lead us into temptation: a survey of us college ...

11 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
1997; Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Moschis & Mitchell, 1986; Moschis et al., ...... brands as a reliable and valid measure of advertising effectiveness (e.g., Dubow,.
LEAD US INTO TEMPTATION: A SURVEY OF U.S. COLLEGE STUDENTS’ MEDIA USE, MATERIALISM, BELIEFS, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ADVERTISING, STATUS CONSUMPTION TENDENCIES, COMPULSIVE BUYING TENDENCIES, BRAND RECALL, AND PURCHASE INTENT OF LUXURY PRODUCTS

By Hongwei Yang

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree

School of Journalism in the Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale January 2006

Major Professors Dr. Donald Jugenheimer Dr. Dennis Lowry

Copyright by Hongwei Yang, 2006 All Rights Reserved

Approval Page

AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF HONGWEI YANG, for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Mass Communications, presented on [date] at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. TITLE:

LEAD US INTO TEMPTATION: A SURVEY OF U.S. COLLEGE STUDENTS’ MEDIA USE, MATERIALISM, BELIEFS, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD ADVERTISING, STATUS CONSUMPTION TENDENCIES, COMPULSIVE BUYING TENDENCIES, BRAND RECALL, AND PURCHASE INTENT OF LUXURY PRODUCTS

MAJOR PROFESSORS: Dr. Donald Jugenheimer and Dr. Dennis Lowry A mail survey of 501 college students was conducted in Spring 2005 and Fall 2005. This exploratory study with a random sample examined the complicated relationship between media use, materialism, advertising beliefs, status consumption, compulsive buying, brand recall, and purchase intent of luxury products. It has confirmed that television viewing contributes to college students’ materialistic values. It is probably the first time that a positive association has been identified between the consumption of motion pictures and materialism. Magazine readership was not found to be a significant predictor of materialism. Results show that television viewing is not only significantly related to college students’ status consumption tendencies, but also significantly related to their compulsive buying tendencies. Similarly, seeing films is positively correlated to college students’ status consumption and compulsive buying tendencies. Magazine reading is also found positively related to college students’ status consumption and compulsive buying tendencies. The study also showed that the more materialistic that college students are, the more positive their beliefs of advertising will be. If they believe that advertising

i

has positive social and economic effects, their attitudes toward advertising will be more favorable. Materialistic college students are more likely to become status consumers and compulsive spenders as materialism is positively related to status consumption and compulsive buying tendencies. Some status seekers tend to overspend and buy the expensive products that they cannot afford since status consumption is positively correlated to compulsive buying tendencies. Materialistic college students are more likely to recall the brands of luxury cars, designer clothes, and jewelry while materialistic college students are also more likely to express their intent to purchase luxury cars, designer clothes, jewelry, and perfume. Female students can recall more brand names of designer clothes and perfume than male students, but male students can recall more brand names of luxury cars. Older college students with more personal income will pay more attention to brand name designer clothes. College students with more personal income will also recall more brand names of jewelry. More educated college students can recall more brand names of jewelry and perfume. Female students seem more likely to buy designer clothes and perfume within six months. Female students with more personal income express more willingness to buy jewelry in half a year. Evidences are not strong enough to conclude that media use variables are significant predictors of brand recall and purchase intent of luxury cars, designer clothes, jewelry, and perfume. Television viewing significantly contributes to the brand recall of some luxury products (perfume), but its influence on the brand recall of other luxury products (luxury cars, designer clothes, and jewelry) is only ii

marginally significant. Television viewing probably can stimulate college students’ desire to buy designer clothes. Reading magazines can feed the romantic imagination of college student of purchasing a piece of jewelry. Seeing films may have something to do with college students’ purchase intent of jewelry and designer clothes. The established scales of advertising beliefs, materialism, status consumption and compulsive buying tendencies have all achieved satisfactory reliability and validity in this mail survey study.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I extend my deepest gratitude to Dr. Jugenheimer and Dr. Lowry, co-chairs of my dissertation committee, for their continuous support and encouragement. I am very thankful for Dr. Johnson as he tried very hard to help me defend both my proposal and dissertation. I really appreciate the excellent service and suggestions of Dr. Dick and Dr. Pelias as the precious members of my dissertation committee. I am also very grateful that Madam Lucille Lasley has always been so instrumental and responsive to our procedural arrangements. I also would like to thank all the SIUC students who returned my questionnaires. Finally, I thank my parents, brother, and sister for their understanding and moral support.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Chapter 1.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Cultivation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Consumer Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Social Cognitive Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Consumption, Consumerism, and Status Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Compulsive Buying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Materialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Beliefs About and Attitudes Towards Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.

LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Mass Media and Materialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Television and Materialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Motion Pictures and Materialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Magazine Readership and Materialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Media Use, Status Consumption and Compulsive Buying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Materialism and Beliefs About and Attitudes Toward Advertising . . . . . . . . 89 Materialism and Status Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 v

Materialism, Status Consumption and Compulsive Buying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Predicting Brand Recall and Purchase Intent of Luxuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.

METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Survey: Strengths and Weaknesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Scales and Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Media Use Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Materialism Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Advertising Beliefs Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Advertising Attitudinal Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Status Consumption Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Compulsive Buying Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Unaided Brand Recall Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Purchase Intent Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Data Collection and Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Statistic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

5.

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

6.

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 APPENDICES A. Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 vi

B. Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 C. SIUC Human Subject Committee Approval Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 VITA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

vii

LIST OF TABLES Table

Page

1.

Cross-Tabulation of Gender and Recall of Luxury Car Brands . . . . . . . . . . . 154

2.

Cross-Tabulation of Race and Recall of Luxury Car Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

3.

Cross-Tabulation of Family Income and Recall of Luxury Car Brands . . . . 154

4.

Cross-Tabulation of Years in School and Recall of Luxury Car Brands . . . . 155

5.

Cross-Tabulation of Personal Income and Recall of Luxury Car Brands . . . 155

6.

Cross-Tabulation of Gender and Recall of Designer Clothes . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

7.

Cross-Tabulation of Race and Recall of Designer Clothes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

8.

Cross-Tabulation of Years in School and Recall of Designer Clothes . . . . . 157

9.

Cross-Tabulation of Family Income and Recall of Designer Clothes . . . . . . 158

10. Cross-Tabulation of Personal Income and Recall of Designer Clothes. . . . . 158 11. Cross-Tabulation of Gender and Recall of Jewelry Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 12. Cross-Tabulation of Race and Recall of Jewelry Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 13. Cross-Tabulation of Family Income and Recall of Jewelry Brands . . . . . . . 160 14. Cross-Tabulation of Personal Income and Recall of Jewelry Brands . . . . . . 161 15. Cross-Tabulation of Years in School and Recall of Jewelry Brands . . . . . . . 161 16. Cross-Tabulation of Gender and Recall of Perfume Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 17. Cross-Tabulation of Race and Recall of Perfume Brands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 18. Cross-Tabulation of Family Income and Recall of Perfume Brands . . . . . . . 163 19. Cross-Tabulation of Personal Income and Recall of Perfume Brands . . . . . 163 20. Cross-Tabulation of Years in School and Recall of Perfume Brands . . . . . . 164 21. The Dimensionality of Advertising Beliefs Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 22. The Dimensionality of Materialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 viii

23. The Loadings of Status Consumption Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 24. The Loadings of Compulsive Buying Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 25. Correlations: Media Use with Ad Beliefs, Materialism, Status Consumption and Compulsive Buying Tendencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 26. Correlations: Ad Beliefs, Materialism, Status Consumption and Compulsive Buying Tendencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

ix

1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Commercialized television and advertising are often accused of fostering materialism and creating consumers’ wants or even needs. Fisher (1968) held that the most serious charge against advertising was its erosion of society’s moral standards and the substitution of a new set of standards based on the fast buck, bubbling success, and material possessions. In other words, advertising is changing the traditional social values by promoting materialistic values. Galbraith (1976) also acknowledged that advertising created desires that otherwise would not exist and cajoled consumers into purchasing unnecessary new brands of breakfast cereal and laundry detergent. Actually, “advertising has been accused of everything from media rape to the cheapening of newspapers and television” (Kirkpatrick, 1986, p. 42). Obviously, many media scholars are very concerned that television cultivates excessive materialism in viewers of television, especially young children (e.g., Bybee, Robinson, & Turow, 1985). Ample empirical evidence in past studies supports the positive relationship between television viewing and materialism (Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Ganahl, Yang, & Liu, 2003; Greenberg & Brand, 1993; Harmon, 2001; Richins, 1987; Shrum, Burroughs, & Rindfleisch, 2003). This study was designed to replicate the findings in a random sample of U.S. college students. The positive relationship between televising viewing and materialism in this study has provided further empirical support for the consumer cultivation paradigm which Shrum (2002) proposed and developed based on the cultivation theory of Gerbner, Gross,

2 Morgan, Signorielli, and Shanahan (2002). Cultivation theory, consumer cultivation paradigm, and their relation to each other are explained in the following chapter. To expand the consumer cultivation theory, this study also examined the contribution of other entertainment media, including motion pictures and magazines, to young U.S. college students’ materialism. If film consumption and magazine reading were found to be positively correlated to their materialistic values, it would be plausible to conclude that entertainment media cultivate their viewers’ materialism. The second chapter provides theoretical backgrounds to link entertainment media to young students’ materialism. The third chapter presented empirical studies that connected entertainment media with materialism. To expand the consumer cultivation theory, this study has also explored whether viewing television, seeing films, and reading magazines contribute to other consumption-related values and tendencies, including status consumption and compulsive buying tendencies. The second chapter provides some theoretical backgrounds to support the relationship between entertainment media, status consumption, and compulsive buying tendencies. The third chapter presents studies to support the connection. Materialism, status consumption, and compulsive buying are closely related in a consumerist culture. Chapter Two explicates the theoretical linkage of materialism, status consumption, and compulsive buying in the context of consumerism. The second chapter explains why media use, materialism, status consumption,

3 and compulsive-buying tendencies are probably important antecedents or predictors of the recall and purchase intent of luxury brands. The third chapter reviews past studies and presents empirical evidence to support the aforesaid hypothesis. To measure U.S. college students’ materialism, advertising beliefs, status consumption, and compulsive buying tendencies, the study borrowed Richins and Dawson’s (1992) materialism scale, Pollay and Mittal’s (1993) advertising beliefs scale, the status consumption scale of Eastman, Goldsmith, and Flynn (1999), and Roberts and Tanner’s (2000) compulsive buying scale. The reasons to adopt these scales are explained in detail in the chapter four. This study also tapped the underlying dimensions of U.S. college students’ materialism, advertising beliefs, status consumption, and compulsive-buying tendencies with factor analyses; this effort will be very useful for further scale development and better measurement of these constructs. In short, the second chapter expounds the theoretical backgrounds that support the link of media use, materialism, advertising beliefs, status consumption, compulsive buying, brand recall, and purchase intent of luxury products. The third chapter reviews all relevant literature and formulated research hypotheses. The fourth chapter examines the survey method, scale development, and appropriate statistical techniques. The fifth chapter reports the survey results. The sixth chapter discusses research findings in correspondence with the proposed hypotheses and concludes the study.

