548

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

ANDREW M. BAKER, GEORGE P. MOSCHIS, FON SIM ONG,

AND RA-PEE PATTANAPANYASAT

Materialism and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Stress

and Religiosity
Materialism has been a topic of interest to consumer researchers for
decades. This article explores the effect of materialism on individuals
life satisfaction using a large sample from Malaysia, a country with
cultural diversity within a collectivist mainstream culture. The results
suggest that the effects of materialism on life satisfaction could
be indirect, mediated by stress and moderated by religiosity. The
study helps to explain the mechanisms that account for the negative
relationship between materialism and life satisfaction reported in
previous studies conducted in many countries; it provides a blueprint
and directions for further research.

Materialism has emerged as a topic of great interest among scholars

across a broad range of disciplines, including social psychologists,
demographers, political scientists, and consumer researchers (Burroughs
and Rindfleisch 2002; Kilbourne, Grunhagen, and Foley 2005). In the
field of consumer behavior, materialism has been studied both as a dependent and as an independent variable. While early studies of consumer
socialization focused on the development of materialistic values by examining the influences of mass media, family, and peers (e.g., Churchill
and Moschis 1979; Mayer and Belk 1982), most studies during the past
two decades have investigated materialism as an independent variable.
The main impetus for this change in research orientation has been the
belief that materialism has adverse effects on a persons well-beingthe
persons subjective evaluation of his or her satisfaction with life (e.g.,
Belk 1985; Karabati and Cemalcilar 2010; Kashdan and Breen 2007).
In the United States and some countries in Europe and Asia, researchers find that materialism is negatively associated with life
Andrew M. Baker (abaker@mail.sdsu.edu) is an Assistant Professor at San Diego State
University. George P. Moschis (gmoschis@gsu.edu) is the Alfred Bernhardt Research Professor,
and Director of the Center for Mature Consumer Studies at Georgia State University. Fon Sim
Ong (fonsim.ong@taylors.edu.my) is Professor of Marketing, and Head of Marketing Department at
Taylors University. Fon Sim is also a Research Fellow at Graduate School of Business, Universiti
Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia. Ra-pee Pattanapanyasat (ra_pattana@yahoo.com) is a Ph.D. Candidate
at Mahidol University, Thailand.
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Fall 2013: 548563
DOI: 10.1111/joca.12013

Copyright 2013 by The American Council on Consumer Interests

FALL 2013

VOLUME 47, NUMBER 3

549

satisfaction (Dawson and Bamossy 1991; Kasser and Ryan 1996; Wong,
Rindfleisch, and Burroughs 2003). However, other researchers find that
materialism is positively correlated with well-being (e.g., Dawson and
Bamossy 1991; Ger and Belk 1996; Hudders and Pandelaere 2011). The
inconsistency in the findings on the relationship between materialism
and well-being across and within cultures led Burroughs and Rindfleisch
(2002, 349) to conclude, based on their review of the literature, that
the relationship between materialism and well-being is complex and
enigmatic.
To better understand the relationship between materialism and wellbeing, some consumer researchers have suggested the need to examine
possible effects of mediating, moderating, and third variables (e.g., Belk
1985; Richins and Dawson 1992; Wong, Rindfleisch, and Burroughs
2003). Furthermore, conflicting findings from past research do not conclusively show that differences in the relationship between materialism
and well-being are due to any particular type of culture, suggesting the
need to study this relationship in different cultural settings.
The purpose of the present research is to examine the effects
of materialism on well-being of Malaysian consumers. We do not
dismiss the possibility that the relationship between materialism and
life satisfaction is complex, possibly reverse, reciprocal or even a
manifestation of third variables. However, given the scarcity of theories
and data that could be used as bases for developing additional or
alternative premises, we adopt existing theoretical perspectives and
supportive research findings that suggest possible effects of materialism
on well-being. Specifically, we view stress as a mechanism that links
materialism to life (dis)satisfaction. Next, we examine the moderating
effects of religiositywhose effects can vary across individuals within
a countryon the direct and indirect effects of materialism on life
satisfaction. Using data from Malaysia, a collectivistic country of diverse
cultures (e.g., Fontaine and Richardson 2003; Idris 2008), the possible
effects of country-related factors are largely controlled, a major problem
in inferring cultural differences from cross-country comparisons (e.g.,
Diamantopoulos, Reynolds, and Simitras 2006; Schwarz 2003; Wong,
Rindfleisch, and Burroughs 2003).
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
The most common assertion regarding the relationship between
materialism and well-being views materialism as a source of unhappiness.
Early studies that support the negative relationship between materialism

