How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 885 – 893

How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior William Kilbourne ⁎, Gregory Pickett ⁎ Clemson University, United States Received 1 August 2006; received in revised form 1 March 2007; accepted 1 September 2007

Abstract This article examines the relationship between materialism, environmental beliefs, environmental concern, and environmental behaviors. The study used a random telephone survey of 337 US adults. Using a causal modeling approach, the study demonstrates that materialism has a negative effect on environmental beliefs, and these beliefs positively affect environmental concern and environmentally responsible behaviors. The article then provides implications of the results for consumer and environmental policy. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Materialism; Environment; Environmentally responsible behavior; Environmental concern

1. Introduction The role of the environment in market behavior has taken many turns over the last thirty years. Prior foci of research include identifying environmentally concerned consumers (Alwitt and Pitts, 1996; Kinnear et al., 1974), green marketing strategies (Menon and Menon, 1997), socially responsible consumption (Fisk, 1973), energy conservation (LeonardBarton, 1981), and sustainable consumption (Kilbourne et al., 1997) among many others. Many argue that environmental awareness and concern have increased since the early 1970's, but an attitude–behavior gap still exists (Alwitt and Pitts, 1996). This gap refers to the fact that “environmentally concerned” consumers do not seem to show any consistent preference for environmentally friendly products in their purchase behavior. Smith (1999) and Dowie (1995) suggest that while, on the surface, environmentalism appears to be increasing in the US, the environmental movement fails to deliver substantial changes in behavior. ⁎ Corresponding authors. Kilbourne is to be contacted at Clemson University, 343-B Sirrine Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-1325. Pickett, Clemson University, 245 Sirrine Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-1325, United States. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (W. Kilbourne), [email protected] (G. Pickett). 0148-2963/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.016

This raises two vexing questions. Why does the attitude– behavior gap persist? What public policy will encourage consumers to be more environmentally benign in their purchase behavior? Certainly, many studies examine the relationship between consumer action and the environment. However, consensus is lacking as to why negligible progress occurs in transitioning to more sustainable consumption behavior or why efficacious policy alternatives have not been forthcoming. The one consistent premise in much of the research on the environmental consequences of market behavior is that both the quality and quantity of consumption in Western industrial societies are complicit in the environmental problem (Capra, 1982; Jones, 1987; Porritt, 1984). Carson (1962) characterizes environmental decline as an economic phenomenon, and Fisk (1973) brings the environment into the marketing literature as a consumption problem. However, most of the research that followed was not systemic and tended to focus on symptoms of environmental degradation such as pollution, resource decline, and waste disposal rather than root causes. Kilbourne and Beckmann (1998) provide a summary of environmental studies within the marketing literature that clearly demonstrates this. Porritt (1984) and Jones (1987) make the same argument suggesting that a thorough examination of the institutions of Western society is necessary for enduring changes toward environmental stability.

886

W. Kilbourne, G. Pickett / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 885–893

Arguably, the institution most in need of examination and critique is consumption itself. The literature only recently relates consumption to the environment per se. The present article focuses on the problem of materialism, or more specifically, the centrality of consumption in the Western industrial lifestyle and its role in individuals' willingness to adopt more environmentally benign consumption types. Numerous authors address the question of consumption in the environmental context (e.g., see Capra, 1982; Daly, 1991; Porritt, 1984; Trainer, 1985). All argue from a conceptual framework rather than an empirical one however, and all address the consequences of excess consumption from the perspectives of pollution, waste, resource depletion, or some other side effect of consumption behavior. None addresses the impact of consumption practices from the perspective of the values and beliefs that guide individuals' consumption behaviors. The present article redresses this deficiency by examining the role of certain consumption patterns and the values that drive them in the formation of environmental beliefs, expressions of environmental concern, and environmentally responsible consumption behaviors (ERBs). In developing the model, the particular form of consumption referred to as materialism is presented first. Certainly, not all levels or types of consumption are equally complicit in environmental degradation. The marketing literature, for example, substantiates green marketing efforts well, although Alwitt and Pitts (1996) question their efficacy in reducing environmentally damaging consumption practices. 2. Materialism A diverse set of materialism constructs evolved over the last few decades. Bredemeier and Toby (1960) argue that consumers in the US believe the acquisition of material goods leads to the fulfillment of life. They also argue that materialism is the cause of many social problems. More recently, Belk (1985) characterizes materialism as the importance attached to worldly possessions. Others suggest that possessions affect perceptions of well-being (Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002) and act as identity markers (Micken and Roberts, 1999). Browne and Kaldenberg (1997) argue that materialism is a cluster of values related to possessions. While these definitions each describe materialism in slightly different ways, they have much in common. They all suggest that consumers seek more in the consumption process than the utility, or instrumental value, of the goods themselves and that the context of consumption is important. Materialism is a value structure through which individuals seek more than instrumental value from the goods they acquire. They seek relationships with the objects of consumption that form their identity and enhance their subjective well-being. Thus, materialism is a multi-faceted construct relating individuals to the goods they possess. The institutionalized character of materialism in Western societies has both individual and social consequences (e.g., see Ahuvia and Wong, 2002; Belk, 1985; Richins and Dawson, 1992). Ger and Belk (1996) argue that the materialistic lifestyle is expanding on a global scale. Conversely, the Inglehart (1981)

