussion
Experiment 6 reveals that there can be certain types of purchase intentions—in this case,
gifting intentions—that slip the materialist off the hooks of higher perceived shamefulness and
more negative moral judgments. While it is readily explicable that a purchase intended as a gift
for someone else is an act of kindness that is antithetical to stereotypes of materialists as selfish
27
individuals—and thereby elevates moral judgments of that particular purchase by a materialist—
it is less intuitive that a reward self-gift, which bespeaks of highly personal indulgence, can also
quell negative moral judgments. Given the range of marketing messages (advertising,
packaging, etc.) that tap into self-gifting motives and purchase justifications (Mick, 1996), the
self-gift phenomenon incorporated into experiment 6 may be another wide-scale, culturally-
licensed modulator of moral judgments of materialists in America.
General discussion
Consumer researchers have theorized materialism and studied it empirically for a number of
years, but not in terms of its morality, particularly in specific buying situations. In U. S. society
there are long-standing cross-currents as to the approval or disapproval of materialists’ buying
behavior that has yet to be mutually considered and disambiguated. Up to now there has been
little insight on moral judgments of the materialistic buyer, including what galvanizes and
moderates the process.
Our first contribution via experiment 1 is in showing that total amount spent acutely
influences moral judgments of the materialist’s purchase behavior, as compared to the price paid
per item or the quantity of items acquired. Thereby, our subsequent experiments kept this insight
front stage by either manipulating total amount spent or holding it constant in order to examine
other factors that could affect these moral judgments.
Our second contribution, building off moral psychology, is in demonstrating that moral
judgments of a materialist’s purchases are mediated by the moral emotion of shamefulness, as
experiments 2, 3, and 4a consistently revealed. A higher materialist’s purchases were
particularly considered more shameful and less morally correct. This finding not only accords
with the public’s unease over materialism in U.S. society (Harwood Group, 1995), but also with
28
adverse generalizations about materialists (Van Boven et al., 2010), as these together carry
through to purchase events.
Our third, and arguably most fruitful contribution, is in showing that perceived shamefulness
on the route to influencing moral judgments of the higher materialist’s buying behavior is
diminished by certain retail promotions and purchase intentions. Experiments 3, 4a, 5, and 6
demonstrate respectively that a more favorable monetary promotion (lower amount spent), a deal
framing tactic involving a “free” product offer (with equivalent total amount spent), a trade-in-
for-charity promotion (with equivalent total amount spent), and a gift-intention for someone else
or for self (with equivalent total amount spent) all lead to lower perceived shamefulness and,
thereby, a less harsh moral judgment of the higher materialist’s buying behavior. The three of
these four studies in which total amount spent was identical across conditions strongly suggest
that the reduction of moral criticism, at least in part, can be accounted for in those purchase
events by non-monetary benefits accruing to the materialistic buyer.
Collectively then, our findings increase theoretical and substantive understanding of
Americans living with their paradoxical perspectives on materialism (as a corrupting force versus
an entitled lifestyle). Specifically, they toggle between the opposite ethical poles based on
characteristics of the buyer (level of individual materialism) as well as what retailers strategize
through promotions and what consumers bring as purposes for their purchases. Together, these
insights provide several vistas for future research.
Our focus was American-based, as were our samples. Whether different results would appear
in an Eastern culture or in a society less economically developed than the U. S. remains to be
investigated.
29
In addition, we did not integrate the buyer’s financial health into the purchase scenarios
studied. Moral judgments about a materialist’s purchase may depend on whether he or she can
readily afford the new item(s) or not. Less affordability may make the judgments more
negatively severe. This rationale is consistent with Olson et al.’s (2016) finding that purchasing
organic food or renting an environmentally friendly car was judged less moral if the buyer was
receiving government assistance, as compared to being an income earner. How this issue plays
out in moral judgments of a materialistic buyer remains to be seen.
We also did not consider social networks. The materialist’s purchase might be judged more
approvingly if it is known that the buyer has friends or family members who themselves already
possess the kind or the quantity of the item(s) that the materialist is newly buying. Ownership
factors in the context of peers are likely to provide normative comparisons and guidance on
moral acceptability that could also moderate observers’ moral judgments of the buyer.