4 CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL BACKGROUND This chapter endeavors to cover all the theoretical background of this study. Cultivation theory, social cognitive theory, and consumerist theory were drawn upon to establish the link of media use, materialism, beliefs and attitudes toward advertising, status consumption, compulsive buying, brand recall, and purchase intent of luxury products. The major constructs of this study are expounded, including materialism, beliefs and attitudes toward advertising, status consumption, and compulsive buying in the review of relevant research literature. The significance of studying these consumption-related constructs is gradually developed as the theoretical backgrounds are laid out. The purposes of this study are summarized in the end. No one questions that mass media influence our lives in postmodern society because mass media are ubiquitous. How mass media exert their political, social, psychological, and behavioral effects on media audiences is the central concern of media effects scholarship. A tradition of mass communication research examines mass media’s contribution to the audience’s conceptions and perceptions of social reality that in turn guide people’s behavior. The tradition can also be considered as a social cognitive perspective of mass communication. It is represented by the cultivation analysis of Gerbner et al. (2002) and Bandura’s (2002) social cognitive theory of mass communication. The tradition can be traced back more than 80 years. Lippmann (1922) discovered the role of news media in defining our world, almost all of our world

5 beyond our immediate personal experiences and family backgrounds. He has distinguished the environment (i.e., the world that is really out there) and the pseudo-environment (i.e., our private perception of that world) and argued that news media have sketched all these pictures of the real world in our heads while we experience vicariously the world we personally cannot reach. In other words, as our windows to the vast world outside our direct experience, news media determine our cognitive maps of the world. Cultivation Analysis Following similar lines of reason, cultivation analysis has explored the broader, accumulated, long-term, social-psychological impact of media exposure on an audience’s world view and perspectives of social reality. For more than 30 years, Gerbner and his colleagues (2002) conducted their cultivation analyses of television’s accumulated long-term contribution to viewers’ conceptions of social reality. Gerbner et al. (2002) hold that centralized commercial television cultivates common mainstream values and perspectives of television viewers with a highly stable, repetitive, and coherent set of images and messages. Heavy viewers of television internalize the central messages and the perspective of reality on television (Signorielli & Morgan, 1996). Gerbner et al. (2002) are amazed at television’s ability to standardize, streamline, amplify, and share common cultural norms with virtually all members of society. As a storyteller, television bombards all classes, groups, and ages with the same perspectives at the same time. It cultivates people’s consciousness with its broad underlying, global assumptions about the “facts” of life. “Cultivation” does

6 not imply any sort of simple linear “stimulus-response” model of the relationships between media content and audience. Rather, it implies long-term cumulative consequences of exposure to an essentially repetitive and stable system of messages, not immediate short-term responses or individual interpretations of content. It is concerned with continuity, stabilization, and gradual shifts rather than outright change (Morgan & Signorielli, 1990). Cultivation scholars believe that heavy exposure to the features and dynamics of the television world tends to cultivate a relative commonality of outlooks and values. In other words, heavy television viewing may absorb or override differences in perspectives and behavior that ordinarily stem from other factors and influences. Differences found in the responses of different groups of viewers, differences that usually are associated with the varied cultural, social, and political characteristics of these groups, are diminished or even absent from the responses of heavy viewers in these same groups. The mainstreaming process thus represents a relative homogenization, an absorption of divergent views, and a convergence of disparate viewers (Morgan & Signorielli, 1990). On the other hand, cultivation is not a unidirectional flow of influence from television to audience, but a continual, dynamic, ongoing process of interaction between messages and contexts. Television content will have more influence where it does not compete with an individual’s own experience (Tyler & Cook, 1984; Weaver & Wakshlag, 1986). The relationship between the amount of viewing and fear of crime is the strongest among those who live in high-crime urban areas (a phenomenon called resonance, in which everyday reality and television provide a

7 double dose of messages that “resonate” and amplify cultivation). Even so, the goal of cultivation analysis is to determine whether differences in the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of light and heavy viewers reflect differences in their viewing patterns and habits, independent of (or in interaction with) the social, cultural and personal factors that differentiate light and heavy viewers. Thus, cultivation analysis attempts to document and analyze the independent contributions of television viewing to viewers’ conceptions of social reality (Morgan & Signorielli, 1990). In addition, the perceived reality of television content also moderates cultivation effects. Potter (1986) assessed adolescents’ and adults’ beliefs about the reality of television on several dimensions (their perceived reality) and found that correlations between the amount of viewing and social reality beliefs occurred for those who believed television to be an accurate representation of actual life, and not for those who were skeptical of television’s portrayal of reality. Potter argued that people who believed entertainment television to be realistic accepted its messages as more applicable to their social reality judgments. Television cultivation effects on people’s beliefs depend on whether these beliefs are directly or indirectly derived from television content. Correlations between television viewing and first-order beliefs seem to be more robust and less affected by third-variable controls than correlations between television viewing and second-order beliefs; they also seem less likely to be involved in conditional relationships based on demographic characteristics of respondents (Hawkins & Pingree, 1982). Second-order beliefs are not constructed from first-order beliefs isomorphic with television content, but they may be derived from the patterns of

8 television content. So relationships are often weaker than those for first-order beliefs and have, in some cases, proved to be spurious (Hawkins & Pingree, 1982). Mass media cultivate not only audience’s perceptions, opinions, and attitudes but also more basic patterns of human thoughts and feeling, namely, people’s values. Values can be regarded as dozens of firmly held beliefs, “centrally located within one’s total belief system, about how one ought or ought not to behave, or about some end-state of existence worth or not worth attaining” (Rokeach, 1968, p. 124). “Values are abstract ideals, positive or negative, not tied to any specific attitude object or situation, representing a person’s beliefs about ideal modes of conduct and ideal terminal goals” (p. 124). However, values are subject to change and influence of mass media. Ball-Rokeach, Rokeach, and Grube (1984) conducted a field experiment in the Tri-Cities area of eastern Washington in which they produced and broadcast a television program entitled “The Great American Values Test,” a program designed to influence viewers to adopt or to activate egalitarian and pro-environmental values, attitudes, and behaviors. The researchers observed the effects on participants’ values and attitudes a month and a half after the program was aired and the effects on their behavior two to three months afterward. They concluded that a single 30-minute exposure to a television program designed to conform to certain theoretical considerations could significantly affect the beliefs and behaviors of large numbers of people for at least several weeks or months subsequently. As television viewers’ values can be modified by a half-hour television program, heavy viewers’ values or value orientations will very probably be influenced by long-term accumulated television exposure to considerable extent.

9 Reimer and Rosengren’s (1990) pioneering study showed that television viewing contributed to two value orientations (materialism and post-materialism) and two values (“a comfortable life” and “inner harmony”). The study is based on the premise that general media exposure cultivates audiences’ value orientations, including materialism. On the other hand, media audiences are not passive “couch potatoes,” but active learners in the process of being socialized by mass media. Knowing that mass media can cultivate people’s perceptions of social reality is not enough, and it is necessary for us to understand the underlying processes of cultivation. According to Shrum (2002), two related principles from social cognition research can be borrowed to explain how people’s perceptions, attitudes, and belief judgments are influenced by mass media. The Heuristic/Sufficiency Principle states that when people form judgments, they typically do not search memory for all information that is relevant to the judgment, but instead recall only a small quantity of information available according to the criterion of sufficiency. In other words, only the information sufficient for constructing a judgment is recalled and sufficiency is determined by motivation and ability to process information (Wyer & Srull, 1989). The Accessibility Principle, simply stated, is that the small quantity of available information recalled to construct a judgment is often the information that comes most readily to mind (see Higgins, 1989; Wyer & Srull, 1989). Some important factors such as the frequency and recency of construct activation, vividness of a construct, and relations with accessible constructs can influence the accessibility of information, and they are closely related media effects (Shrum,

10 1995). Constructs that are frequently and recently activated tend to be easily recalled (Higgins & King, 1981; Higgins, Rholes, & Jones, 1977). Heavy viewers of television should activate constructs portrayed on television more frequently than light viewers, especially when those constructs are portrayed more heavily on television than in reality. Heavy viewers of television recently are more likely to be exposed to televised images and ideas than light viewers are (Shrum, 2002). Heavy viewers of television have watched more televised portrayal of affluent lifestyles and more frequently, so they may have recently activated the idea that financial success leads to happiness in life, self-esteem, and social status as well as the idea that buying a status product confers honor on the purchaser. Therefore, when asked about success, heavy viewers will easily come up with the images of upper-middle class with expensive houses, cars, swimming pools, and other luxuries. If a construct is vivid, it is “emotionally interesting, concrete and imagery provoking, and proximate in a sensory, temporal, or spatial way” (Nisbett & Ross, 1980, p. 45), and it is more easily recalled from memory. No one can deny that televised dramatic portrayals of particular actions or events are more vivid than real-world experiences. All the “bold and beautiful” vivid images of the uppermiddle class lifestyles will readily register on heavy viewers’ memory. When heavy viewers can recall more vivid images of American affluence than poverty, it follows that their estimate of affluence in the United States will be inflated (Potter, 1991; Weimann, 1984). The Heuristic/Sufficiency Principle and the Accessibility Principle suggest that if a construct is easily retrieved, so will be a closely related construct, and if the

11 accessibility of a construct is increased, so will be a closely related construct. In the case of materialism, the construct of success is always associated with the constructs of having money, expensive houses, cars, swimming pools, exotic vacations, and luxuries as seen on television. When the construct of success is activated, the images of affluent lifestyles will follow. These constructs will all be readily accessible to heavy viewers of television. This study seeks to confirm the link of television viewing and materialism in contemporary U.S. college students. A positive significant correlation would provide some empirical support to consumer cultivation effects of television and television advertising. Even though causality cannot be inferred from correlational studies, most cultivation studies utilize a survey design. When analyzing the data, many researchers run one-way analyses of variance to examine the significant difference of variances across three groups of low, medium and heavy users of media (e.g., Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1982). Based on a solid theory, multiple regression and path analysis can be employed to analyze survey data to establish a possible causal relationship between several independent variables and one dependent variable. Actually, marketing scholars have tried to fit causal models to the survey data with the help of LISREL (e.g., Kwak, Zinkhan, & DeLorme, 2002; Randell, Stone, & Good, 2002; Trommsdorff, 1984). If other media use, namely, reading magazines and seeing films, is significantly positively correlated to materialism, it can be inferred that the cultivation theory is probably applicable to other media as well as to television.