thesis argues that materialism will decline as cultures develop economically, and that materialistic values will diminish in importance as economic stability improves. The literature does not support this, however. Both Feather (1998) and Ger and Belk (1996) demonstrate in cross-cultural studies that post-materialist values have not developed in advanced economic cultures and, at the same time, materialistic values are growing in the less developed economies. The materialistic lifestyle is becoming a global phenomenon, and the number of individuals pursuing such a lifestyle is increasing exponentially. This in turn, has the potential to accelerate the associated negative consequences. The present article focuses on the environmental consequences of materialism. Few in the environmental arena argue that positive environmental consequences follow from materialistic behavior. The exception to this paucity of arguments is within the neoclassical economic literature where Bhagwati (1993), for example, argues that economic growth solves rather than exacerbates environmental problems. Lofdahl (2002) concludes, however, that the economic argument is specious in failing to consider trade related economic growth. The focal concern here is that the collective consequences of individual consumption behaviors have negative environmental consequences. These consequences emanate from social processes that are characteristic of market based societies, and they are categorized as a social trap (Dawes, 1980) and as a “commons dilemma” (Shultz and Holbrook, 1999). Each suggests that the sum of individual behaviors produces a negative collective result that was unintended by any individual actor. While any single individual's actions have virtually no environmental consequences, the sum of all similarly disposed individuals' actions damages the environment of the collective, including the individual actor (Dawes, 1980). The damage results because, in market societies, self-interest governs behavior, and the payoff for behavior is higher if the individual acts in his/her self-interest regardless of what others do (Shultz and Holbrook, 1999). Porritt (1984) argues that materialism found in market societies is one of the root causes of environmental decline. In Western industrial societies, materialism proffers a one-dimensional model of the “good life,” and its achievement is a primary societal objective (Schmookler, 1991). Jones (1987) argues that, because materialism is deeply embedded in the institutional structures of industrial societies, the institutions themselves must be examined. As a result, admonishing consumers to consume less for personal, social, or environmental reasons is likely to be ineffective in changing behavior. Culturally embedded institutions continuously reinforce and reward materialism as a mode of consumption. Consequently, one who is materialistic would find little reason for altering consumption behaviors to be more accommodating to the environment. Critiques of materialism in the environmental context have addressed many relevant issues including resource depletion, pollution, and waste among others. While examining these variables is necessary, the approach is not sufficient because these variables are better characterized as symptoms of the problem than as the problem itself. These symptoms can have very negative consequences, but eliminating them does not eliminate the problem because the root causes of environmental

W. Kilbourne, G. Pickett / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 885–893

degradation remain unexamined. Solutions to current waste disposal requirements, for example, cannot keep pace with the profligate materialistic lifestyle of industrial societies. Stiglitz (2002) and Kilbourne (2004) argue that the globalization process is accelerating the spread of free market liberalism that proffers materialism as the solution to the environmental problem, and, as a result, environmental degradation is continuously accelerating through the consequent increase in trade related economic growth (Lofdahl, 2002). Because of this, a more thorough examination of materialism and its role in environmental decline is necessary. 3. Proposed environmental behavior model Studies of ERB yield inconsistent results for a number of reasons. One of these is the issue of measurement specificity. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) argue that measurement of relationships between attitudes and behavior should be at the same level of abstraction. Within the environmental domain, measurement specificity problems attenuate the relationship between different environmental constructs and ERB (Alwitt and Pitts, 1996; Fransson and Garling, 1999). This methodological issue makes examining the relationship between materialism and ERB problematic as well. The direct assessment of materialism as an abstract construct and specific environmental behaviors might not yield consistent results because the levels of abstraction are quite different. To attenuate the problem, the hypothesized model has multiple levels with each becoming less abstract. The causal sequence proceeds from the most abstract level to behaviors as suggested in the model proposed by Stern et al. (1995). Their model suggests beginning with the values level and proceeding to general beliefs, specific beliefs and concerns, and ending with behavioral intentions and behaviors. Thus, the proposed hierarchical model descends from the abstract to the specific. The next section explains the model and its constituent constructs. 4. Model conceptualization Consider the following brief examination of the constructs found in the proposed model. The discussion of the relationships between the constructs leads to the hypotheses. The constructs examined include materialistic values, environmental beliefs, environmental concern, and environmental behaviors. 4.1. Values The question posed here is how materialistic values contribute to the environmental problem. Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) argue that values precede beliefs and attitudes and guide their formation. Values transcend situations and are relatively enduring. Stern et al. (1995) view value orientations as general predispositions influencing specific environmental beliefs held by individuals. Numerous other researchers have examined values in the environmental context and found relationships (e.g., see Fransson and Garling, 1999; Schultz, 2001) between consumption, environmental attitudes, recycling, political behavior, and several others.