550

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

and life satisfaction can be traced back to the studies of Belk (1984, 1985)
and Dawson (1988). The acquisition of material objects is associated
with high levels of depression (Kasser and Ryan 1993), which affects a
persons well-being. On the basis of these findings, materialism could be
regarded as part of the dark side of consumer behavior (Burroughs and
Rindfleisch 2002).
Although the assertion that material possessions are a source of
unhappiness is widely accepted, our review of the literature found no
studies that conclusively show materialism to have negative effects on
ones well-being. Although evidence based on samples of US consumers
shows a negative relationship between materialism and well-being (for
a review of such studies, see Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002), studies
in other parts of the world do not reach the same conclusion and often
suggest instead that material possessions enhance an individuals life
satisfaction (e.g., Ger and Belk 1996; Miller and Thomas 2009; Polak
and McCullough 2006). For example, studies report that individuals
who aspire to financial success have higher levels of depression,
behavioral disorders, and lower levels of well-being in the United States
(Dawson and Bamossy 1991; Kasser and Ryan 1996; Tatzel 2002),
Germany (Schmuck, Kasser, and Ryan 2000) and Russia (Ryan et al.
1999). However, these negative relationships do not hold for the Dutch
(Dawson and Bamossy 1991) or Dutch-speaking Belgians (Hudders and
Pandelaere 2011), or for Romanians and Turks who regard materialism
as empowering and value enhancing (Ger and Belk 1996). Thus,
the available literature points to an inconclusive relationship between
materialism and life satisfaction and to less than satisfactory explanations
of the nature (positive or negative) of the emerged relationships.
While materialism is seen as highly self-centered in almost all cultures
(Eastman et al. 1997; Ger and Belk 1996; Schwartz 1996; Wong,
Rindfleisch, and Burroughs 2003), it is believed to be less opposed
to Western cultures that are more individualistic and more opposed to
Eastern cultures that have collective-oriented values (e.g., Burroughs and
Rindfleisch 2002; Schwartz 1992). Thus, based on a cultural perspective,
the negative effects of materialism on ones well-being are moderated
by culture, with materialism viewed as a greater cause of unhappiness
in collectivistic than in individualistic cultures. That is, to the extent
that culture does not value or condemn the ownership of material
goods, such possessions are not likely to make people happy. The
negative relationship between materialism and life satisfaction expected
in the collectivistic countries of Asia is less than adequately established;
however, there have been a few studies of collectivistic countries of Asia

FALL 2013

VOLUME 47, NUMBER 3

551

on this topic. For example, a negative relationship between materialism

and life satisfaction is found among Singaporeans (Keng et al. 2000) and
Chinese (Wei and Talpade 2010).
This study explores the relationship between materialism and wellbeing observed in Malaysia. Literature that supports the collectivist
nature of the Malaysian culture can be found in the work of Hofstede
(1991) who described Malaysia as relatively high in collectivism. This
view is well supported by Abdullahs (1996) research and suggests the
following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: There is a negative association between materialism and life
satisfaction among Malaysian consumers.

The Mediating Effects of Stress

Although most studies tend to assume the presence of a direct
relationship between materialism and well-being, there is little theory
to support the notion that materialism has adverse direct effects on wellbeing. An alternative explanation for the observed negative association
between the variables has been offered; it views stress as a mediator in
the relationship between materialism and well-being. This perspective
suggests that materialism is associated with greater psychological stress,
which adversely affects well-being. The pursuit of material possessions
as a goal in life is not free of stress, as individuals engage in endless
upward social comparisons, thinking that they never have enough and
constantly trying to acquire more possessions and wealth to keep up
with the Joneses (e.g., Myers 1992). Findings presented by Burroughs
and Rindfleisch (2002) are in line with this widely accepted perspective;
they suggest that stress stems from strong needs for material possessions
and leads to the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: Stress mediates the negative effects of materialism on life satisfaction.