12 Consumer Socialization Cultivation can be considered a special form of socialization. To put the cultivation process in the broader context of socialization would help us analyze it as a general concept more or less at work in different societal contexts and structures because socialization is the common denominator everywhere (Reimer & Rosengren, 1990). According to Reimer and Rosengren (1990), there are at least eight major socialization agents in modern societies. Traditional socialization agents include family, peer group, work group, church, law, and school; they can be found in most societies. Two socialization agents are modern products: (a) large organizations representing popular movements and interest groups and (b) the mass media (Reimer & Rosengren, 1990). In the cultivation process, people often interact with a socialization agent mass media - and then take in consciously and unconsciously social norms, values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors endorsed by mass media. As postmodern society grows more and more atomistic, individualistic, and alienated, the role of mass media as a socialization agent becomes more and more powerful. Mass media help people acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that enable them to participate as more or less effective members of groups and the society (Brim & Wheeler, 1966). At the same time, people also learn and internalize the values, beliefs and norms of our culture on television and, in so doing, develop a sense of self (Croteau & Hoynes, 2000). As far as consumers are concerned, mass media, especially television, are a primary source of commercial information and a major socialization agent of

13 consumer knowledge of the marketplace. The way individuals learn to perform their consumer roles has intrigued advertisers and marketers since the 1960s. McNeal (1964) defined the consumer role as all the activities associated with the acquisition of goods and services. Ward (1974) offered a classical definition of consumer socialization: “the processes by which young people acquire skills, knowledge and attitudes relevant to their functioning as consumers in the marketplace” (p. 2). The skills, knowledge, and attitudes directly relevant to consumption behavior are “those which are necessary for enactment of the consumer role – for example, skills at budgeting, pricing, knowledge of brand attitudes and shopping outlets, and attitudes toward products, brands, and sales people” (pp. 2-3). Consumer socialization scholars ask the following questions concerning the processes, the content and the implications of children’s consumer learning: Are parents purposive and systematic in their attempts to provide consumer training for their offspring, or is learning of consumer behavior more a matter of trial and error, observational learning, or identification with parents by offspring? How much influence do children’s peer groups exert? What processes characterize the development of children’s abilities to process information in mass media especially advertising? Under what circumstances, and by what agents, do children learn skills at matching purchase criteria to product and brand alternatives? How do they learn advantages and disadvantages of shopping at various kinds of retail outlets, and when do they learn resource allocation habits, and understand

14 notions of saving, spending, and investment? How do children learn that consumption of various products or brands can be a means of self-expression? How do children acquire attitudes about the “social significance” of goods? How do people learn to perceive that the acquisition of some kinds of products or brands of goods can be instrumental to successful social role enactment? What is the nature and extent of children’s influence on parental consumer behavior? Are there differences in consumer socialization that may occur as a consequence of cultural, sex, social class difference, or changes in economic conditions? Can the early consumer learning of children predict their later patterns of consumer knowledge, attitudes, values and behaviors? (Ward, 1974, pp. 3-4) Marketing and advertising scholars have found that at the perceptual stage (2 to 7 years old) (Piaget, 1953), young children’s consumer learning mainly comes from their modeling on parents and peers while the influence of mass media is low (James, 1971; Ward & Wackman, 1973). Most of them are not aware of the selling or persuasion motive in television commercials, they usually think commercials tell the truth all the time, and so their attitude toward advertising is favorable (John, 1999; Robertson & Rossiter, 1974; Ward & Wackman, 1973). Researchers have also found that children in the critical period (7 to 11 years old) (Piaget, 1953) can recognize the functional differences between program and commercials, and they can distinguish program from commercials based on persuasive intent (Blosser & Roberts, 1985; Robertson & Rossiter, 1974; Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977; Wartella & Ettema, 1974). Children in the critical

15 period can recall both visual and verbal details of television commercials, and they can recall more brand names (John, 1999; Rossiter & Robertson, 1976; Ward et al., 1977). They begin to perceive any bias and deception in advertising messages and accordingly foster a more negative attitude toward advertising (Bever, Smith, Bengen, & Johnson, 1975; John, 1999; Robertson & Rossiter, 1974; Rossiter & Robertson, 1976; Ward, 1972; Ward et al., 1977). They can categorize products and discriminate brands according to their underlying functional attributes (Denney, 1974; John & Lakshmi-Ratan, 1992; John & Sujan, 1990a, 1990b; Klees, Olson, & Wilson, 1988; Markman, 1980; Markman & Callahan, 1983; Whitney & Kunen, 1983). For teenagers in the reflective period (11-17) (Piaget, 1953), observational learning has become the most important device of their consumer socialization. They turn away from parents to peers and seek consumer information from various mass media. They learn consumer knowledge and skills through direct experiences (trial), observation (imitation), and vicarious experiences (such as televised symbolic modeling). They become more and more skeptical toward advertising. Previous research suggests that, as socializing agents, television and peers are more important than family for adolescents, while young teenagers are more sensitive to the social meaning of consumption because of their strong selfexpressive orientation (Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Moschis & Moore, 1979a, 1979b; Moschis & Mitchell, 1986; Moschis, Moore, & Smith, 1984; Sherry, Greenberg, & Tokinoya, 1999; Shim, 1996). Consistent with social learning theory, researchers have found that direct and vicarious role models,

16 such as parents and athletic stars, can strongly influence adolescent’s consumer learning (Carlson, Grossbart, & Walsh, 1990; Carlson, Walsh, Laczniak, & Grossbart, 1994; Clark, Martin, & Bush, 2001; King & Multon, 1996; Lafferty & Goldsmith, 1999; Lockwood & Kunda, 1997; Martin & Bush, 2000; Ohanian, 1990). Social structural restraints, including social class, gender, and race, have also been examined by many scholars as antecedent variables of adolescents’ consumer socialization; they are found to be interesting mediators, facilitators, or limiting factors, but family, peers, and mass media have always been identified as dominant influences (Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Mangleburg, Grewal, & Bristol, 1997; Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Moschis & Mitchell, 1986; Moschis et al., 1984; Shim, 1996). Previous studies have also investigated the relation between television viewing and perceptions of other consumption-related phenomena. For example, some scholars found that heavy television viewing was associated with heightened perception of the prevalence of luxury products and services (O’Guinn & Shrum, 1997; Shrum, 2001) and perception of affluence in general (Potter, 1991; Weimann, 1984). Moreover, Carlson (1993) found that heavy viewers of television were more supportive of capitalist values than light viewers were. In short, as the primary source of commercial information for young people, mass media help them learn consumer knowledge and skills (Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Mangleburg et al., 1997; Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Moschis & Mitchell, 1986; Moschis et al., 1984; Shim, 1996). At the same time, mass media also influence their perceptions, values, attitudes, and behaviors with regard to

17 consumption (Carlson, 1993; O’Guinn & Shrum, 1997; Potter, 1991; Shrum, 2001; Weimann, 1984). This study seeks empirical evidence that to some extent mass media have socialized young consumers to become status consumers and compulsive spenders. Social Cognitive Theory Bandura’s (2001) social cognitive theory of mass communications can be employed to explain the underlying processes of consumer socialization. In this study, it will be helpful to understanding how consumers learn symbolic meaning of products or services, status consumption, and luxury brands. Social cognitive theory is based on the “agentic” perspective in which people are considered self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self-regulating. According to Bandura (2001), “to be an agent is to intentionally make things happen by one’s actions” (p. 2). Human agency is characterized by a number of core features, including the temporal extension of agency through intentionality and forethought, self-regulation by self-reactive influence, and self-reflectiveness about one’s capabilities, quality of functioning, and the meaning and purpose of one’s life pursuits. Personal agency operates within a broad network of sociostructural influences. In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products of social systems (Bandura, 2001). Social cognitive theory is a transactional view of self and society in which personal factors (cognitive, affective, and biological), behavioral patterns, and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants that influence each other bidirectionally (Bandura, 1986). In short, personal agency and social

18 structure both determine social identity. Bandura’s social cognitive theory is derived from his social learning theory that explains human thought and behavior in terms of a continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental determinants. In other words, individuals develop their cognitions, attitudes, motivations, and behaviors during the course of their interactions with diverse external influences. They are not powerless objects completely controlled by environmental forces. However, to some extent they are still restrained by situational factors so that they cannot become whatever they choose (Bandura, 1977). According to social cognitive theory, direct and observational experience can help shape human nature into a variety of forms within biological limits. Such intrinsic human plasticity relies on certain unique neuro-physiological mechanisms and structures that have evolved over time. Those special advanced neural systems not only help us process, retain, and use coded information, but also provide distinctly human capabilities of generative symbolization, forethought, evaluative self-regulation, reflective self-consciousness, and symbolic communication (Bandura, 2002). For Bandura, humans are capable of using symbols to process and transform transient experiences into cognitive models that guide their judgment and action. Through symbols, people give meaning, form, and continuity to their experiences. In addition, people can infer causal relationships and expand their knowledge by symbolically manipulating the information acquired from personal and vicarious experiences. Ideas can be abstracted from sensory experiences and communicated

19 with others at any distance in time and space through the medium of symbols (Bandura, 2002). It is not surprising that media users can easily pick up the symbols of status and success from mass media: luxury cars, expensive houses, shiny diamonds, and beautiful wives. Self-regulatory capability refers to a self-regulation of motivation, affect, and action. Human self-regulation depends on discrepancy production as well as discrepancy reduction. In the discrepancy reduction mechanism, discrepancy between one’s perceived performance and reference standard motivates action to reduce the incongruity. In the discrepancy production mechanism, people set themselves valued goals and anticipate what is required to reach the goals. The arising disequilibrium motivates them to achieve those goals. After those goals are attained, people with a strong sense of efficacy would set higher goals for themselves. New motivating discrepancies will drive them to face further challenges. Thus, the self-regulation of motivation and action involves a dualcontrol process of disequilibrating discrepancy production (proactive control) followed by equilibrating discrepancy reduction (reactive control) (Bandura, 2002). If heavy viewers of television set unrealistic high goals for themselves modeling on the televised lifestyles of the upper-middle class, heavy viewers of television would suffer and live in a state of disequilibrium because their goals are not always attainable. Bandura’s theory can serve as a cognitive explanation of how the exposure to mediated images and values of the rich and beautiful will cultivate unrealistic expectations of one’s life, including insatiable desires for material possessions, and give rise to dissatisfaction with one’s current situation.