887

Thus, considerable support exists for the role of values in the development of environmental beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. This refers almost exclusively to general value orientations, and few studies address values as they relate to modes of consumption. Kilbourne et al. (2005) add a necessary dimension to the values problem, however. In a multi-national study of university students, they demonstrate that general values orientations are related to materialism. Specifically, they demonstrate an inverse relationship between transcendent values and materialism and a direct relationship between enhancement values and materialism using Richins and Dawson's (1992) conceptualization of materialism. Kilbourne et al. (2005) did not examine the relationship between materialism and environmental beliefs. Thus, while Fisk (1973) and Porritt (1984) both suggest that consumption is an important factor in environmental degradation, little empirical evidence relating the various types of consumption to environmental behaviors exists. 4.2. Environmental beliefs Stern et al. (1995) and Dietz et al. (1998) propose a model in which environmental beliefs are subsequent to values. General beliefs are about the human–environmental relationship and refer to folk wisdom about the environment (Stern, 2000). Most research uses Dunlap and Van Liere's (1978) new environmental paradigm (NEP) to measure general beliefs. Specific beliefs are beliefs about the existence of environmental problems such as water shortages, ozone depletion, and global warming. The focus in this study is on specific beliefs. Logically, concern would not arise unless preceded by the belief that environmental problems exist. However, an individual may believe in a human–environmental relationship characterized by ecological folk wisdom without ever being concerned that problems actually do exist. In both the Stern et al. (1995) and the Dietz et al. (1998) models, specific beliefs and attitudes precede intentions and behaviors. Stern (2000) further argues that the link from values to environmentalism mediates beliefs because perceived consequences to whatever the individual values activate norms. Thus, measures of beliefs in this study refer to specific adverse consequences for valued environmental objects. This suggests that individuals might be in a state of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) if their desired consumption behavior is perceived to cause negative environmental consequences. As evidence of negative environmental consequences emanating from increasing consumption accumulates, cognitive dissonance should increase in materialistic individuals. How this dissonance is resolved depends upon the circumstances relating to the relative attractiveness of the alternatives (Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959). Because materialistic values have been institutionalized in American culture (Wachtel, 1983), while environmentalism is relatively new and less integrated into cognitive structures, the conflict between such disparate values would be resolved in favor of materialism. That is, the individual would likely distort environmental information conflicting with materialistic values. This leads to the first set of hypotheses for the model.

888

W. Kilbourne, G. Pickett / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 885–893

H1a. As beliefs in materialism as a measure of success increase, belief in the existence of environmental problems decreases. H1b. As beliefs in materialism as a measure of happiness increase, belief in the existence of environmental problems decreases. H1c. As the centrality of materialism increases, belief in the existence of environmental problems decreases. If the individual perceives that the environment as a valued object is threatened, environmental concern will increase. This will then increase the likelihood of more environmentally friendly consumption behavior. For this to happen, however, the individual must exhibit some level of concern. 4.3. Environmental concern Alwitt and Pitts (1996) state that a gap between environmental attitudes and behaviors exists within the US, and that this is relevant for policy makers and marketers alike. This is because social marketers and public policy makers seek to reduce environmentally negative behavior, and if their intentions are not successful, then more market regulation may be necessary. Thus, a more thorough understanding of the relationship between concern and behavior is necessary. Studies of environmental concern in marketing began in the early 1970s with a series of studies relating to various dimensions of the problem. Anderson and Cunningham (1972), Kinnear et al. (1974), and many others sought to characterize environmentally concerned consumers. Since that time, environmental concern has never declined as an environmentally related construct within the marketing literature. Fransson and Garling (1999) argue that, while concern plays a role in behavior change, research uses the construct inconsistently. Both the definition and measurement of concern vary in research. In their review of research on environmental concern, they maintain a definition that includes attitudes, values, and folk wisdom measures. Their review posited that low correlations between concern and behavior are usually attributable to a measurement issue relating to the specificity of the measures used. Two conclusions drawn by Fransson and Garling (1999) are that environmental concern should include both narrow and more general measures and that increasing environmental concern as a matter of policy can result in desired behavior changes. Following Fransson and Garling (1999), the present article assesses concern at both individual and social levels. The first level relates to abuse of the environment by individual consumers, and the second includes perceived need for social, political, and legal changes to protect the environment. H2. As environmental beliefs increase, environmental concern increases. Drawing from cognitive consistency theory again, to the extent that one is concerned about environmental problems, consistency suggests they should be motivated to act on them. When concern increases, individuals should be more willing to make changes in their own behavior. The discussion of the different forms of behavior is next.