The Moderating Effects of Religiosity

Some researchers argue that differences in materialistic values are due
to different religious beliefs and religious commitment, with religions in
most Asian countries devaluing the importance of material possessions
(e.g., Wong, Rindfleisch, and Burroughs 2003). Previous research suggests that the mediating effects of stress may be moderated by religious
beliefs. Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) present a conflicting-values

552

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

perspective on the relationship between materialism and well-being.

Specifically, these authors show that those individuals who hold strong
religious values as well as materialistic values tend to experience more
stress, as such values are in conflict. This conflicting-values perspective suggests that effects of materialism are indirect, having the greatest
impact on consumers who are the most religious. Because material possessions are condemned by most religions of the world, religious people
who hold strong materialistic values experience higher levels of stress,
which has been found to adversely affect their well-being (Burroughs
and Rindfleisch 2002). However, the findings that support the notion of
stress as a mediator of the relationship between materialism and wellbeing come from a study that was conducted in the United States, an
individualistic society (Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002). Do the relationships hold equally in collectivist countries and across people with
different levels of religious orientation such as in Malaysia?
Because it is widely known that stress has a negative effect on the
persons well-being (e.g., Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Cohen 1988),
we expect stress to have a mediating effect on the relationship between
materialism and life satisfaction and that the effect should be stronger
among the most religious individuals, as suggested by previous research
(Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002).
Hypothesis 3: The mediating effect of stress on the relationship between materialism and life satisfaction is greater among those who hold stronger religious
orientations compared to those who hold weaker religious orientations.

STUDY
Sample
The study involved a large-scale survey using face-to-face interviews
with a total of 1,025 respondents; the analyzed sample retained 1,003
respondents after excluding twenty-two responses because of excessive
missingness. Respondents ranged from 20 to 94 years old in four urban
areas in Malaysia: Penang in the north, Petaling Jaya and Kuala Lumpur
in the central region, and Johor Baru in the south. These four urban areas
also represent the most developed cities in Malaysia. Non-probability
quota sampling was adopted to ensure that the three major ethnic groups
(Malays, Chinese, and Indians) were adequately represented. These
three ethnic groups also reflect the three major religious groups in the
country, with Islam practiced by all Malays, and Buddhism and Hinduism
followed by the vast majority of Chinese and Indians, respectively. A
training session was conducted for the interviewers and house-to-house

FALL 2013

553

VOLUME 47, NUMBER 3

TABLE 1
Respondent Summary
Sample Characteristic

% of Respondents

Gender
Male
Female
Age
2035
3661
6292
Ethnicity
Malay
Chinese
Indian
State
Johor Baru
Penang
Kuala Lumpur
Petaling Jaya
HH income
<RM 15,000
RM 15,00129,999
RM 30,00044,999
>RM 45,000
Employment status
Full-time
Part-time
Unemployed/retired
Education
Some or no high school
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
Total responses analyzed

48.6%
51.4%
25.1%
50.0%
24.9%
54.0%
30.0%
16.0%
22.2%
14.5%
17.3%
46.0%
49.2%
32.9%
12.8%
5.2%
47.2%
9.6%
42.5%
43.8%
37.6%
7.2%
11.4%
n = 1003

interviews were conducted in the appropriate language, mainly English,

Malay (which is the national language), and Chinese.
The mean age of respondents was 48.07 years old (SD = 16.58). The
percentage of male and female respondents were about equal (48.6% and
51.4%, respectively). Malays made up 54% of the sample, and Chinese
and Indians living in Malaysia comprised 30% and 16%, respectively.
Table 1 provides summary statistics about the sample.
Methods and Constructs
All constructs used to test the hypotheses were measured using multiitem scales from previous literature. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

554

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables
Means
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Life satisfaction
Materialism
Stress
Religiosity
Social desirability
HH income

3.52
3.63
.66
3.82
2.89
1.80

.71
.25
.36
.13
.08
.01

.38
.08
.20
.17
.00

.20
.20
.10
.06

.52
.18
.00

.35
.00

.90

Note: Correlations +/ .07 are significant at p < .05. Variances reported along the diagonal. Means
reported for latent constructs are reported as the simple average of the raw measured values because
latent constructs have arbitrary means of 0.