More also remains to be understood about zero-price, free-product offers. One interesting
direction based on our work would be to determine whether the added value of the “free” theme
is scalable and, if so, up to what point. That is, some retailers offer two, three, or even more free
items of equal or lesser value when an initial item is bought at regular price. Future research
could examine whether the perceived shamefulness and the moral acceptability of the
materialist’s purchase are respectively lower and higher as the number of free items in a retail
offer rises. At some point, though, the number of free items may seem exorbitant and the buyer
may seem piggish, and then shamefulness and moral acceptability could level off and reverse
course.
Experiment 6 centered on self-gifts as rewards, but there are other types that may also
mitigate shamefulness and moral judgments of higher materialists’ purchases. One is the
30
therapeutic self-gift and another is the holiday self-gift (Mick, 1996). The former is constituted
by the consumer acquiring something as a distinct indulgence to cheer up in the context of
illness, disappointment, bad mood, and so forth. The latter occurs according to the calendar, e.g.,
on one’s birthday or at a gift-giving season such as Christmas. It is untested as yet whether these
other culturally-sanctioned self-gifts are also judged as more morally-acceptable purchases by
materialists as compared to their purchase indulgences occurring with less specialized and
premeditated marking in everyday life.
Finally, our project hinted at an even more complex dialectical nature of materialism and its
morality in America. Bauer et al. (2012) and Kim (2013) have found negative consequences
when situational information evoked in their subjects a materialistic mentality, including less
self-control, less positive moods, and lower life satisfaction. In subtle contrast, we found that
observers were more morally tolerant of a higher materialist’s buying behavior when retail
promotions (acting as situational information) provided savings in total amount spent or were
cast as a “free” product deal. It is thus conceivable that the materialist in some purchase contexts
may endure detrimental psychological effects such as less restraint and more anxiety (per Bauer
et al., 2012 and Kim, 2013), while simultaneously feeling (or being judged) that he or she is
acting justifiably and in a morally satisfactory manner, as our findings suggest. Were this to be
true, it would offer novel evidence and refined understanding of another contradiction lurking in
American materialism, wherein marketing environments and stimuli can foment adverse
outcomes at the same time the accompanying purchase behavior is experienced or evaluated as
legitimately defensible, if not praiseworthy. Deciphering this enigma could be significant for
public policies and consumer welfare.
31
References
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming
and automaticity research. Handbook of research methods in social and personality
psychology. (pp. 253-285). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Bazerman, M. H. & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Ethical breakdowns. Harvard Business Review,
89 (4), April.
Bauer, M. A., Wilkie, J. E. B., Kim, J. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2012). Cuing consumerism:
Situational materialism undermines personal and social well-being. Psychological
Science, 23, 517-523.
Belk, R. W. (1983). Worldly possessions: Issues and criticisms. In R. Bagozzi & A. Tybout
(Eds.), Advances in consumer research 10 (pp. 514-519). Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Bicen, P. & Madhavaram, S. (2013). Research on smart shopper feelings: An extension. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21, 221-234.
Burroughs, J. E. & Rindfleisch, A. (1997). Materialism as a coping mechanism: An inquiry into
family disruption. In M. Brucks & D. MacInnis (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research
Vol. 24 (pp. 89-97), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
Campbell, C. (1998). Consuming goods and the good of consuming. In D. A. Crocker & T.
Linden (Eds), Ethics of consumption: The good life, justice, and global stewardship (pp.
139-154). New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield.
Chandran, S. & Morwitz, V. G. (2006). The price of “free”‐dom: Consumer sensitivity to
promotions with negative contextual influences. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 384–
392.
32
Chaplin, L. N. & John, D. R. (2007). Growing up in a material world: Age differences in
materialism in children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 480-493.
Christensen, J. F. & Gomila, A. (2012). Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of decision–
making: A principled review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 1249–1264.
Cohen, D. (2003). The American national conversation about (everything but) shame. Social
Research, 70, 1075-1108.