20 The self-reflective capability of thought verification allows humans to monitor their ideas, act on them, or predict occurrences from them, then judge their adequacy from the results and change them accordingly. There are four modes of thought verification to judge the validity and functional value of one’s thoughts. Enactive verification matches thought with the results of one’s actions, while vicarious verification checks the correctness of one’s own thinking by observing other people’s actions and the effects these actions produced. Persuasory verification operates by comparing one’s thoughts to the judgments of others. Logical verification judges one’s thoughts by deriving knowledge about things that extend beyond one’s experience with inferential reasoning (Bandura, 2002). Vicarious thought verification is the self-reflective mode that is most relevant to this study. When television viewers compare their thoughts with distorted televised versions of social reality, they may develop certain shared misconceptions of people, places, or things (Hawkins & Pingree, 1982). In this study, it is believed that heavy viewers of television may develop some materialistic beliefs and hold on to them because such materialistic values are constantly reinforced by televised images of financial success and happiness. The vicarious capability of learning is the central concept in Bandura’s social cognitive theory of mass communication. An advanced capacity for observational learning enables humans to expand their knowledge and skills rapidly by modeling others’ experiences. Actually, almost all behavioral, cognitive, and affective learning from direct experience can be acquired vicariously by observing people’s actions and the consequences of these actions (Bandura, 1986). Without

21 observational learning, a culture could not simultaneously and efficiently transmit its language, morés, social practices, and requisite competencies to countless people in widely dispersed locations. Observational learning is governed by four subfunctions or major processes: attentional processes, retention processes, production processes, and motivational processes. First of all, individuals have to pay attention, selectively observe, and extract the significant features of modeled events. Their cognitive skills, preconceptions, and value preferences can influence the process, while the salience, attractiveness, and functional values of the modeled activities delimit or enhance their personal attention. Today, the abundant symbolic modeling presented by mass media, especially television, can be so effective in capturing attention that viewers learn diverse styles of conduct within the comfort of their homes and without requiring any special incentives (Bandura, Grusec, & Menlove, 1966). Indeed, people now are gaining a great deal of information about human values, styles of thinking, and behavior patterns from extensive modeling in the symbolic environment of the mass media. The more people’s conceptions of social reality depend on their vicarious experiences acquired in the media’s symbolic environment, the greater is the media’s social and psychological impact (BallRokeach & DeFleur, 1976). In the information age, new ideas, values, behavior patterns, and social practices are being rapidly diffused by symbolic modeling worldwide, so a globally distributed consciousness is developed (Bandura, 2000). As a result, electronic acculturation deserves more academic attention. In this study, it is assumed that consumerism dominates American television programs,

22 films, and lifestyle magazines, while American mainstream media are persistently preaching consumption and materialism. After observing others’ actions and the consequences of those actions, individuals have to code symbolically and remember their observation of modeled events to be influenced. Equipped with their imaginal and verbal representational systems, people transform and reconstruct modeled activities into images and readily available verbal symbols to guide their future performance (Bandura et al., 1966). The actual or mental rehearsal of modeled behaviors strengthens their retention or memory (Bandura & Jeffrey, 1973). In the behavioral production process, people convert their symbolic representations into appropriate courses of action. Behavioral production or reproduction is the replication of modeled behavior whenever it is necessary. People modify the reproduction of modeled behaviors by comparing the execution against the conceptual model. The mechanism for translating symbolic conceptions into action involves both transformational and generative operations. The behavioral production process is an adaptive performance that requires a generative conception between cognitive representation and action because the execution should vary according to changing circumstances. People have to try many times to perfect the performance through corrective adjustments when transforming knowledge into skilled action. The more extensive the sub-skills that people possess, the easier it is to integrate them to produce new behavior patterns. When deficits exist, people first have to learn the sub-skills required for complex performances by modeling and guided enactment (Bandura, 2001).

23 Finally, the enactment of modeled behaviors is motivated by people’s anticipatory evaluations of rewarding or punishing effects of the modeled behaviors. If an act results in favorable outcomes, people are more likely to exhibit the modeled behavior. If the modeled behaviors prove beneficial to others, people are encouraged to reenact the same behaviors. If people feel self-satisfying by performing modeled behaviors, the observationally learned behaviors will be reinforced and reproduced (Bandura, 1977, 2002). A higher level of observational learning is abstract modeling that helps people extract underlying rules from specific modeled events for generative and innovative behaviors. Through abstract modeling, people acquire, among other things, standards for categorizing and judging events, linguistic rules of communication, thinking skills on how to gain and use knowledge, and personal standards for regulating one’s motivation and conduct (Bandura, 1986; Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1978). It is abstract modeling that allows people to integrate differing styles of thinking and behaving into new perspectives and behavioral patterns with their own personal characteristics (Bandura, 2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication can help to explain why and how media users model fictional characters’ styles of thinking and behavior. In this study, it is assumed that media users observe and learn the advantages and benefits of being rich and successful. They aspire to the upscale lifestyles of those uppermiddle-class televised or cinematic characters because such lifestyles are rewarding. They try to identify with the characters and keep up with the Joneses by buying and owning status products such as expensive cars, houses, swimming

24 pools, exotic vacations, and other luxury products or services. Consumption, Consumerism, and Status Consumption Advertising has often been accused of creating unnecessary consumer needs and wants and promoting wasteful materialism and consumerism (e.g., Fisher, 1968; also see Kirkpatrick, 1986). Drawing from consumerist theories, this study holds that advertising is an indispensable institution of a capitalist economy that has contributed more good than harm to the economic growth and prosperity of a market-oriented democratic society. Advertising stimulates consumer demand, which is the driving force of an affluent Western economy such as that of the United States. Even consumer demand for status products or services is a healthy dose of incentives to the development of an affluent society. Consumerist economists often argue that an increasing consumer demand is very instrumental to the prosperity and sustainable development of a capitalist economy. After the United States survived the Great Depression, Keynes (1936) realized that thrift, far from stimulating demand and assisting in economic development as the mercantilist school argued, actually depressed demand and created unemployment. He developed a theory of full employment and argued that the propensity to consume was a major determinant of employment and growth, and anything that contributed to aggregate demand was clearly productive in purely economic terms. Luxury consumption, irrespective of any moral objections, added to demand, kept money in circulation, and created jobs for many who would otherwise be unemployed. In this sense, luxury consumption added to economic growth and prosperity.

25 Keynes (1936) recognized that both objective and subjective factors contributed to the overall propensity to consume. He defined subjective motives to consumption as enjoyment, shortsightedness, generosity, miscalculation, ostentation, and extravagance. “Now the strength of these motives will vary enormously according to the institutions and organization of the economic society which we presume, according to habits formed by race, education, convention, religion and current morals, according to present hopes and past experience, according to the scale and technique of capital equipment, and according to the prevailing distribution of wealth and the established standards of life” (p. 109). In other words, the reasons for “subjective” consumption were often rooted more in social and cultural factors than in individual economic circumstances. Although Keynes conceded that ostentation and extravagance could and did have an effect on the overall propensity to consume, he argued that such motives changed only slowly over time and saw no reason to explore the motives underpinning such behavior – more particularly, how an individual’s decision to conspicuously consume may well be directed toward others in order to secure status gains. Samuelson (1947) also recognized the interdependence of consumer demand, that is, individual consumer preferences were influenced by the preferences and consumption of others. Samuelson commented: As Veblen characteristically pointed out, much of the motivation for consumption is related to the fact that others do or do not have the same thing. Conspicuous expenditure, “keeping up with the Joneses,” snob appeal, maintenance of face are important in any realistic appraisal of consumption

26 habits. (p. 224) The 1950s saw the coming of an affluent society in the United States. Average after-tax income more than doubled in real terms between 1950 and 1956. In one single year of the period, the number of Americans with annual incomes of more than $100,000 increased by 20%. By 1959, the number of American families with a net worth of $500,000 had doubled since 1945. The rise in disposable incomes, coupled with an ever-increasing emphasis on the status symbolism of products, determined that a significant proportion of customer purchases was made for social rather than for purely utilitarian reasons (Mason, 1998). Galbraith (1998) noticed its major implications, not only for the management of production and consumption within affluent societies, but also for existing conventional theories of consumer demand. He argued that many consumer wants no longer originated with the individual, as economist theory had always implied, but were increasingly being contrived by manufacturers, advertisers, and retailers to sustain production. In an affluent society, when basic physical needs had been satisfied for the great majority of the population, socio-psychologically grounded desires took over, and these desires would be insatiable if manufacturers contrived continually to create new ones and to plan for the social obsolescence of products. America ushered in a consumer culture that promoted the sale of goods and services that were not necessities in the traditional sense, but that nevertheless helped to ensure increasing levels of production. Galbraith also observed the dependence effect of wants, that is, production

27 motivated manufacturers to create wants through advertising and salesmanship while increased consumption in return led to higher wants. In the process, advertising and emulation served as two dependent sources of desires that, working across society, operated both on those who could afford new products or services and on those who could not. The resultant status-seeking consumption was clearly sustainable over the long term as new wants and desires were created, promoted, and financed. It suggested that production and productivity would become less and less important unless they could be sustained by non-economic means. Suddenly, Americans found themselves living in a new consumerist culture based on product symbolism, store image, and status-directed conspicuous consumption. Four interpersonal models of consumer behavior were developed to explain the socially directed consumption during the 1950s and early 1960s. Riesman, Glazer, and Denney (1950) developed a model that centered on the concept of social character, itself shaped by the type of society (tradition-directed, inner-directed, or other-directed) in which the individual operated. The model implies that society is capable of directing consumer behavior in a predictable way. A second model was derived from the family of concepts called cognition consistency theories (balance, congruity, and cognitive dissonance) (Festinger, 1957). People are assumed to be trying to maintain a state of balance in their relationships with other people and hoping to remove stress from their lives by purchasing products that establish such balances. Goffman (1959) developed a third model from role theory, arguing that individuals were actors who were playing roles in society. Here the focus is on

28 overt social conduct where products become vehicles for image projection as well as symbolic representations of status. According to this theory, people purchase goods in accordance with their expectations of their “audience” and not because the goods in question have any intrinsic attributes. Finally, McClelland (1961) attempted to explain socially directed consumption in terms of achievement-oriented activity. Such activity is seen to be affected by conflict between the tendency to achieve success and the tendency to avoid failure, and the implications for consumer behavior center on the resolution of these two opposing tendencies. Socially directed, other-directed, and status-directed forms of consumption were first named “conspicuous consumption” by Veblen (1912), who coined the term to depict the lifestyles of the leisure class at the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century. He argued that, in all societies, man’s ability to demonstrate membership in the leisure class through ownership and possession would bring him social standing and personal prestige. In short, “the possession of wealth confers honor: it is an invidious distinction” (p. 26). Emulation, as an instinct, motivates people to acquire more possessions to display wealth so that they can secure high social status. As status competition increases, the possession of wealth, intended originally as recognition of an individual’s enterprise and industrial efficiency, becomes meritorious in its own right. As comparisons of individual wealth become the norm, respectability in society comes to depend on being able to demonstrate a certain standard of living. As the need for social esteem feeds through into self-respect, conspicuous

29 consumption comes to be seen not as an option, but as a social necessity. Furthermore, levels of consumption are never static for, as prevailing norms of reputable ownership are widely achieved, the more affluent in society then raise standards to distance themselves socially from others once more. Their trendsetting activities will, in turn, encourage a general revision of standards at all social and economic levels and have the effect of raising expectations and consumption across the socio-economic scale. In this way, status consumption becomes an ongoing, dynamic process for individuals at all levels of society, placing increasing demands on their standards of purchase, ownership, and consumption (Mason, 1998). There are two effective ways to display wealth for the leisure class: the consumption of conspicuous leisure and of expensive, superfluous goods and services. The rich people enjoy their “conspicuous leisure,” or conspicuous abstention from labor, to demonstrate their superiority because the individual or family has no need to work. This conspicuous waste of time is later transferred to a rich man’s wife and even to household servants, who are seen to be underemployed. They serve as a reflection of the husband and employer’s wealth and status. Conspicuous consumers favor the goods and services with outrageous prices and beyond the financial reach of the less wealthy. Sometimes the direct utility in use of the commodity being purchased is of no real interest so long as it helps display purchasing power (Mason, 1998). Veblen (1912) argued that the need to secure social standing and prestige was evident at all levels of modern society, and it was possible to observe status-motivated consumption at all levels of society.