was used to evaluate the performance of questionnaire items in measuring

the proposed underlying construct. The final CFA demonstrated acceptable approximate fit based on model indices ( 2 [df] = 1396.01 [365],
CFI = .929, RMSEA [90% C.I.] = .053 [.050.056], SRMR = .043). This
final model was arrived at after reviewing model modification indices for
sources of model misfit. On the basis of the modification indices, two
pairs of measurement error between measured items (one pair among
items to measure Stress and the other among items to measure Religiosity, see Appendix 1 for details) were allowed to freely covary in
order to substantially improve model fit ( 2 [df] = 356.8 [2]). This
model served as the basis from which hypothesis tests were conducted
within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework. The variances,
correlations, and means of all latent constructs are reported in Table 2.
The details related to the measurement properties of each construct are
discussed next.
Materialism
We used the material value scale developed and used by Wong,
Rindfleisch, and Burroughs (2003) who survey consumers from several
Asian countries and find that replacing the 15 items developed by
Richins and Dawson (1992) posed as statements with items framed
as questions enhances the validity and reliability of this scale. We
used the six-item short form of the materialism scale developed by
Richins (2004). As with all measurement items and constructs used in
the analysis, the materialism items, response scales, item standardized
factor loadings, the construct average variance extracted (AVE), and the
construct reliability (CR) are all reported in Appendix 1. Materialism
items had standardized factor loadings between .59 and .69. AVE was
.42 and CR was .78.

FALL 2013

VOLUME 47, NUMBER 3

555

Life Satisfaction
We used the shorter version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale
developed by Diener and colleagues (1985) to measure respondents
overall satisfaction with life. The five items had standardized factor
loadings between .60 and .87. The AVE of life satisfaction was .63 and
the CR was .88.
Religiosity
The religiosity measure is based on the scale developed by Putney
and Middleton (1961). We included the five items of the scale as
used by Rindfleisch, Wong, and Burroughs (2006) and two items that
measured the behavioral aspect of religious commitment, adopted from
Wilkes, Burnett, and Howell (1986). These two items measured religious
activities/services attendance and praying. Because these two measures
were not part of the Putney and Middleton (1961) scale, we also tested
models that excluded these two behavioral items as part of the religiosity
construct. There was no substantive difference in any model estimates.
Standardized factor loadings ranged from .55 to .81, and the AVE was
.57. Construct reliability was .86.
Stress
The measure for stress is based on the Depression Anxiety Stress
Scales (the shorter version of seven items) that has been widely used
in previous consumer and psychological studies, including Malaysia
(e.g., Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Mathur, Moschis, and Lee 2008;
Moschis and Ong 2011). Respondents were asked to rate the stressfulness
of the seven items on a four-point scale (3 = Applied to me most of the
time, 0 = Did not apply to me at all). Factor loadings ranged from .66
to .79, AVE was .52, and CR was .83.
Social Desirability
Because Asian respondents have the tendency to agree with statements
that use agree-disagree response format (e.g., Wong, Rindfleisch, and
Burroughs 2003), four items from the short version of Marlow-Crows
social desirability scale (Strahan and Gerbasi 1972) were used to account
for response artifacts. We changed the response format of this scale to the
four-point agree-disagree scale. Three standardized factor loadings of
the items ranged from .75 to .84, and the item I never resent being asked
to return a favor had a loading of .40. The AVE of social desirability
was .52 and the CR was .82.

556

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Household Income
Reported annual household (HH) income before taxes was included
as a covariate during hypothesis testing. It was measured on a 6-point
scale (1 = 15,000 RM; 6 = > 85,000 RM). The mean value for the full
sample of respondents was 1.80 (SD = .90).
ANALYSES AND RESULTS
We first examined the association between materialism and well-being
to test the hypothesis that materialism is negatively associated with consumer well-being in the collectivistic culture of Malaysia (Hypothesis 1).
In testing Hypothesis 1, we developed a SEM where we regressed the
latent variable life satisfaction on the latent variable materialism, including the latent variables social desirability and stress and HH income as
controls (Model Fit: 2 [df] = 838.40 [220], CFI = .938, AIC = 48741.5,
RMSEA [90% C.I.] = .053 [.049.057], SRMR = .039). The standardized coefficient of materialism on life satisfaction was .24 (p < .001),
providing support for the hypothesized negative association between
materialism and life satisfaction. Thus, H1 was supported. The covariates stress and social desirability were also significant at p < .001 (social
desirability = .08; stress = .32). The covariate HH income was not statistically significant (p > .05). Table 3 summarizes the parameter estimates used to test H1 as well as H2 and H3, which are discussed in detail
next.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 were formulated based on the premise that if
materialism has adverse effects on well-being it is mediated by stress
and religiosity. In testing Hypothesis 2, which postulated that stress
mediates the negative effects of materialism on life satisfaction, we
modified the SEM by regressing the latent variable stress on the latent
variable materialism and then estimated the indirect effect of materialism
on life satisfaction through the mediator stress. As was done in testing
Hypothesis 1, social desirability and HH income were used as controls.
The delta method for calculating the mediation effect size and error
of the mediating effect was used (Sobel 1987). As a robustness check,
bootstrapping was used to estimate the confidence interval for the indirect
effect and nearly identical results were found. The estimates showed a
statistically significant indirect effect of materialism on life satisfaction
(standardized estimate = .04, p < .05), consistent with Hypothesis 2.
However, the main effect of materialism on life satisfaction remained
highly significant (B = .24, p < .001). These results indicate that the