Cross, G. S. (1993). Time and money: The making of consumer culture. London: Routledge.
Cross, G. S. (2000). An all–consuming century: Why commercialism won in modern America.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). Materialism and the evolution of consciousness. In T. Kasser & A.
D. Kanner (Eds.), Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a
materialistic world (pp. 91–106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
De Bock, T., Pandelaere, M., & Van Kenhove, P. (2013). When colors backfire: The impact of
color cues on moral judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 341-348.
Dizik, A. (2017). Children’s Closets Get Luxury Makeovers. The Wall Street Journal, April 20
(accessed Nov 15, 2017 at https://www.wsj.com/articles/childrens-closets-get-luxury-
makeovers-1492696699).
Duh, H. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of materialism: An integrated theoretical
framework. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 7, 20–35.
Eisenberg, L. (2013). Shoptimism: Why the American consumer will keep on buying no matter
what. New York, NY: Free Press.
Fournier, S. & Richins, M. L. (1991). Some theoretical and popular notions concerning
materialism. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 403-414.
33
Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, G. J., Peracchio, L. A., & Bamossy, G. (2003). Understanding
materialism among youth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 278-288.
Greene, J. D. & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517–523.
Grewal, D., Ailawadi, K. L., Gauri, D., Hall, K., Kopalle, P., & Robertson, J. R. (2011).
Innovations in retail pricing and promotions. Journal of Retailing, 87, S43–S52.
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.),
Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haidt, J. & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds), Handbook
of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 797–832). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hudders, L. & Pandelaere, M. (2012). The silver lining of materialism: The impact of luxury
consumption on subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 411-437.
Harwood Group (1995). Yearning for balance: Views of Americans on consumption,
materialism, and the environment. Prepared for the Merck Family Fund.
http://enb.iisd.org/consume/harwood.html, accessed October 1, 2017.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis:
A Regression-based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Huff, C. & Tingley, D. (2015). Who are these people? Evaluating the demographic
characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research and
Politics, 2, 1-12.
Kasser, T. (2002). The higher price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kasser, T. & Ahuvia, A. C. (2002). Materialism values and well-being in business students.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 137-146.
34
Kasser, T. & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the
relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon
(Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Toward a positive psychology of human striving (pp.
116-131), Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Kim, H. (2013). Situational materialism: How entering lotteries may undermine self–control.
Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 759–72.
Kim, J-E. & Johnson, K. K. P. (2014). Shame or pride?: The moderating role of self-
construal on moral judgments concerning fashion counterfeits. European Journal of
Marketing, 48(7/8), 1431-1450.
Kirmani, A. (2015). Marketplace morality. ACR presidential address [accessed June 10, 2016 at
http://www.acrwebsite.org/web/acr-content/1006/2015-presidential-address.aspx].
Kitayama, S., Conway, L. G., Pietromonaco, P. R., Park, H. & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Ethos of
independence across regions of the United States: The production-adoption model of
cultural change. American Psychologist, 65(6), 559-574.
Kohls, L. R. (1984). The values Americans live by. The Washington International Center.
[accessed October 15, 2017
https://careercenter.lehigh.edu/sites/careercenter.lehigh.edu/files/AmericanValues.pdf].
Markus, H. R. & Schwartz, B. (2010). Does choice mean freedom and well-being? Journal of
Consumer Research, 37 (2), 344-355.
Mick, D. G. (1996). Self-Gifts. In C. Otnes & R. Beltramini (Eds.), Gift-Giving: An
Interdisciplinary Anthology (pp. 99-120), Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green
University Popular Press,
35
Mick, D. G. & Faure, C. (1998). Consumer self-sifts in achievement contexts: The role of
outcomes, attributions, emotions, and deservingness. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 15 (July), 293-307.
Morales, A., Amir, O., & Leonard, L. (2017). Keeping it real in experimental research—
Understanding when, where, and how to enhance realism and measure consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (2), 465–476.
Olson, J., McFerran, B., Morales, A., & Dahl, D. (2016). Wealth and welfare: Divergent moral
reactions to ethical consumer choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 879-896.