30 Modern industrial society has seen a general improvement in the living standards of many people, and as a result, people have far more discretionary income at their disposal. While consumption of foods and other necessaries has undoubtedly increased to improve personal well-being in physiological terms, a large portion of their disposable income goes to the status consumption intended to secure social status in societies where the display of wealth has become honorific and added to an individual’s prestige and reputation within the community. At the same time, the increased opportunities for status-seeking at all levels have enabled people to turn away from conspicuous leisure to embrace conspicuous consumption as the principal means of securing status in the community (Mason, 1998). A new consumerism emerging from the early 1980s marked a different era of status consumption. It is more upscale in the sense that there is more aggressive, rather than defensive, consumption positioning. People are now more likely to compare themselves with or aspire to the lifestyles of those far above them in the economic hierarchy. Microsoft’s Bill Gates or a senior vice president has become a popular emulative target. The neighborhood has declined as a focus of social interaction, and instead the workplace has arisen as a fertile site for consumption comparisons. As people spend less time in the homes of neighbors and even in the homes of friends, face-to-face socializing has come to be replaced by television watching. Thus, television has become increasingly important in providing information about the spending patterns of others. Television characters, our 1990s “friends,” are a major source of consumption ideas, expectations, perceptions, aspirations, and comparisons. For example, Fourier and Guiry’s (1993) survey

31 showed that 35% of their sample identified television commercials and magazine advertisements, and 27% identified television shows as a “really great idea source” for their own fantasy wish lists of things to get or buy. O’Guinn and Shrum (1997) commented: television commonly uses consumption symbols as a means of visual shorthand; what television characters have and the activities in which they participate mark their social status with an economy of explanatory dialogue. Viewers see and hear what members of other social classes have and how they consume, even behind their closed doors. (p. 279) But television (as do other popular media such as films, advertisements, and lifestyle magazines) gives a heavily skewed picture of spending patterns, portraying almost exclusively the upper-middle class and the rich. This norm leads to an inflation of Americans’ perceptions of others’ lifestyles. For example, Shrum, O’Guinn, Semenik, and Faber (1991) found that the more time people spent watching television, the more likely they were to believe that other Americans had tennis courts, private airplanes, convertibles, car telephones, and maids. Heavy viewers of television were more likely to believe that other Americans had cosmetic surgery and belonged to a private gym, and their aggregated perception of the proportion of the population who were millionaires was more likely an overestimate. Furthermore, the types of programs viewed also affected this upward distortion: soap operas (daytime or prime time) yielded a larger upward bias than did other programs. Schor (1998) also found a direct effect of television watching: it was correlated

32 with spending more and saving less. Her research showed that every hour of television watched per week would raise annual spending by $208 per year. Another piece of evidence for the link between television viewing and spending is that excessive television viewing and debt are found to be closely correlated. A poll conducted by the Merck Family Fund in 1995 (cited in Schor, 1998) revealed that the fraction responding that they “watch too much television” rose steadily with level of indebtedness. More than half (56%) of those who reported themselves “heavily” in debt also said they “watch too much television.” Schor explained that the inflation of norms raised aspirations, thereby leading to more spending. As a result of television viewing and new comparison processes, many people have begun observing and aspiring to the standards set by the upper-middle class and the rich. The lifestyles of this group, which accounts for the top 20% of the income distribution, are approaching the status of cultural icons. Increasingly, people with far less income consider the upper-middle class lifestyles necessary and worth having. Fournier and Guiry (1993) found that 35% of their sample of consumers aspired to reach the top 6% of the income distribution and another 49% aspired to the next 12%. Only 15% of their sample reported that they would be satisfied with “living a comfortable life,” that is, being middle class. Another indicator of upscaling is that people are now more likely to believe that “the good life” can be had from material goods. Growing numbers of people believe that vacation homes, swimming pools, travel abroad, nice clothes, a lot of money, and second cars are symbolic of a good life. Finally, the proportion of the population identifying various consumer items as necessities rather than luxuries

33 has increased substantially since 1973 (Schor, 1999). Schor (1999) explained that in the first half of the twentieth century, status became a more fluid currency, and consumption assumed a more prominent role than birth, history, and caste in America. Urbanization, formal education, and the disappearance of traditional social relationships have rendered spending more salient in establishing social position and personal identity. Thus, in the modern consumer society, commodities take on a new kind of symbolic importance. Belonging to a particular social class now entails consuming a requisite set of goods and services. Status or competitive consumption yields well-being or satisfaction not on the basis of its absolute level, but always in relation to the level of consumption one’s reference groups have achieved. Thus, when one’s neighbor acquires a new product, one’s own level of well-being falls, merely by virtue of having fallen behind relatively. To avoid such a decline, one must buy the new product to “keep up.” The increasing prevalence and importance of brand-name status goods (as well as their cheap counterfeit versions) is another indicator of the growth of affluent lifestyles. Visible labels appear to have proliferated to a whole range of products that were not previously heavily “branded” or symbolized (Schor, 1999). To figure in the status competition, goods must be visible or public in their use and ownership. Clothing, housing, and automobiles have traditionally been such important status symbols because they are all accessible to public view and their use is easily verifiable. Accordingly, status products such as designer clothes, luxury cars, perfume, and jewelry become very popular among status-directed

34 American consumers. Contemporary luxury spending in America is so enormous that Frank (1999) named it a “luxury fever” while Twitchell (2002) called it “our love affair with luxury.” The total U.S. spending on luxury goods – defined by retail trade associations as goods in each category exceeding a given price threshold, such as $200 for a pair of shoes – increased by 21% between 1995 and 1996, compared to an increase of only 5% in overall merchandise sales during the same period (Heath, 1997). Before 1996, total sales of so-called premium brands of luxury cars (those selling for more than $30,000) accounted for 5% to 7% of the U.S. market. Recently, the luxury share soared from 6.2% to 10.2% through the first half of 2003 (Ward’s Auto World, 2003). The increasing trend of luxury consumption is international. According to Global Insights Inc. (cited in Zoia, 2003), worldwide deliveries of prestige vehicles had increased 42% from 1997 to 2003, and projected worldwide luxury-brand automobile sales will grow 23% between 2003 and 2007, compared with a 13% gain for the volume brands such as Ford, Chevrolet, Fiat, Honda, and Opel. The 17 largest luxury products groups – including Pinault-Printemps, Christian Dior, LVMH, Swatch, Luxottica Group, Gucci, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Tiffany & Co., Hermes, Waterford Wedgwood, Armani, Bulgari, Coach, IT holdings/Ittierre, Versace, and Movado – achieved total worldwide sales of over 64 billion dollars in 2000, and the figure increased 4.4% to almost 67 billion dollars in 2001. In 2002, the average sales increase of the 18 leading international luxury marketers was 6.6% (Stevens, 2003). If not for terrorism, economic recession, and

35 a “bear” stock market, the growth would have stayed at 10-20% as it was in the booming 1990s (Unity Marketing, 2003). The notion of luxury is largely shaped by perception, which is subjective, personal, relative, and idiosyncratic. Dubois and Laurent (1994) found it difficult to develop a generalizable concept of luxury. A recent research project sponsored by Home & Garden magazine found that few brands rose to the level of being widely recognized, even among luxury consumers, as a “luxury brand.” Only 10% of luxury consumers surveyed agreed with the statement, “Luxury is defined by the brand of the product, so if it isn’t a luxury brand it isn’t a luxury” (Unity Marketing, 2003). Luxury products are more and more accessible to the middle class, and there is a trend of popularization of luxury brands. On one hand, many luxury goods companies such as Cartier have started to diffuse and accessorize their brands to lure middle-class or even lower-class customers. On the other hand, many consumers who are traditionally excluded from the luxury market express a growing desire to acquire luxury goods. The democratic view is popular that every one has the right to access luxury items. For example, 69% of 866 respondents in a national survey of American households with incomes $50, 000+ think that everyone is entitled to luxury (Unity Marketing, 2003). Dubois and Laurent (1994) found that almost 75% of their French respondents agreed with the statement, “Today, everyone should have the access to luxury goods.” It was not until the 1950s that accessibility of consumer goods began to transcend social classes and that the status-conferring qualities discussed decades

36 earlier by Veblen came to have a more general social relevance. The status consumption of American society was fueled by the credit card introduced in 1950. Now people’s dream of status products could come true thanks to an easy loan from their credit card company. With credit cards, they can own the luxury goods they could not afford earlier. As a result, overspending has become a common phenomenon in the contemporary America. According to Whiteley (1993), the U.S. short-term consumer credit rose from $8.4 billion in 1945 to almost $45 billion in 1958. By August 2003, U.S. consumer credit debts reached $1.956 trillion! (Federal Reserve, 2003). The savings rate of the United States dropped to a negative 1.3% in 1999, while personal bankruptcies exceeded 1 million in 1998 (Copeland, 2000). According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 1.63 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in fiscal year 2003 (“Bankruptcies up for the year,” 2003). As economists, social scientists, and marketing scholars enunciated from their own perspectives, consumption has assumed such a central role in today’s American society that consumerism has become a way of life (Miles, 1998). Consumerism has influenced everyday life not only at the levels of economic processes, social activities, and household structures, but also at the level of meaningful psychological experience – affecting the construction of identities, the formation of relationship, and the framing of events. On one hand, consumerism has offered ordinary people all opportunities to take advantage of their own means for economic, political, personal, and creative participation in society. On the other hand, consumers feel constrained, controlled, or even manipulated because