4.4. Environmental behavior Like concern, research uses a number of different independent variables to examine environmental behaviors. These have included such individual factors as locus of control (McCarty and Shrum, 2001) and gender (Stern et al., 1993) and such social factors as collectivism (McCarty and Shrum, 2001) and political attitudes (Blake, 2001) among others. The relationship between behavior and antecedent conditions has been inconsistent across all the different independent variables, and the inconsistency could be the result of measurement deficiencies and definitional problems (Fransson and Garling, 1999; Stern, 2000). Stern (2000) argues that one of the measurement problems is that environmental behavior is not a one-dimensional construct, and recent evidence points to different types of behaviors that have different causal factors. One way to classify behaviors is to distinguish between public and private spheres. Public sphere behavior refers to activities such as petition signing, contributions, and joining environmental groups. These differ from direct behaviors and activism (Dietz et al., 1998). They affect the environment only indirectly by influencing public policy. Private sphere behaviors have a direct effect on the environment and include such behaviors as green consumption, recycling, and purchasing organic foods. Such behaviors, while they directly affect the environment, are only efficacious in the aggregate, that is, when many people perform the same behaviors. Dietz et al. (1998) describe three types of ERBs they refer to as consumer behaviors, environmental citizenship, and policy support. The first two relate to private and public sphere behaviors respectively, and the third reflects willingness to sacrifice economically through such things as higher taxes, higher prices, and consuming less. The present study takes the approach to behavior measurement Stern and his colleagues suggest and examines two different types of behavior. The behaviors reflect direct and indirect effects on the environment, and these form the basis for the last set of hypotheses to be tested. H3a. As one becomes more concerned about the environment, self-reported direct ERBs such as reducing waste, buying environmentally friendly products, and buying organic will increase. H3b. As one becomes more concerned about the environment, self-reported indirect ERBs such as joining or contributing to environmental organizations and contacting political representatives will increase. The causal structure presented in Fig. 1 summarizes this set of relationships. The model specified provides a summary of the constructs and their relationship to each other. The positive and negative paths indicate the hypothesized direction of the relationships. 5. Methodology 5.1. Sample The data collection procedure for the study was a telephone survey using a sampling frame provided by Scientific Telephone

W. Kilbourne, G. Pickett / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 885–893

889

demographics. Because of the large number of constructs measured and the time limitations imposed on telephone surveys, the scales used for some constructs were reduced from their original form. The four scales used in the present study were a materialism scale (9 items), an environmental belief scale (6 items), an environmental concern scale (6 items), and an environmental behavior scale (8 items). All the items in the first three scales were Likert type with 1 indicating Strongly Disagree and 7 indicating Strongly Agree. The eight behavioral questions were yes/no regarding the specific behavior. Appendix A provides the scale items and their statistics.

Fig. 1. Proposed causal model.

Samples, a research service that provides random samples of telephone numbers throughout the US. From this sampling frame, interviewers called respondents. The callers eliminated refusals and replaced no-answers into the database where they could be drawn again on a successive selection. A no-answer was replaced 9 times before removed. Interviewers repeated the process until they finished the required number of interviews. The final number of calls completed was 337. The researchers eliminated 34 of these because of incomplete data. Respondents were required to be 18 years old or more to participate in the survey. The final sample consisted of 303 respondents of which 44% were male. The median and average age of the respondents were both 48 years which is slightly higher than the distribution of 18+ individuals in the population. The median of this age group in the US is approximately 44 years. The education level indicated that 55% had some college and that 20% had completed a four-year degree. The median family income for the sample was approximately $45,000. Thus, the sample was a reasonable representation of the US population for all of the demographics measured. 5.2. Measurement instrument The questionnaire for the study consisted of eight sections with seven measuring different constructs and the last,

5.2.1. Materialism The materialism scale was a subset of items taken from the Richins and Dawson (1992) materialism scale. Materialism researchers use this scale extensively, and social acceptability bias is low. While the original scale was composed of 18 items, the present study used only nine. The nine items chosen (see Appendix A) are those for which the factor loadings were highest for their factors in the original Richins and Dawson (1992) study. The use of such short forms of the scale has recently been justified by Richins (2004). The original scale provided a three-factor solution with success, happiness, and centrality as the three independent dimensions of the construct. Kilbourne et al. (2005) demonstrate that the constructs used here are consistent with the original dimensionality across three countries. Because of the limited use of this reduced Material Values Scale, the psychometric properties were examined. While scale development was not the purpose of this study, data were available through which external criteria (Stanton et al., 2002) for the reduced scale could be reasonably tested. A reduced form of Schwartz's Value Inventory (SVI) was included in the test instrument and used as a test for the relationship between the reduced materialism scale and the requisite constructs in the SVI. In addition, a measure of the dominant social paradigm, the components of which have been shown to relate to consumption intentions (Kilbourne, 2002), was included. These two scales provide an opportunity to examine the relationship of the short Material Values Scale to external criteria. In this assessment, the reduced Material Values Scale correlated positively with the constructs of the dominant social paradigm and the self-transcendence and openness dimensions of the SVI as predicted. All correlations between the reduced Material Values Scale and the external criteria were statistically significant at p b 0.05. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the validity of the scales in this context. The fit statistics and cutoff criteria used included the goodness of fit index (GFI) at 0.9, the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) at 0.9, the comparative fit index (CFI) at 0.9, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) at 0.08. These are the criteria recommended by Hair et al. (1998). CFA confirmed the original three-factor structure with the appropriate three items corresponding to each construct and acceptable fit statistics. Table 1 presents the fit statistics for all constructs. In addition, all the fit statistics for the reduced Material Values Scale were within 0.001 of the same fit criteria