FALL 2013

VOLUME 47, NUMBER 3

557

TABLE 3
Summary Results for H1 through H3
Hypothesis (Hypothesis Outcome)
Dependent Variable (R 2 )
[ Mediator] Independent Variable
H1 (Supported)
Life Satisfaction (.19)
Materialism
Stress
H2 (Supported)
Life Satisfaction (.18)
Materialism
Stress
Stress Materialism
H3 (Supported)
HIGH RELIGIOSITY GROUP
Life Satisfaction (.19)
Materialism
Stress
Stress Materialism
LOW RELIGIOSITY GROUP
Life Satisfaction (.09)
Materialism
Stress
Stress Materialism

Coefficient or
Size of Mediation
Effect

Z -Value

.24
.32

6.86
10.00

.24
.32
.04

6.89
10.11
2.10

.18
.37
.08

3.45
8.27
3.75

.20
.20
.01

3.69
3.99
1.03

Note: All hypotheses tests included a control for social desirability and HH income on the dependent
variable.

effect of materialism on life satisfaction is only partially mediated by

stress.
Similar procedures were used to test Hypothesis 3, which proposed
that the mediating effect of stress varied across Malaysians with higher
and lower levels of religiosity. A multigroup SEM was used to test the
hypothesis. A median split based on a Malaysians religiosity factor score
from the CFA was used to group respondents into either the high or
low religiosity groups. Measurement invariance (i.e., equivalent factor
loadings) between the two groups was specified, and the partial mediation
structural model described in Hypothesis 2 was allowed to vary freely
between the high and low religiosity groups.
Results shows that for the highly religious group, the standardized
indirect effect of materialism on life satisfaction through the mediator
stress was negative and highly statistically significant (effect = .08,
p < .001). This mediating effect was statistically insignificant in the low

558

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

religiosity group (effect = .01, p = .30). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported, as there was a significant difference in the size of the indirect
effect between the high and low religious groups (p < .001). In both
groups materialism still had a highly significant negative direct effect
on life satisfaction (B high_religion = .18, B low _religion = .20), although
the main effect was not statistically different between the two groups
(p > .05). In both religiosity groups the control variable social desirability was negative and significant (p < .01) and HH income was not
statistically significant (p > .05).
DISCUSSION
Consumer researchers have had a long-standing interest in understanding the relationship between materialism and life satisfaction, especially
in determining the extent to which having more material possessions
makes people happier. Whereas most studies find a negative association
between materialism and life satisfaction, they fall short from explaining
the reason(s) for the observed relationship and even more so in establishing causality between the two variables. Furthermore, the negative
relationship is not found across countries. This has led some researchers
to suggest that the role of materialism in the lives of people depends on
cultural contexts, with materialism contributing to happiness among consumers in collectivistic countries. However, even this assumption is not
adequately supported, as studies show mixed results in both collectivistic and individualistic countries. The inconsistency in these findings has,
in turn, suggested the need for focusing on moderating and mediating
variables.
This study has attempted to explain the relationship between materialism and life satisfaction reported in previous studies by examining
the possible effects of materialism on life satisfaction (1) directly, (2)
through the mediator of stress, and (3) across consumers with different
levels of religiosity. Because previous studies in different countries do
not show the extent to which their findings are due to cultural factors
(e.g., religious beliefs) or country-related factors (e.g., standard of living),
we investigated the main relationships among consumers of Malaysia, a
collectivistic Asian country of diverse religious subcultures. Like previous cross-sectional studies on this topic, our studys value is in falsifying
relationships rather than establishing causality (Popper 1959).
Our study revealed a strong negative association between materialism
and life satisfaction. While theory suggests that such a strong negative
association should exist, this relationship has only been empirically