37 consumerism clearly constructs rules about how consumers should behave and promotes consumer goods as a resource that individual consumers can use as a means of constructing their social life (Miles, 1998). In short, an affluent society depends on consumption, and consumers buy things to define themselves. Finally, people are what they buy and own. Compulsive Buying The American economy cannot prosper without mass consumption and production. However, when consumers overspend to keep up with the Joneses, they will be in trouble, both financially and psychologically. Indeed, when consumers allow spending to take over their lives, they suffer from a new obsessive disorder – compulsive buying. McElroy, Kleck, Pope, Smith, and Strakowski (1994) offered the most widely used definition of the compulsive buying disorder: it is a maladaptive preoccupation with buying or shopping, whether buying or shopping impulses or behavior, that either (1) is experienced as irresistible, intrusive, and/or senseless or (2) results in frequent buying of more than can be afforded or of items that are not needed, or shopping for longer periods of time than intended or (3) causes marked distress or (4) is time-consuming, significantly interfere with social or occupational functioning, or (5) results in financial problems (e.g., indebtedness or bankruptcy). (p. 242) Advertising scholars O’Guinn and Faber (1989) defined compulsive buying as chronic, repetitive purchasing that became a primary response to negative events or feelings and that provided immediate short-term gratification, but that ultimately

38 caused harm to the individual and/or others. Compulsive spenders come from all income groups (Faber, O’Guinn, & Krych, 1987). According to Boundy (2000), one type of compulsive spender is a statusdirected image spender: This type of compulsive spender uses money in a highly visible way, always picking up the tab, driving expensive cars, living well, even when the money’s not there to cover it. The image spender is driven by an insatiable need to be admired and to appear important and powerful, even if he or she has to be deep in debt and dodging creditors to do it. Because it is important for image spenders to be among the elite, they crave preferential treatment, whether it’s getting the best table in the restaurant, flying first class, or staying in luxury suites. And they are particularly vulnerable to any marketing pitch that plays on this. (pp. 5-6) Compulsive spenders tend to use shopping and acquiring to meet non-financial needs for self-esteem, personal potency, and community. However, if one looks to material goods for self-esteem, one can never get enough or spend enough to feel good about oneself. Likewise, if one’s sense of power is based on conspicuous material goods, one will always crave more (Boundy, 2000). In some cases, compulsive buying is inherited. Parents display compulsive buying patterns, and children will follow their example in the future. In today’s families, parents tend to indulge or reward their children with material things. Children who are rewarded with things often develop a pattern of rewarding themselves as adults with commodities when they feel down or stressed out.

39 At the societal level, consumerism prevails, driven by buying, using up, discarding, and buying more, and many people believe that consumerism is the ticket to happiness. For many compulsive spenders, money and material goods have replaced the church, community, and family as the entity around which life is organized. The mall has become a temple to be visited almost daily, and shopping a comforting ritual (Boundy, 2000). What drives consumers to buy or shop beyond their means? Faber and colleagues found that possessiveness was not what led people to become compulsive buyers even though compulsive spenders did score higher on Belk’s materialism scale than general consumers. Their studies showed that consumers’ self-feelings and interpersonal relationships often triggered their compulsive spending; for example, a key motivation for compulsive buying might well be to overcome negative emotions and try to feel better temporarily (Faber, 2000). Belk (2000) suggested that compulsive consumption could be motivated by attempted self-enlargement or compensation for a diminished sense because materialistic consumers had a strong desire to regard possessions as their extended selves. Dittmar and her colleagues (2000) argued that compulsive buyers were more likely to believe that consumer goods were an important route toward success, identity, and happiness than were ordinary consumers. Accordingly, they found that compulsive buyers scored higher on Richins and Dawson’s (1990, 1992) materialism scale than non-compulsive consumers. They also believed that compulsive buyers purchased consumer goods, especially clothes and jewelry, to bolster their self-image by drawing on the symbolic meanings associated with

40 products to bridge the gaps between how they saw themselves (actual self) and how they wished to be or to be seen (ideal self). They conducted three consecutive studies to test their new social psychological model of excessive buying. They found that impulsive and excessive buying could be predicted directly from an individual’s self-discrepancies (between actual self and ideal self) and materialistic values. Many scholars have classified compulsive buying as an impulse control disorder (Black, Repertinger, Gaffney, & Gabel, 1998; Christenson et al., 1992; Faber, 1992; McElroy, Pope, Hudson, Kleck, & White, 1991; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989; Schlosser, Black, Repertinger, & Freet, 1994) while a few scholars argue that compulsive buying possesses features of obsessive compulsive disorders (e.g., Christenson et al., 1994; Frost, Steketee, & Williams, 2003). Regardless, the disorder is associated with psychiatric co-morbidity, particularly mood, anxiety, and substance-use disorders (Black et al., 1998). Specifically, compulsive buying has been linked to alcoholism, drug use, binge eating, and sexual promiscuity (Christenson et al., 1994; Faber et al., 1987; McElroy et al., 1994; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989; Schlosser et al., 1994). Millions of Americans are suffering or at risk of compulsive buying. Faber and O’Guinn (1992) liberally estimated that 8.1% of the general population could be classified as compulsive buyers or at risk of becoming compulsive buyers. Using a more conservative criterion of a probability level of 0.95, the estimate will be 1.8% of the population or 18 individuals in a thousand. Other scholars have estimated that about 2% to 8% of the U.S. population is prone to compulsive buying disorder

41 (e.g., Black et al., 1998; Hirschman, 1992). Compulsive buying is a logical negative consequence of a consumerist society. It is intricately connected with materialism, self-esteem, status consumption, emotional tensions, and other psychological disorders. To understand clearly the relationship of compulsive-buying tendencies, materialism, status consumption, and media use among college students will be helpful in curbing such an impulse control disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder at its early stage. It will not only help young consumers learn discreet spending habits and educate parents about compulsive buying, but also remind credit card companies and marketers to be careful while targeting to young college students. Materialism American people are overspending to keep up their appearances, to maintain their social status, and to hold up their self-esteem because in an affluent society, the possession of visible luxury goods can confer honor on their owners (Schor, 1999). If American people view material possessions as the symbol of success and the source of happiness in life, they can be regarded as believers in materialism (Richins & Dawson, 1992). It is significant for advertising/marketing practitioners to understand the dynamics of materialism because most American people are more or less materialistic in the sense that more and more American consumers no longer buy products or services solely for necessity. Actually, many advertising and marketing campaigns are intended to stimulate or even create people’s desires for new things. Advertising and marketing practitioners need to know why and how consumers develop their obsessions with possessions, what materialistic consumers

42 aspire to buy and to own, how desires for possessions influence their beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising, what materialists’ media use patterns are, in what ways materialism predicts consumers’ brand knowledge and spending patterns, whether materialism can serve as a market segmentation variable, whether materialism brings about some bad social or psychological consequences, whether materialism has some redeeming features, and so on. On the other hand, for young people to have a deep understanding of materialism will help them become mature, sophisticated, and responsible consumers in today’s consumerist society. Then what exactly is materialism? In the relevant literature, materialism is defined from various social, cultural, psychological, and economic perspectives: a way of life, a value orientation, a cultural system, a personality trait, a secondorder value, an aspiration, and so on. In the Oxford English Dictionary, materialism is defined as “a devotion to material needs and desires, to the neglect of spiritual matters; a way of life, opinion, or tendency based entirely upon material interests.” Daun (1983) described materialism as a lifestyle in which a high level of material consumption functioned as a goal and served as a set of plans. Materialism lends meaning to life and provides an aim for everyday work. Fox and Lears (1983) regarded materialism as the ceaseless pursuit of the “good life” through consumption. Ward and Wackman (1971) defined materialism as “an orientation which views material goods and money as important for personal happiness and social progress” (p. 422). Inglehart (1981) considered materialism as an economic orientation to life, a cultural or structural variable, giving precedence to economic values over other

43 values such as freedom, civil power, aesthetics, and friendship. He argued that materialism was a value situated within the constellation of a value system. He also posited that Western countries had satisfied a majority of physical needs and were then mainly concerned with post-materialistic values, such as family, friends, and social welfare. His definition has somewhat influenced Richins and Dawson (1990). Similarly, Mukerji (1983) regarded materialism as “a cultural system in which material interests are not made subservient to other social goals” (p. 8) and material self-interests are prominent. Belk (1984) observed, “Materialism reflects the importance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions. At the highest levels of materialism, such possessions assume a central place in a person’s life and are believed to provide the greatest sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction” (p. 291). However, when trying to measure materialism, he operationalized it as a personality trait with the characteristics of possessiveness, non-generosity, envy, and tangibilization. Possessiveness was defined as “the inclination and tendency to retain control or ownership of one’s possessions” (Belk, 1983, p. 51_). Belk’s (1982) broadly defined possessions include not only tangible assets but also certain experiences such as last year’s vacation and even other persons (where some identification with and mastery or control over these persons exists, e.g., one’s employee, friend, child, legislator). Belk (1982) tried to distinguish acquisitiveness and possessiveness by determining whether one’s relationship with objects was pre- or post-acquisition, but later he (1984) found out that possessiveness should be a single-factor construct. Belk conceptualized possessiveness as a concern about the

44 loss of possessions (Belk, 1984), a desire for the greater control of ownership rather than the lesser control of rental, borrowing, or leasing (Berry & Maricle, 1973), an inclination to save and retain possessions, and a tendency to tangiblize experiences through souvenirs, photos, and other mementos. For Belk, possessiveness is value free and can be related positively or negatively to human satisfaction. Non-generosity was considered as “an unwillingness to give possessions to or share possessions with others” (Belk, 1984, p. 29_). Belk’s concept of non-generosity includes an unwillingness to share possessions with others, a reluctance to lend or donate things to others, and a negative attitude toward charity. Belk (1984) found that non-generosity was negatively correlated with happiness. Envy can be regarded as “displeasure and ill will at the superiority of (another person) in happiness, success, reputation or possession of anything desirable” (p. 292). Belk believes that envy is different from jealousy because envy focuses on another’s possessions while jealousy focuses on one’s own possessions. The construct of envy involves a desire for others’ possessions (objects, experiences, or persons). The envious person dislikes those who own the desired possessions (Belk, 1984) and feels personally demeaned by the fact of ownership, especially when the envious person thinks that the owners do not deserve it. Belk reserves his judgment but acknowledges that envy is treated as either a beneficial or destructive trait in past studies. Later, when Ger and Belk (1990) tried to measure materialism cross-culturally, they found a new dimension, tangibilization. Tangibility is defined as the conversion of experience in material form. Taking pictures during a vacation and collecting things are some examples.