890

W. Kilbourne, G. Pickett / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 885–893

Table 1 Statistical results for analyses

Material values Environmental beliefs Environmental concern Environmental behavior Direct Indirect Structural model

RMSEA

GFI

CFI

TLI

.056 .055 .075 .054 .027 .001 .037

.97 .97 .98 .97 .99 .99 .90

.98 .98 .98 .96 .99 .99 .95

.96 .96 .96 .95 .99 .99 .95

reported by Richins (2004) in assessing a similar (four items were common to both forms) reduced Material Values Scale. In assessing the reliability of the reduced Material Values Scale, composite reliability and variance extracted for the constructs were success (.83 and .62), centrality (.71 and .46), and happiness (.82 and .60). Only the variance extracted for centrality was below the desired .50 level. Thus, the reduced Material Values Scale used in this study appears to satisfy both internal and external criteria and maintained the proper dimensionality. 5.2.2. Environmental belief scale The environmental belief scale consisted of six items derived from Kilbourne, et al. (2002) and Cotgrove (1982). Each item reflected belief in the existence of environmental problems such as ozone depletion, global warming, pollution, damage from chemicals, resource shortages, and species extinction. As seen in Table 1, the scale met the fit criteria established, and the factor loadings were all significant at less than 0.01. 5.2.3. Environmental concern scale The third scale used in the analysis was a measure of environmental concern indicating that the respondent was concerned about the environment and believed that individual, social, and political changes were necessary to reduce damage to the environment. The intention was for the scale to contain three items for individual concern and three for social concern, but exploratory factor analysis indicated only one factor explaining 55% of the variance. The six items reflected concern, environmental abuse, importance of limiting consumption, political and social change, and stricter enforcement of environmental laws. A subsequent EFA combining the items representing beliefs and concern yielded two factors explaining 56% of the variance insuring that beliefs and concerns represented two distinct factors. All loadings on the appropriate factors were above .6, and all cross loadings were below .3 except for shortages, which loaded on concern at 0.36. This indicates clearly that the two measures are distinct. 5.2.4. Environmental behavior scale The present study used two relevant types of ERBs, direct and indirect. The behavior measurement model includes both of these types. Four items measured direct actions perceived to

have immediate, positive effects on the environment if many people elicit them. The items relate to purchasing environmentally friendly products, organic products, products that reduce household waste, and products that contain recycled material. Four items measured the indirect effects of joining environmental organizations, contributing money to environmental organizations, subscribing to environmental magazines, and contacting a legislative policy maker. Each of the eight items was a yes or no question indicating the behavior and clearly reflects self-reported behavior. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the items to determine if they reflected different types of behaviors. The results of the analysis indicated two factors explaining 54% of the variance. The two factors separated the items as intended with the first factor containing direct actions and the second containing indirect actions. As argued by Stern (2000) and Dietz et al. (1998), these types of behavior should be distinguished from each other. In the model tested, they were considered to be two separate dependent variables. 6. Results Each of the individual measurement models satisfied the fit criteria set out. The causal model in Fig. 1 was then tested. Environmental beliefs and environmental concern were both first-order constructs as indicated above. The analysis confirmed most of the hypotheses. Hypothesis 1a–1c stated that the paths from success, happiness, and centrality in the materialism construct to environmental beliefs would be negative. This was true for each of the dimensions of materialism. The final standardized path coefficients for success, happiness, and centrality were − 0.26, − 0.24, and − 0.26 respectively, and all of the parameter estimates were significant at less than 0.003. Hypothesis 2 indicated that the path from environmental beliefs to environmental concern would be positive. The path coefficient was 0.73 and was significant at less than .001. This confirmed Hypothesis 2. Hypotheses 3a–b suggested that the paths from environmental concern to both direct and indirect behaviors would be positive. The standardized path coefficient from concern to direct behavior was 0.35 and was significant at less than 0.001. The standardized path coefficient from concern to indirect behaviors was 0.36 and was significant at less than 0.001. These results confirm both H3a and H3b. For the entire model, CFI = .953, GFI = .901, TLI = .957, and RMSEA = 0.037. Thus, the proposed model of materialism and ERBs fit the data extremely well. 7. Discussion Researchers in the past few decades examined materialism from many perspectives. The conclusion frequently drawn has been that materialism has negative consequences in both the individual and social domains. Material consumption also relates to identity formation and maintenance, and to the extent that consumption provides for this human requirement, it serves a useful function. Because of the frequent critiques,