Pieters, R. (2013). Bidirectional dynamics of materialism and loneliness: Not just a vicious
cycle. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 615-631.
Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties and development of a
short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 209–219.
Richins, M. L. & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303–316.
Rick, S., Pereira, B., & Burson, K. (2014), “The benefits of retail therapy: Making purchase
decisions reduces residual sadness,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (3), 373-380.
Rindfleisch, A. & Burroughs, J. E. (2004). Terrifying thoughts, terrible materialism?
Contemplations on a terror management account of materialism and consumer behavior.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 219–224.
Roberts, J. A., Tanner, J. Jr., & Manolis, C. (2005). Materialism and the family structure-stress
relation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (2), 183-190.
36
Schindler, R. M. (1989). The excitement of getting a bargain: Some hypotheses concerning the
origins and effects of smart-shopper feelings. In T. Srull (Ed.), Advances in consumer
research 16 (pp. 447-452). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Schindler, R. M. (1998). Consequences of perceiving oneself as responsible for obtaining a
discount: Evidence for smart-shopper feelings. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 371-
392.
Schudson, M. (1991). Delectable materialism: Were the critics of consumer culture wrong all
along? The American Prospect, 2, 26–35.
Scitovsky, T. (1992). The joyless economy: The psychology of human satisfaction (revised ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shampanier, K., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2007). Zero as a special price: The true value of free
products. Marketing Science, 26, 742–757.
Sherry, J. F. Jr. (1983). Gift-giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research, 10(2), 157-168.
Shrum, L., Lowrey, T. M., Pandelaere, M., Ruvio, A. A., Gentina, E., Furchheim, P., Herbert,
M., Hudders, L., Lens, I., Mandel, N., Nairn, A., Samper, A., Soscia, I., & Steinfield, L.
(2014). Materialism: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Marketing
Management, 30 (17-18), 1858-1881.
Shi, D. E. (1986). In search of the simple life. Layton, Utah: Gibbs M. Smith, Incorporated.
Snyder, M. (2013). Black Friday: A shameful orgy of materialism for a morally bankrupt nation.
[accessed January 1, 2016 at http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/black-friday-
a-shameful-orgy-of-materialism-for-a-morally-bankrupt-nation].
37
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.
Twitchell, J.B. (1999). Two Cheers for Materialism. The Wilson Quarterly, 23 (2), 16–26.
Uhlmann, E. L. & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2014). The implicit legacy of American protestantism.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(6), 992-1006.
Uhlmann, E. L., Poehlman, T. A., Tannenbaum, D., & Bargh, J. A. (2011). Implicit puritanism in
American moral cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 312-320.
Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2008). The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral
hypocrite. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1334-1338.
Van Boven, L., Campbell, M. C., & Gilovich, T. (2010). Stigmatizing materialism: On
stereotypes and impressions of materialistic and experiential pursuits. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 551-563.
Watson, D. C. (2015). Self-conscious emotions and materialism. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 35, 190-210.
Watson, J. J. (2003). The relationship of materialism to spending tendencies, saving, and debt.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 723-739.
Wheatley, T. & Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe.
Psychological Science, 16, 780–784.
Wilk, R. (2001). Consuming morality. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1, 245–280.
Wuthnow, R. (2009). American mythos: Why our best efforts to be a better nation fall short.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr., J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206.
38
Figure 1: Effects of Item Price and Quantity on Moral Judgment, Experiment 1
Note: Participants recorded their moral judgment of the purchase using a sliding scale (–5 to 5) of three items: “Not morally right” to “Morally right”; “Unjust” to “Just”; and “Unfair” to “Fair”. Responses were averaged and higher scores corresponded to a more morally right judgment.