FALL 2013

VOLUME 47, NUMBER 3

559

demonstrated in a small number of Asian collectivist countries, and

to our knowledge had not been previously evaluated in Malaysia. To
further clarify the relationship between materialism and life satisfaction,
our study examined the mediating and moderating effects of stress and
religiosity, respectively. The effects of stress as a mediating variable
were examined because stress adversely affects well-being and has been
theoretically related to materialism, both as a cause and as a consequence.
Our data suggest that stress partially mediates the relationship between
materialism and life satisfaction and that such mediating effects are
greater among more religious Malaysians. These findings are consistent
with those of previous research in the United States by Burroughs and
Rindfleisch (2002). One interpretation is that valuing material possessions
may be in conflict with the religious beliefs among those who are most
likely to hold such strong beliefs and suggests that such conflicting values
may create stress that adversely affects well-being.
These findings also may provide a hint for why a recent study by Hill
and Martin (2012) found that the negative link between absolute financial
restriction in a country (absolute income restriction is moderately
high in Malaysia) and well-being/life satisfaction was unexpectedly
attenuated when a country has high relative income restriction (relative
income restriction is high in Malaysia). Specifically, the findings of
this study suggest that, after controlling for the non-significant effect
of personal income on life satisfaction, life satisfaction/well-being can
be partly explained by religious and materialism orientations of an
individual. Future research that explicitly incorporates both countrylevel measures of absolute and relative financial restriction as well
as individual religious and materialistic orientations could be fruitful
for resolving the unexpected empirical results of Hill and Martin
(2012).
This study contributes to theory development in several ways. First,
it validates the conflicting-values perspective that has received support
in the individualistic country of the United States (Burroughs and
Rindfleisch 2002), helping us understand the possible mechanism that
links materialism to life satisfaction in cultures whose people hold
strong religious orientations. It suggests that materialistic values in such
cultures are in conflict with religious beliefs and such values tend to
create stress that adversely affects ones well-being. The study results
are also in line with the literature which asserts that stronger religious
orientations tend to be associated with less materialistic orientations
as suggested by the negative relationship between materialism and
life satisfaction (r = .20, p < .01) (Table 1). These results lead us to

560

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

conclude that since religiosity helps to ameliorate stress, it enhances life

satisfaction both directly and indirectly. Additional research would be
needed in other collectivistic and individualistic countries to validate our
findings.
APPENDIX 1: MEASUREMENT ITEMS AND LOADINGS
Construct/Measure (Average Variance
Extracted [AVE], Construct Reliability [CR])
Materialism (AVE = .42, CR = .78)
How much pleasure do you get from buying things?
(1 = Very Little, 5 = A Great Deal)
What do the things you own say about how well you are
doing in life? (1 = Very Little, 5 = A Great Deal)
How do you feel about having a lot of luxury in your life?
(1 = Do Not Enjoy, 5 = Really Enjoy)
Would your life be any better if you owned certain things
that you dont have? (1 = Not Any Better, 5 = Much Better)
How would you feel if you could afford to buy more things?
(1 = Not Any Happier, 5 = Much Happier)
How do you feel about people who own expensive homes,
cars, and clothes? (1 = Do Not Admire, 5 = Greatly Admire)
Religiosity (AVE = .57 CR = .86)
My ideas about religion are one of the most important parts of
my philosophy of life.
I find that my ideas on religion have a considerable influence
on my views in other areas.
Believing as I do about religion is very important to being the
kind of person I want to be.
If my ideas about religion were different, I believe that my
way of life would be very different.
I very often think about matters relating to religion.
I often attend religious activities/services.
I often pray.
Life satisfaction (AVE = .63, CR = .88)
In most ways my life is close to my ideal.
The conditions of my life are excellent.
I am satisfied with my life.
So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.
If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.
Stress (AVE = .52, CR = .83)
I found it hard to wind down.
I found it difficult to relax.
I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy.
I found myself getting agitated.
I tended to over-react to situations.
I felt that I was rather touchy.
I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting on with
what I was doing.