W. Kilbourne, G. Pickett / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 885–893

however, Mick (1996) refers to materialism as a “dark side” variable. One aspect of the dark side of materialism, and the subject of this article, is the relationship between materialism and the natural environment. The consensus among environmentalists is that the environment is in a precipitous decline, and a better understanding of the “root causes” of the decline is necessary (Porritt, 1984). The materialistic lifestyle of Western industrial societies is among these root causes. The present study hypothesized a negative relationship between materialism, as measured by the Richins and Dawson (1992) Material Values Scale, and environmental beliefs. The positive relationship between environmental beliefs and environmental concerns found in previous research (e.g., see Kilbourne et al., 2002) is hypothesized here as well. Finally, this study tested the important link between environmental concern and ERBs. The key argument underlying the model tested is that when confronted with the negative environmental consequences of their behavior, consumers experience cognitive dissonance that must be resolved to preserve their self-image. Individuals simply do not like to see themselves as profligate consumers whose desire for material goods is destroying the environment at accelerating rates. The consequent dissonance can only be reconciled if they change their views of the value of materialism or change their views about the consequences of their behavior. Materialism is institutionalized in American society and is continuously rewarded and reinforced through interactions with society. As a result, it has the power to influence perceptions individuals hold of themselves and their environment. Environmentalism, or the desire to take action with proenvironmental intent (Stern, 2000), is not such a potent force in American society. Because of the ubiquity of reinforcements for materialism and the relative paucity of such reinforcements for environmentalism, the dissonance would logically be resolved in favor of materialism. Thus, as beliefs in materialism increase, perceptions of environmental problems would decrease through processes of selective perception and distortion. This implies a negative relationship between materialism and environmental beliefs. The data indicated that this negative relationship did materialize as hypothesized. The study also confirmed some previously demonstrated relationships. The path from environmental beliefs to concern was positive as has been shown in previous research. This indicates that, as one's belief in the existence of environmental problems increases, their level of concern also increases. The present study also supports previous research that links elevated levels of concern with the desire for behavior changes. Stern (2000) argues that both direct and indirect environmental behavior are important. These relate to behaviors that have immediate effects on the environment and those that lead to later effects through the policy process. The hypothesized positive relationship for both direct and indirect behaviors suggests that raising levels of environmental concern increases the likelihood of proenvironmental behaviors. Alwitt and Pitts (1996) found no direct relationship between general environ-

891

mental concern and purchase intentions, but product attitude and importance mediate the effect of concern. This is consistent with the measurement issues discussed earlier. General concerns typically do not link to specific behaviors. However, in the present study, the measure of concern relates to specific environmental problems believed to exist. Environmental concern is more specific here than a general concern measure such as the NEP scale that does not relate to specific problems. Thus, the present study shows a close relationship between concern and behaviors. The overall structural model fit the data very well in this study. Materialism was negatively associated with environmental beliefs as predicted. From a policy standpoint, this result is very significant. Many environmental policy initiatives increase awareness and concern for environmental problems. This assumes that when concern is increased, consumption behaviors would become more environmentally responsible, and consumers would shift their purchase patterns by buying green products or by reducing their overall level of consumption. While the relationship between concern and behaviors proposed seems reasonable, neither of these results has emerged in practice except in an ephemeral fashion (i.e., the existence of the attitude–behavior gap described earlier). The results of this study offer a suggestion as to why this may be the case. Stern et al. (1995) argues that the process through which changes might occur is more complex than that assumed by policy makers. The present study confirms the more complex model and has significant policy implications. Because the values associated with materialism are ubiquitous in American society, they become the evaluative filter for many aspects of daily life. This is important from a policy perspective because the information received and how such information is categorized are among the factors on which the values filter operates (Festinger, 1957). Information that is inconsistent with one's primary values or that creates dissonance within the selfimage, is selectively removed and/or distorted to conform to that image. Consequently, because of the centrality of values defining the self, individuals' beliefs in the detrimental consequences of their consumption behavior are attenuated. Environmentally relevant information rejected or distorted by this filtering process can reduce the efficacy of environmental initiatives. This has significant implications for policy construction. If the objective of environmental or consumer policy is to change environmentally damaging consumption behavior into ERB, then an expanded approach to consumer policy is necessary. Because materialistic values militate against consumer policy aimed at lower levels of the model, policy should be directed at those values themselves. This means consumer policies aimed at materialism might be necessary. This, of course, entails a long-term approach because materialism is so deeply entrenched in American economic policy. This would involve changes in both consumer and production policy relating to both the quality and quantity of goods produced and consumed. Promotion of alternative lifestyles, such as voluntary simplicity (Elgin, 1981) and