45 There are several noteworthy points in Belk’s conceptualization. First, materialism is an object-oriented concept. Second, material possessions can serve as one’s “extended self.” Finally, materialism embodies the individual’s desire to control material objects. More relevant to this study, Richins and Dawson (1990) considered materialism a value orientation with at least three components: a status component, which reflects the intended and actual use of material objects as a means of social recognition and to symbolize one’s personal success; the expectation or aspirational component of materialism concerns the extent to which an individual believes that acquisition of material objects will lead to personal happiness and enjoyment of life; and an affective component represented by the degree to which an individual actually does find possessions to be a source of satisfaction. (p. 170) In other words, materialism is “an organizing or second-order value that incorporates both the importance placed on certain end states (achievement and enjoyment values) and beliefs that possessions are appropriate means to achieve these states” (p. 171). Richins and Dawson’s (1992) concept of materialism rests on the two processes of acquisition and possession. They believe that these processes organize and guide the materialist’s plans and behaviors under the expectation of certain favorable end states. There are three themes in their concept of materialism. First, acquisition is central to the lives of materialists. It not only serves as a focal point, but also organizes behavioral patterns. Acquisition serves as a set of plans and goals that

46 directs and guides daily endeavors. Second, acquisition is a means of achieving happiness and well-being in life. To materialists, both acquisition and possession of goods are essential to satisfaction and well-being in life. Finally, materialists use possessions to display success or status. They judge their own and others’ success by the number and quality of possessions accumulated. They view themselves as successful to the extent they can possess products that project the desired selfimage. Materialism represents a mind-set or constellation of attitudes regarding the relative importance of acquisition and possession of objects in one’s life. For materialists, possessions and their acquisition are at the forefront of personal goals that dictate their “way of life.” They value possessions and their acquisition more highly than most other matters and activities in life. For Richins and Dawson (1992), materialism is a value that “guides people’s choices and conduct in a variety of situations, including, but not limited to consumption areas” (p. 307). It should be able to influence not only the type of products purchased, but also the quantity. For Kasser (2002) and his colleagues, materialistic values can be assessed by a six-item aspiration index. Their respondents were asked to rate how important their aspirations of financial success were, from not at all to very important. For example, respondents might choose to identify with “You will have a job that pays well.” Wishes for financial success, an appealing appearance, and social recognition are considered people’s extrinsic aspirations, while self-acceptance (desires for psychological growth, autonomy, and self-esteem), affiliation (desires for a good family life and friendships), and community feeling (desires to make the

47 world a better place through one’s own actions) are regarded as intrinsic aspirations. Kasser and Ryan (1996) believe that three extrinsic aspirations are three closely related types of materialistic values. They argue that the media in a consumer culture frequently link these values by showing beautiful or successful people to sell products or services. In addition, money, image, and fame all share a focus of looking for a sense of worth outside of oneself and involve striving for external rewards and the praise of others. This study follows that of Richins and Dawson to define materialism as a value of at least three components: acquisition centrality, acquisition as the pursuit of happiness, and possession-defined success. It is an organizing central value that guides people’s choices and behavior in everyday life. It is an enduring belief that acquisition and possessions are essential to happiness and success in one’s life. Broadly defined, materialism is any excessive reliance on consumer goods to achieve the end states of pleasure, self-esteem, good interpersonal relationship, or high social status, any consumption-based orientation to happiness-seeking and a high importance of material issues in life (Ger & Belk, 1999). Materialism is generally regarded negatively all over the world. It is condemned by all major world religions, and it incurs humanistic, social, and environmental criticisms from numerous scholars. A basic rationale for such condemnations is that individualistic and self-indulgent material consumption goes against altruism and social welfare (Ger & Belk, 1999). Wuthnow (1994) interviewed 2,000 Americans and concluded that materialism

48 had become a generalized symbol of evil in American culture. When something goes wrong with society, people easily point their fingers at materialism. Another argument states that focusing on human relationships with things alienates people from relationships with others (e.g., Wachtel, 1991). Some critics accuse materialism of causing property crime (e.g., Coleman, 1992). Some attribute environmental problems to materialism by arguing that material greed is destroying the earth (e.g., Seabrook, 1978). Kasser and Ryan (1993) considered materialism as a dark side of the American dream because lower well-being and greater distress might occur when goals regarding extrinsic rewards or the contingent approval of others were more central to an individual than were goals concerning intrinsic actualizing tendencies. They found that highly central financial success aspirations were associated with less self-actualization, less vitality, more depression, and more anxiety. In addition, a high centrality of aspiration for financial success was associated with lower global adjustment, lower social productivity, and more behavioral disorders. Later, they (1996) found that the relative importance and efficacy of extrinsic aspirations for financial success, an appealing appearance, and social recognition were associated with lower vitality and self-actualization and with more physical symptoms. Contrarily, the relative importance and efficacy of intrinsic aspirations for selfacceptance, affiliation, community feeling, and physical health were associated with higher well-being and less distress. Materialism is not only associated with lower psychological well-being, but also correlated with personality disorders and anti-social behavior. Cohen and

49 Cohen (1996) measured materialistic values of more than 700 teenagers aged 12 to 20 in upstate New York and examined whether admiration of materialistic values and the priority put on being rich were associated with dozens of important mental disorders specified by the American Psychiatric Association. They reported that teenagers who endorsed materialistic values were more likely to have mental disorders such as separation anxiety (1.51 times), paranoid (1.6 times), histrionic disorder (1.6), borderline disorder (1.48), narcissistic disorder (1.52), passiveaggressive disorder (1.49), and dependent disorder (1.8). The likelihood of having these disorders was very similar for those who put a priority on being rich: 1.53 for attention deficit disorder, 1.79 for marijuana abuse, 1.68 for separation anxiety, 1.46 for schizoid, 2.26 for schizotypal disorder, 1.43 for paranoid, 1.4 for narcissistic disorder, 2.23 for passive-aggressive disorder, and 1.59 for avoidant disorder. Kasser and Ryan (2001) also found that college students with a strong materialistic value orientation (measured by the researchers’ three aspiration indexes) were highly likely to use substances such as tobacco, alcohol, and drugs frequently. The negative association between materialistic values and psychological wellbeing is a universal and international phenomenon. It is confirmed by studies in Britain (Chan & Joseph, 2000), Denmark and India (Khanna & Kasser, 2001), Germany (Schmuck, 2001), Romania (Frost, 1998), Russia (Ryan et al., 1999), South Korea (Kim, Kasser, & Lee, 2003), and Singapore (Kasser & Ahuvia, 2002). Similar results are also reported in other countries. In Australia, Sanders and Munro (2000) found that students’ materialism was associated with increased

50 feelings of anger, anxiety and depression and with decreased life satisfaction. Sirgy et al. (1998) found that adults who had scored high on Belk’s or Richins and Dawson’s scales tended to have lower life satisfaction in China, Turkey, Australia, Canada, the United States, and Singapore. Diener and Oishi (2000) measured values and life satisfaction of more than 7,000 college students in 41 different nations and identified a negative correlation between a strong value on making money and life satisfaction. Materialism may influence consumers’ attitudes toward spending, credit card use, and debts. Watson (1998) found that people with high levels of materialism had more positive attitudes toward spending and debt, but there was not a significant relationship between materialism and actual debt levels. Similarly, Pinto, Parente, and Palmer’s (2000) survey of 1,022 college students did not find a significant difference between those individuals scoring high versus those scoring low on Richins and Dawson’s materialism scale in terms of the number of credit cards owned and the average balance owed. However, students high on materialism generally showed significantly more positive attitudes toward using credit cards to finance purchases and more knowledge of the drawbacks of credit cards than students low on materialism. Students high on materialism were more likely to believe in the benefits of having credit cards. What motivates people to develop materialistic values? According to BallRokeach et al. (1984), values are the cognitive representations of societal demands and individual needs. In other words, human values are developed and learned to serve two purposes: they are formed in response to societal demands for

51 competence and morality while helping to satisfy individual needs for competence and morality. Societal demands can be categorized as terminal demands (demands for achieving socially desirable end states such as wisdom, salvation, and peace) and instrumental demands (demands for engaging in socially desirable behaviors such as behaving honestly, capably, and compassionately). Humans believe and behave in ways that are consistent with a basic need to maintain and enhance their self-esteem. To attain some higher level of competence or morality is central to the maintenance and enhancement of one’s self-esteem. Self-conceptions and selfpresentations of competence and morality maintain or raise the level of one’s selfesteem. So the need to maintain and enhance self-conceptions and selfpresentations of competence and morality is the basic motivation that explains not only why people might be willing to change their values, but also why they might resist the change. In a consumerist culture, people’s self-identities are almost exclusively formed and maintained by consumption, that is, people are defined by what they buy and own (Mackay, 1997). Consumption confers honor and social status on consumers. People’s competence is often judged by their financial success. Purchasing power helps maintain and enhance one’s self-esteem. Mass media constantly feed the glamorous images of successful people’s lifestyles to audiences. It follows naturally that people become materialistic by conforming to the norms of a consumerist society. Kasser (2002) has emphasized that unfulfilled psychological needs such as security and self-esteem explain why people aspire for financial success, good

52 look, and fame. He thinks that materialistic values are both a symptom of underlying insecurity and a coping strategy to alleviate problems and satisfy needs. Insecurity can be attributed to a less-nurturing parenting style, family disruption, poorer social-economic backgrounds, economic poverty, unequal social opportunities, and the fear of death. If parents fail to help their children feel secure, children tend to grow up pursuing materialistic aspirations (Kasser, Ryan, Zax, & Sameroff, 1995). Children from divorced families experience less love and affection, and they are more likely to turn to materialistic pursuits as a way of filling up the gap and feeling more safe and connected to others (Rindfleisch, Burroughs, & Denton, 1997). Teenagers who strongly value materialism are more likely to come from lower social-economic backgrounds than are children who value self-acceptance, relationship and community contribution (Cohen & Cohen, 1996; Kasser et al., 1995). Inglehart and Abramson (1994) found that people in poorer nations, who possibly experienced more insecurity, were typically more materialistic than those in wealthier nations. In a secondary cross-cultural study, Kasser and Sharma (1999) discovered that women felt less secure about their abilities to support themselves when they had less opportunity to become educated or to control their reproduction, and then they were more materialistic in the desires they had for mates. When people think of their own deaths, they will become greedier and report a stronger aspiration for financial success (Kasser & Sheldon, 2000). Materialistic values are associated with low self-esteem, especially when people believe that their self-worth depends on external signifiers such as money

53 and status (Chan & Joseph, 2000). Kasser (2002) believes that such contingent selfesteem is fragile, unstable, and short-lived because it relies on meeting particular external standards. If people do not receive positive external feedbacks, their selfevaluations will plummet. The rising expectations and resultant discrepancies of the actual and the ideal always drive individuals to pursue higher materialistic goals. They will never be able to fulfill the need for self-esteem and competence. Generally, age diminishes people’s materialism; that is, when people grow old, they attach less importance to material possessions than other things. Several generational differences in materialism are identified by previous research. Furby (1978) suggested that infants attempted to overcome dependence on others by actively acquiring possessions. Many studies of children’s wishes indicate that interest in money and material possessions declines with age (e.g., Cobb, 1977; Horrocks, 1976). As children grow into adolescence, they display less selfish retention of possessions (e.g., Emler & Rushton, 1974; McNeal, 1987). Adolescents are concerned with their identities, and they develop a tendency to define their selves through identification with things and activities. They are attracted to those items that can enhance their self-image, give them a sense of independence, or aid accomplishment, such as automobiles (Weiland, 1955) or musical instruments (Csikszentmihayi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981). For young adults, parenthood is a key life-span event that leads to the shift from an egoistic concern with self to an altruistic concern with children (Claxton & Murray, 1995). Marriage can change adults’ attitudes toward possessions. Young married couples are found to be more altruistic and considerate of each other and to