Figure 2: Effects of Buyer Materialism and Deal Discount on Shamefulness, Experiment 3
39
Figure 3: Moderated Mediation Model of Buyer Materialism on Moral Judgment, Experiment 4a
Note: **p<.01; nsp>.10
40
Figure 4: Perceived Shamefulness of the Purchase Made by a Higher Materialistic Buyer, by Promotions and Salience of Total Amount Spent, Experiments 4a and 4b
Methodological Details (Appendices)
APPENDIX A
Buying Scenario in Experiment 1
Scott is a person who attaches a high degree of importance to the things that he buys and owns. In fact, products and possessions are at the center of his daily life. This includes his car, clothing, household items, new technologies, sports equipment, and so forth.
In Scott’s eyes, owning things is essential to happiness in life. And the things that he owns, he believes, show how successful he is. In terms of clothing, for example, Scott currently owns 23 pairs of jeans of different styles, and they are all well-known brands. Recently, Scott was at a local mall and passing by a store that sells jeans. He sees a variety of jeans stacked on a display table. He walks in, looks over the jeans, and notes the sign that says “$29.95 each.” NOT TRUE FOR ALL CONDITIONS Scott looks over the jeans more. He thinks about the jeans that he already owns back at home. Scott then picks out 1 [4] new pair[s] of jeans, which was priced at $29.95 [$129.95]. Yi – This is very confusing. I tried to fix it but not done or happy with it. PLEASE CLEAN UP.
41
APPENDIX B
Buying Scenario in Experiment 2
Higher Buyer Materialism condition
Christine is a person who attaches a high degree of importance to the things she buys and owns. In fact, products and possessions are at the center of her daily life. This includes her car, clothing, household items, jewelry, new technologies and so forth. In Christine’s eyes, owning things is essential to happiness in life. And the things she owns, she believes, show how successful she is. In terms of clothing, for example, Christine currently owns over 20 sweaters of different styles, fabrics, and colors.
Lower Buyer Materialism condition
Christine is a person who attaches a low degree of importance to the things she buys and owns. In fact, products and possessions are not at the center of her daily life. This includes her car, clothing, household items, jewelry, new technologies, and so forth. In Christine’s eyes, owning things is not essential to happiness in life. And the things she owns, she believes, do not show how successful she is. In terms of clothing, for example, Christine currently owns about 7 sweaters of different styles, fabrics, and colors.
Purchase Scenario
One evening Christine is passing by a clothing store and sees some attractive sweaters on a display table. She walks in, looks over the sweaters, and notes the sale sign which reads, "Buy One, Get Another at 25% Off!" She looks over the sweaters and thinks about the kinds of sweaters that she already owns, back home in her closet. Based on the promotional offering, she picks out two sweaters now.
42
Appendix C
Measurement Scales in Experiment 2
Moral Judgment Scale
Instructions: “Please give your beliefs to the behavior described in the scenario by moving the slider between each of the opposites that follow.”
1. Not morally right/Morally right2. Unjust/Just 3. Unfair/Fair
Shamefulness Scale (Strongly disagree = 1, Strongly agree = 7)
1. I really feel that Christine’s choice in the scenario was shameful2. Christine in the shopping scenario should feel ashamed3. I would feel embarrassed if I made the same choice as Christine in the scenario
Funnel debriefing questionnaire (open-ended comments)
What do you believe was the purpose of the study?
What do you think the researchers are trying to study?
Did you try to change your answer based on what you believe the researchers are studying? If so,
how would you answer the questions differently?
43
Appendix D
Principle Component Analysis and Rotated Factor Loadings
for Moral Judgment and Perceived Shamefulness, Experiment 2
Items Factor 1 Factor 2
Morally Right –.207 .892
Just –.275 .873
Fair –.346 .789
Shame1 .926 –.249
Shame2 .921 –.262
Shame3 .826 –.339
44
Appendix E
Buying Scenario in Experiment 3
Higher Buyer Materialism Condition
Christine is a person who attaches a high degree of importance to the things she buys and owns. In fact, products and possessions are at the center of her daily life. This includes her car, clothing, household items, jewelry, new technologies, sports equipment, and so forth. In Christine’s eyes, owning things is essential to happiness in life. And the things she owns, she believes, show how successful she is. As a result, Christine is convinced that other people judge her more or less positively according to what she owns. In terms of jewelry, for example, Christine currently owns 8 watches of different styles, and they are all well-known brands.