892

W. Kilbourne, G. Pickett / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 885–893

sustainable production alternatives would both become a part of consumer policy seeking to alter unsustainable behavior. The problems with such transformations are clear, and one need only recall the US rejection of the environmental policy specified in the Rio Accord to see this. In his rejection of the accord, then President Bush stated that the “American way of life” was not up for negotiation. Still today, economic growth underpins the American way of life, and that requires materialism as a dominant value. Boulding (1949) argued against such a policy more than fifty years ago, and Daly (1996) continues the position into the present. 7.1. Limitations and future research The present study is limited in several ways. The use of telephone surveys limited that amount of interaction between researchers and the randomly selected respondents. Thus, no qualitative information was collected that might have amplified responses. In addition, the amount of nonresponse bias is unknown. The response rate was approximately 53%. The methods of analysis also precluded the possibility of determining causal relationships in the data. While the theory cited supports the causal sequence tested, only correlational methods were available to analyze the data. The study does provide some direction for future research. The development of policy tools ought to take into consideration the materialistic lifestyle. While outside the scope of the present study, future research exploring the link the educational system, business models, and social systems have to the materialistic lifestyle and its relationship to sustainability, particularly on a global scale, is necessary. Each successive generation will understand consumption from a unique cultural perspective. Hence, learning more about the extent to which the next generation will be more or less materialistic and what impact this perspective may have on environmental beliefs is important. Similarly, as generational values are shaped by scientific and societal forces (for instance, the acceptance of global warming and the mainstreaming of media coverage imparting this knowledge), one might expect change in generally held beliefs regarding the impact of individual versus societal action. The progression of environmental decline now understood by a broader crosssection of individuals in many Western societies may produce new and interesting research results in this field for years to come. Marketers might revisit Kotler's (2002) social marketing concept and examine its importance in the sustainability debate that will surely intensify in the coming years. The social marketing concept raises the question regarding the efficacy of markets in a regime of limited resources. Policy must address the consequences of resource allocation at both systemic level and individual levels. Otherwise, severe limits with the longterm effectiveness of any future policies will occur. Many have argued that materialism has negative consequences for both individuals and society. Recent empirical support substantiates the conclusion. Addressing the larger issues that are growing in importance is past due.

Appendix A Questionnaire items and statistics Factor⁎ Loading Material values scale Success (coefficient alpha .83 average loading .79) I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes .78 Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring .80 possessions I don't place much emphasis on the amount of material objects people own .79 As a sign of success (R) Centrality (coefficient alpha .67 average loading .66) I usually buy only the things I need .73 I try to keep my life simple, as far as possessions are concerned (R) .82 The things I own aren't really that important to me (R) .42 Happiness (coefficient alpha .81 average loading .77) I have all the things I really need to enjoy life (R) My life would be better if I owned certain things I don't have I'd be happier if I could afford to buy more things Environmental beliefs (coefficient alpha .86 average loading .70) Many types of pollution are rising to dangerous levels Some living things are being threatened with extinction Continued use of chemicals in agriculture will damage the environment Shortages of some important resources will occur in the near future Global warming is becoming a problem Ozone depletion is an environmental problem The availability of clean water will become a problem in the future

.88 .83 .59

.71 .70 .74 .76 .65 .65

Environmental concern (coefficient alpha .81 average loading .64) I am very concerned about the environment Humans are severely abusing the environment I would be willing to reduce my consumption to help protect the environment Major political change is necessary to protect the natural environment Major social changes are necessary to protect the natural environment Anti-pollution laws should be enforced more strongly

.61 .60 .69

Environmental behaviors Direct behavior (coefficient alpha .69 average loading .61) I buy environmentally friendly products whenever possible I reduce household waste whenever possible I use products made from recycled material whenever possible I buy organic food whenever possible

.71 .61 .71 .42

Indirect behavior (coefficient alpha .70 average loading .62) I am a member of an environmental organization I contribute money to an environmental organization I subscribe to an environmental magazine I would contact my political representative about an environmental issue

.77 .71 .62 .39

.61 .64 .66

⁎Critical ratios are all above 6 indicating p-values less than .001. References Ahuvia AC, Wong NY. Personality and values based materialism: their relationship and origins. J Consum Psychol 2002;12(4):389–402. Ajzen I, Fishbein MA. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980. Alwitt LF, Pitts RE. Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally sensitive product. J Consum Psychol 1996;5(1):49–64. Anderson TW, Cunningham WH. The socially conscious consumer. J Mark 1972;36(3):23–31.