Item
Loading
.63
.59
.67
.56
.69
.68

.81
.78
.85
.55
.80
.71
.74
.87
.83
.86
.79
.60
.66
.76
.74
.76
.78
.71
.60

FALL 2013

VOLUME 47, NUMBER 3

561

APPENDIX (Continued)
Construct/Measure (Average Variance
Extracted [AVE], Construct Reliability [CR])
Social desirability (AVE = .52, CR = .82)
Im always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.
I never resent being asked to return a favor.
I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very
different from my own.
I have never deliberately said something that hurt someones
feelings.

Item
Loading
.79
.40
.85
.75

Note: CFA Model Fit: 2 (df) = 1396.01 (365), CFI = .929, AIC = 60855.70, RMSEA (90%
C.I.) = .053 (.050.056), SRMR = .043. All item loadings were highly significant (Z -value range
14.886.0). Materialism was measured using the six-item short form scale developed by Richins
(2004) and each items scale was based on Wongs (2003) materialism scale. Stress questions were
measured on a 4-point scale (0 = Did not apply to me at all, 1 = Applied to me some of the time,
2 = Applied to me a good part of time, and 3 = Applied to me a good part of time). Religiosity, Life
Satisfaction and Social Desirability items were all measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Totally
Disagree, 5 = Totally Agree). The residual errors of the first and second Stress measures were allowed
to covary as were the residuals of the first two religiosity items.

REFERENCES
Abdullah, Asma 1996. Going Global: Cultural Dimensions in Malaysian Management. Kuala
Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Management.
Belk, Russell W. 1984. Three Scales to Measure Constructs Related to Materialism: Reliability,
Validity, and Relationships to Measures of Happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 11:
291297.
. 1985. Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12: 265280.
Burroughs, James E. and Aric Rindfleisch. 2002. Materialism and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values
Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29: 348370.
Churchill, Gilbert A. and George P. Moschis. 1979. Television and Interpersonal Influences on
Adolescent Consumer Learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (June): 2335.
Cohen, Lawrence H. 1988. Life Events and Psychological Functioning. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publication.
Dawson, Scott. 1988. Trait Materialism: Improved Measures and an Extension to Multiple Domains
of Life Satisfaction. In AMA Winter Educators Conference Proceedings, edited by Stanley
Shapiro and Alf H. Walle (478481). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Dawson, Scott and Gary Bamossy. 1991. If We Are What We Have, What Are We When We
Dont Have? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6): 363384.
Diamantopoulos, A., N. Reynolds, and A. Simitras. 2006. The Impact of the Response Styles on
the Stability of Cross-cultural Comparisons. Journal of Business Research, 59: 92535.
Diener, Edward, Robert A. Emmons, Randy J. Larsen, and Sharon Griffin. 1985. The Satisfaction
with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 (1): 7175.
Eastman, Jacqueline K., Bill Fredenberger, David Campbell, and Stephen Calvert. 1997. The
Relationship between Status Consumption and Materialism: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of
Chinese, Mexican and American Students. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5 (Winter):
5266.
Fontaine, Rodrigue and Stanley Richardson. 2003. Cross-cultural Research in Malaysia. Cross
Cultural Management, 10 (2): 7589.