Lower Buyer Materialism Condition
Christine is a person who attaches a low degree of importance to the things she buys and owns. In fact, products and possessions are not at the center of her daily life. This includes her car, clothing, household items, jewelry, new technologies, sports equipment, and so forth. In Christine’s eyes, owning things is not essential to happiness in life. And the things she owns, she believes, do not show how successful she is. As a result, Christine is convinced that other people do not judge her more or less positively according to what she owns. In terms of jewelry, for example, Christine currently owns one watch, and it is not a well-known brand.
[The rest of the scenario continued as follows for both conditions]
Recently, Christine was at a local mall and passing by a store that sells jewelry and personal accessories. She sees a Sale Sign and some attractive watches on a display table. She walks in, looks over the watches, and notes the sign which says, “Buy One, Get One 25% Off” (“Buy Two, Get Both 50% Off”). Christine looks over the watches more. She thinks about what she already owns back at home. Christine then picks out 2 new watches from the display, each priced at $59.95.
45
Appendix F
Donation Promotion Scenario in Experiment 5
Alexa is a person who attaches a high degree of importance to the things she buys and owns. In fact, products and possessions are at the center of her daily life. This includes her car, clothing, household items, jewelry, new technologies and so forth. In Alexa’s eyes, owning things is essential to happiness in life. And the things she owns, she believes, show how successful she is. For example, Alexa currently owns over 30 handbags of different styles and colors.
[“Donate and Save” Promotion]
One morning, as Alexa is browsing on her computer through her promotional emails, she notices this sale from her favorite retailer.
Alexa browses through the selection of handbags online and thinks about the kinds of handbags that she already owns. That evening, she heads over to the retailer in the mall with one of her used handbags to donate, and she chooses then to purchase a new handbag.
[“Shop and Save” Promotion]
One morning, as Alexa is browsing on her computer through her promotional emails, she notices this sale from her favorite retailer.
Alexa browses through the selection of handbags online and thinks about the kinds of handbags that she already owns. That evening, she heads over to the retailer in the mall, and she chooses then to purchase a new handbag.
46
Appendix G
Gifting Intention Scenario in Experiment 6
Susan is a person who attaches a high degree of importance to the things she buys and owns. In fact, products and possessions are at the center of her daily life. This includes her car, clothing, household items, jewelry, new technologies and so forth. In Susan’s eyes, owning things is essential to happiness in life. And the things she owns, she believes, show how successful she is. In terms of clothing, for example, Susan currently owns at least 20 pairs of jeans of different styles, and they are all well-known brands.
[Self-gift]
Recently, Susan received a special recognition from her employer for “Most Promising Executive Under 30.” It was based on a major project that Susan led, and which took 6 months to complete and over 50 hours of effort every week. Susan felt proud of her accomplishment.
This last weekend while visiting a local shopping mall, Susan was passing by a store that
sells designer jeans. She saw a variety stacked on a display table, with each pair priced at $129.99. She walked in, looked over the jeans, and thought about the pairs and styles she already owned back at home. Susan thought to herself “I deserve a reward for my hard work and recognition.” So she selected and purchased a pair of new jeans.
[Gift for other]
Recently, Susan talked with a close friend named Julie, who was experiencing big challenges in her life, including a serious illness.
This last weekend while visiting a local shopping mall, Susan was passing by a store that sells designer jeans. She saw a variety stacked on a display table, with each pair priced at $129.99. She walked in, looked over the jeans. Susan thought about her friend Julie, and thought to herself “She could use something to pick her up and make her feel better.” So she selected and purchased a pair of new jeans as a gift for Julie, and she had it wrapped, with the gift receipt inside.
[Control/non-gift]
This last weekend Susan was visiting a local shopping mall, and she was passing by a store that sells designer jeans. She saw a variety stacked on a display table, with each pair priced at $129.99. She walked in, looked over the jeans, and thought about the pairs and styles she already owned back at home. Then she selected and purchased a pair of new jeans.
47
top related