W. Kilbourne, G. Pickett / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 885–893 Bhagwati J. The case for free trade. Sci Am 1993;269:42–9 (November). Belk RW. Materialism: trait aspects of living in the material world. J Consum Res 1985;12:265–80 (December). Blake D. Contextual effects on environmental attitudes and behavior. Environ Behav 2001;33(5):708–25. Boulding K. Income or welfare? Rev Econ Stud 1949;17:79. Bredemeier HC, Toby J. Social problems in America: Costs and casualties in an acquisitive society. New York, NY: Wiley; 1960. Browne BA, Kaldenberg DO. Conceptualizing self-monitoring: links to materialism and product involvement. J Consum Mark 1997;14(1):31–44. Burroughs JE, Rindfleisch A. Materialism and well-being: a conflicting values perspective. J Consum Res 2002;29:348–70 (December). Capra F. The turning point. London: Fontana Flamingo Series; 1982. Carson R. Silent spring. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1962. Cotgrove S. Catastrophe or cornucopia: the environment, politics, and the future. New York: Wiley; 1982. Daly HE. Beyond growth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; 1996. Daly HE. Steady-state economics. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1991. Dawes RM. Social dilemmas. Annu Rev Psychol 1980;46:190–203. Dietz T, Stern PC, Guagnano GA. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environ Behav 1998;30(4):450–71. Dowie M. Losing ground: American environmentalism at the close of the twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995. Dunlap RE, Van Liere K. The “New Environmental Paradigm”: a proposed instrument and preliminary results. J Environ Educ 1978;9(1):10–9. Elgin D. Voluntary simplicity: toward a way of life that is outwardly simple, inwardly rich. New York: Morrow; 1981. Feather NT. Attitudes toward high achievers, self-esteem, and value priorities for Australian, American, and Canadian students. J Cross-Cult Psychol 1998;29(6):749–60. Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1957. Festinger L, Carlsmith JM. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 1959;58:203–10. Fisk G. Criteria for a theory of responsible consumption. J Mark 1973;37(1):24–31. Fransson N, Garling T. Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. J Environ Psychol 1999;19(4):369–82. Ger G, Belk RW. Cross-cultural differences in materialism. J Econ Psychol 1996;17(1):55–77. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. (5 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998. Inglehart R. Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. Am Polit Sci Rev 1981;75:880–900. Jones A. The violence of materialism in advanced industrial society: an ecosociological approach. Sociol Rev 1987;35(1):19–47. Kilbourne W. Globalization and development: an expanded macromarketing view. J Macromark 2004;24:122–35 (December). Kilbourne W, McDonagh P, Prothero A. Sustainable consumption and the quality of life: a macromarketing challenge to the dominant social paradigm. J Macromark 1997;17(1):4–24. Kilbourne WE. A multi-national examination of the role of the DSP in environmental attitudes: a structural equation modeling approach. In: Wilson JW, editor. From Art to Technology: Opportunities in Marketing Research and Education. Savannah, GA: Atlantic Marketing Association; 2002. p. 102–6. Kilbourne WE, Beckmann SC. Review and critical assessment of research on marketing and the environment. J Market Manag 1998;14(6):513–32. Kilbourne WE, Beckmann SC, Thelen E. The role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes: a multi-national examination. J Bus Res 2002;55(3):193–204.

893

Kilbourne WE, Grünhagen M, Foley JA. Cross-cultural examination of the relationship between materialism and individual values. J Econ Psychol 2005;26(5):624–41. Kinnear TC, Taylor JR, Ahmed SA. Ecologically concerned consumers: who are they? J Mark 1974;38(2):20–4. Kotler P. Marketing management. (11 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall; 2002. Leonard-Barton D. Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation. J Consum Res 1981;8(3):243–52. Lofdahl CL. Environmental impacts of globalization and trade. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2002. McCarty JA, Shrum LJ. The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. J Public Policy Mark 2001;20(1):93–104. Menon A, Menon A. Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy. J Mark 1997;61(1):51–67. Mick DG. Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. J Consum Res 1996;23:106–19 (September). Micken KS, Roberts SD. Desperately seeking certainty: narrowing the materialism construct. In: Arnould E, Scott L, editors. Association for Consumer Research, vol. 26. ACR; 1999. p. 513–8. Porritt J. Seeing green: the politics of ecology explained. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell; 1984. Richins ML. The material values scale: measurement properties and development of a short form. J Consum Res 2004;31(1):209–19. Richins ML, Dawson S. A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. J Consum Res 1992;19:303–16 (December). Rokeach M. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press; 1973. Schmookler AB. The insatiable society: materialistic values and human needs. Futurist 1991;25(4):17–20. Schultz WP. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 2001;21(4):327–39. Schwartz S, Bilsky W. Toward a psychological structure of human values. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987;53:550–62. Shultz CJ, Holbrook MB. Marketing and the tragedy of the commons: a synthesis, commentary, and analysis for action. J Public Policy Mark 1999;18(2):218–29. Smith TM. The myth of green marketing: tending our goats at the edge of apocalypse. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1999. Stanton JM, Sinar EF, Balzar WK, Smith PC. Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self report scales. Pers Psychol 2002;55:167–94 (Spring). Stern PC. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 2000;56(3):407–24. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. The new ecological paradigm in social– psychological context. Environ Behav 1995;27(6):723–43. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 1993;25(3):322–48. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kaloff L, Guagnano GA. Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J Appl Soc Psychol 1995;25(18):1611–36. Stiglitz JE. Globalization and its discontents. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company; 2002. Trainer T. Abandon affluence! London: Zed Books; 1985. Wachtel PL. The poverty of affluence: a psychological portrait of the American way of life. New York: The Free Press; 1983.