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