562

THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Ger, Guliz and Russell W. Belk. 1996. Cross-Cultural Differences in Materialism. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 17 (1): 5577.
Hill, Ronald Paul and Kelly D. Martin. 2012. Absolute and Relative Restriction and Consumer
Behavior: Implications for Understanding Global Consumption. The Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 46 (1): 3761.
Hofstede, Geert 1991. Management in a Multicultural Society. Malaysian Management Review , 26:
312.
Hudders, Liselot and Mario Pandelaere. 2011. The Silver Lining of Materialism: The Impact of
Luxury Consumption on Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, May: 391404.
Idris, Aida. 2008. An Analysis of Malay-Sino Relations in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 4 (2):
312.
Karabati, Serdar and Zeynep Cemalcilar. 2010. Values, Materialism, and Well-Being: A Study with
Turkish University Students. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31 (4): 624633.
Kashdan, Todd B. and William E. Breen. 2007. Materialism and Diminished Well-Being: Experiential
Avoidance as a Mediating Mechanism. Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology, 26 (5):
521539.
Kasser, Tim and Richard M. Ryan. 1993. A Dark Side of the American Dream: Correlates of
Financial Success as a Central Life Aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65 (2): 410422.
. 1996. Further Examining the American Dream: Differential Correlates of Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Goal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22: 280287.
Keng, Ah K., Jung Kwon, Tan S. Jiuan, and Wirtz Jochen. 2000. The Influence of Materialistic
Inclination on Values, Life Satisfaction, and Aspirations: An Empirical Analysis. Social
Indicators Research, 49: 317333.
Kilbourne, William, Marko Grunhagen, and Janice Foley. 2005. A Cross-Cultural Examination of
the Relationship between Materialism and Individual Values. Journal of Economic Psychology,
26 (5): 624641.
Mathur, Anil, George P. Moschis, and Euehun Lee. 2008. A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of
Life Status Changes on Changes in Consumer Preferences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 36 (2): 234246.
Mayer, Robert N. and Russell Belk. 1982. Acquisition of Consumption of Stereotypes by Children.
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 16 (2): 307321.
Miller, Murray G. and Rebecca L. Thomas. 2009. Discretionary Activity and Happiness: The Role
of Materialism. Journal of Research in Personality, 43 (4): 699702.
Moschis, George P. and Fon S. Ong. 2011. Religiosity and Consumer Behavior of Older Adults: A
Study of Subcultural Influences in Malaysia. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 10: 817.
Myers, David G. 1992. The Pursuit of Happiness. Discovering the Pathway to Fulfillment, Well-Being,
and Enduring Personal Joy. New York: Avon Books.
Polak, Emily L. and Michael E. McCullough. 2006. Is Gratitude an Alternative to Materialism?
Journal of Happiness Studies, 7: 343360.
Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.
Putney, Snell and Russell Middleton. 1961. Dimensions and Correlates of Religious Ideologies.
Social Forces, 39 (4): 285290.
Richins, Marsha L. and Scott Dawson. 1992. A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism
and its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19
(December): 303316.
Richins, Marsha L. 2004. The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and Development of
a Short Form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1): 209219.
Rindfleisch, Aric, Nancy Wong, and James E. Burroughs. 2006. Seeking Certainty via Brands:
An Examination of Materialism and Brand Preference. Paper presented at the Association for
Consumer Research Conference, Orlando, Florida, September.

FALL 2013

VOLUME 47, NUMBER 3

563

Ryan, Richard M., Valery I. Chirkov, Todd D. Little, Kennon M. Sheldon, Elena Timoshina, and
Edward L. Deci. 1999. The American Dream in Russia: Extrinsic Aspirations and Well-Being
in Two Cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (12): 15091524.
Schmuck, Peter, Tim Kasser, and Richard M. Ryan. 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals: Their
Structure and Relationship to Well-Being in Germany and U.S. College Students. Social
Indicators Research, 50: 225241.
Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances
and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by
Mark P. Zanna (165). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
. 1996. Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems. In
Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium, edited by Clive Seligman, James M. Olson and
Mark P. Zanna (124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwarz, Norbert 2003. Challenge of Comparing Cohorts and Cultures. Journal of Consumer
Research, 29 (March): 588594.
Sobel, Michael E. 1987. Direct and Indirect Effects in Linear Structural Equation Models.
Sociological Methods Research, 16 (1): 155176.
Strahan, Robert and Kathleen C. Gerbasi. 1972. Short, Homogeneous Versions of the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28 (2): 191193.
Tatzel, Miriam. 2002. Money Worlds and Well-Being: An Integration of Money Dispositions,
Materialism and Price-Related Behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23 (1): 103126.
Wei, Yujie and Salil Talpade. 2010. Materialism of Mature Consumers in China and USA: A CrossCultural Study. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 2: 117.
Wilkes, Robert E., John J. Burnett, and Roy D. Howell. 1986. On the Meaning and Measurement of
Religiosity in Consumer Research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14 (1): 4756.
Wong, Nancy, Aric Rindfleisch, and James E. Burroughs. 2003. Do Reverse-Worded Items Confound
Measures in Cross-Cultural Consumer Research? The Case of Material Value Scale. Journal of
Consumer Research, 30: 7291.

Copyright of Journal of Consumer Affairs is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.