54 share more possessions than young co-habiting couples of the same age (Nock, 1995). Middle-aged people (40-50 years of age) are more likely to cite power and status as the reasons why people own things than are those in other age groups (Furby, 1978). Older people treasure their past experiences and value keepsakes and mementos, both in the form of possessions (Sherman & Newman, 1977-1978) and special places (Myers, 1985). Past studies suggest that egoistic materialism declines as age increases. Generally speaking, older people care less about material possessions and feel happier than younger people (Sheldon & Kasser, 2001). Birth order may contribute to materialism in some ways. Zemanek and Claxton (2000) found that the last-born group produced higher materialism scores on Richins and Dawson’s (1992) scale than first-borns and middle-borns. Zemanek and Claxton explained that young first-borns might be more likely to incorporate aspects of their parents’ personae into their developing definitions of self (relying relatively less on materialistic influences). Materialism has some redeeming features in a modern affluent society. Because materialists value acquisition and possession of objects, materialists are best prospects of products and services in the eyes of manufacturers, retailers, and advertisers. Consumerist economists such as Keynes (1936) and Galbraith (1998) argued that mass consumption led to full employment and the economic growth of a nation. A strong desire for acquisition and possession of mass-produced commodities and services is thus essential to the prosperity of an affluent capitalistic society. Even the status consumption of luxuries is healthy in the economic sense that its trickle-down effects will benefit various industries and

55 workers (Mason, 1998). Actually, consumer spending is today one of the most important economic indicators. When consumer spending slows down and drops, it is a sign of economic recession, while the increase in consumer spending results in economic growth. For example, the U.S. Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy, propelled by the biggest jump in consumer spending in nearly 17 years, grew at a 5.4% annual rate during the first three months of 2000 (“U.S. Economy Strong So Far in 2000,” 2000). Considering that consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of the U.S. economic activity, it is not exaggerating to conclude that the American economy depends on materialism. Advertising scholar Twitchell (1999) defends materialism in a different way: consumerism is not forced upon people, and it is people’s better judgment because people are naturally attracted to the world of goods. Human needs for objects are no longer biological but cultural because the meaning of people’s purchase is coded socially by signifying systems such as advertising, packaging, fashion, and branding. A consumer society is democratic and liberating in the sense that people are free to choose whatever products or services to consume. They are free to create their self-images and to get some sense of value by consuming different commodities or services. Twitchell (2002) believes that rational consumers are fully aware that they are more interested in consuming meaning rather than material when they buy status products or services. Consumption, especially status consumption, can bring excitement and satisfaction to consumers, or many people will not be attracted to it. For some consumers, shopping has become a religious

56 experience, a ritual of self-definition. While consumption of “opuluxes” (very classy and expensive luxury products) will lead to disappointment and then to renewed desire, it is better than the route from melancholy to angst. An affluent society in which everybody can afford luxuries is a suitable goal of communal aspiration (Twitchell, 2002). Richins and Dawson (1992) also pointed out some potential positive characteristics of materialism. For example, managers may be happy to have materialistic employees because the desire for goods will make them work harder or longer to enhance their incomes and standards of living. Many materialists tend to have a strong motivation to success and self-sufficiency. For business institutions, high levels of consumption by consumers will allow them to invest more capital in research and development, which in turn leads to greater productivity, technological breakthroughs, and higher living standards. In summary, this study holds that marketing communications activities contribute to consumers’ materialism that is associated with some negative social, psychological, or behavioral problems. On the other hand, in a consumerist society, economic development depends on materialism, consumers’ strong desire for goods, and consumption. Materialistic consumers believe that the acquisition and possession of commodities are essential to the enhancement and maintenance of a positive self-identity. Their values may be shallow in the spiritual or humanistic sense, but they are indispensable for any commercial culture.

57 Beliefs About and Attitudes Toward Advertising It is evident that advertising promotes materialism or at least advocates consumption. Materialists believe that acquisition and possession of products or services constitute the symbol of success and the route to happiness and life satisfaction. It seems logical that materialists trust advertising and hold more favorable attitudes toward advertising than do non-materialists. That materialists are more positive toward advertising in general is also consistent with the principle of homophily in communication. Attitudinal homophily is the extent to which a receiver perceives the source’s viewpoints, positions, or attitudes as similar to the receiver’s. As attitudinal homophily increases, so does the source’s ability to get the receiver to listen, learn, and be persuaded (McCroskey, Richmond, & Daly, 1975). It is intriguing for advertising and marketing practitioners to know to what extent materialists trust advertising and in what ways their evaluations of advertising in general are favorable. General beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising have always been treated as significant variables that somehow influence consumers’ attitudes toward a particular advertisement, attitudes toward the advertised brand, recall of the advertised brand, consumers’ involvement with advertisements, and even the effectiveness of advertising campaigns. A review of past studies on advertising beliefs and attitudes is helpful to an understanding of the probable link between media, materialism, and consumers’ general beliefs about and global attitudes toward advertising. The general attitude toward advertising has been defined as “a learned

58 predisposition to respond in the consistently favorable or unfavorable manner to advertising in general” (Lutz, 1985, p. __). In this study, the attitude toward advertising is an affective construct; it is regarded as a general and enduring positive or negative feeling about advertising (see Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). General attitudes toward advertising are global and relatively enduring evaluations of advertising (see Petty, Unnava, & Strathman, 1991). A belief can be described as an expressed likelihood that an object possesses or is associated with some attribute (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). So, beliefs about advertising in general can be defined as beliefs that advertising possesses some positive or negative attributes that affect us both economically and socially. Beliefs about advertising and attitudes toward advertising have often been lumped together in past research. Muehling (1987) pointed out that many studies intended to examine respondents’ attitudes toward advertising had actually measured beliefs about advertising. Attitudes toward advertising and beliefs about advertising are actually two different constructs. For Rosenberg (1960) and Fishbein (1963), attitude is an independent measure of affect for or against the attitude object. It is a function of value importance and perceived instrumentality (Rosenberg, 1960). It is determined by the strength of the belief that the attitude object possesses some attributes, the evaluation of these attributes, and the number of those attributes (Fishbein, 1963). In other words, cognitive antecedents (beliefs or values) predict attitudes toward an object, person, issue, or behavior. Lutz (1985) argued that the attitude toward advertising in general was grounded in consumers’ beliefs toward advertising in general. Bauer and Greyser

59 (1968) showed some empirical evidence that the general attitude toward advertising was influenced by beliefs about adverting in general. Pollay and Mittal (1993) believe that attitudes toward advertising flow from beliefs about advertising that are the aggregated evaluations of perceived attributes and consequences. They found that cognitive antecedents (beliefs) explained a considerable portion of the variance in the global attitude toward advertising. Recently, Ramaprasad (2001) confirmed that beliefs about advertising were significant predictors of the general attitude toward advertising. Dimensionality of beliefs about advertising in general has been explored for more than three decades. Bauer and Greyser (1968) proposed that consumer beliefs about advertising could be categorized as beliefs about the social and economic effects of advertising. Their two-dimensional scale of beliefs about advertising assessed advertising as a social institution instead of an instrument. Their scale was adopted in many later studies (e.g., Anderson, Engledow, & Becker, 1978; Greyser & Reece, 1971; Haller, 1974; Larkin, 1977; Schutz & Casey, 1981; Triff, Benningfield, & Murphy, 1987). The reliability and dimensionality of their scale have been tested and generally confirmed. For instance, Andrew (1989) successfully verified the separate social and economic dimensions of beliefs about advertising in a confirmatory factor analysis of the data collected from different regional and institutional groups. Sandage and Leckenby (1980) made a distinction between advertising viewed as a social institution and advertising as observed in particular advertisements. They argued that in addition to the social and economic functions, advertising had a

60 third function of consumer education by supplying consumers with adequate and accurate product information about all the available purchase alternatives. They analyzed the survey data collected during 1960-1978 among 1,552 university students and discovered that two dimensions of attitudes toward advertising consistently emerged: attitudes toward advertising as an institution and as an instrument. Students held a significantly more favorable attitude toward advertising as a social institution than advertising as an instrument. Their scale has been tested, and the two dimensions are also confirmed in later studies. For example, Muehling (1987) administered to 88 students a thought-elicitation exercise, Sandage and Leckenby’s (1980) eight-item semantic differential measures, and 20 Likert-type belief items. He found corroborative evidence for two dimensions of global attitudes toward advertising – attitudes toward the institution of advertising and toward the instruments of advertising – in a confirmatory factor analysis. Two attitudinal dimensions (the institution and instrument) explained over 57% of the variance in the attitude-toward-advertising-in-general factor. His study also showed that beliefs about whether advertising insults the intelligence of consumers, presents a true of products advertised, should have legal limits placed on its expenditures, creates desires for unnecessary goods, and has a higher standard than ten years earlier were significantly correlated with attitudes toward advertising. Pollay and Mittal (1993) have proposed a more comprehensive seven-factor model of attitudes toward advertising, including three personal utility factors and four socio-economic factors. Following Reid and Soley (1982) and Sandage and Leckenby (1980), they made a fundamental distinction between those factors that

61 explicate personal uses and utilities of advertising from those that reflect consumers’ perceptions of advertising’s social and cultural effects. In other words, their study has not only examined attitudes toward the institution of adverting and the instruments of advertising, but also explored personalized and generalized attitudes toward the social and economic effects of advertising. Three personal uses of advertising are posited: 1.

Product information, that is, the role of advertising to provide product information;

2.

Social role and image, the function of advertising to provide lifestyle imagery, such as a brand image or personality, the portrayal of typical or idealized users, associated status or prestige, or social reactions to purchase, ownership, and use; and

3.

Hedonic/Pleasure, the function of advertising to amuse or entertain its audience. (Pollay & Mittal, 1993)

They believe there are four societal effects of advertising: 1.

Good for economy, the function that advertising promotes new goods and technologies, fosters full employment, lowers the average cost of production, promotes a healthy competition between producers to all consumers’ benefit, and generally is a prudent use of national resources that raises the average standard of living;

2.

Materialism, the influence that advertising preoccupies consumers with commercial concerns, creates their desire for goods and fosters their view of material possessions as a route to happiness and life satisfaction;

62 3.

Value corruption, the bad influence of advertising undermining traditional social virtues and reinforcing sinful values;

4.

Falsity/no sense, the consequence that advertising is not telling the whole truth or even purposefully misleading. (Pollay & Mittal, 1993)

The study of beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising is very important because past researchers have established that attitudes toward advertising in general can influence advertising effectiveness. Advertising scholars have provided empirical evidence that general attitudes toward advertising have a direct impact on consumers’ responses to advertising. A study of outdoor (billboard) advertising suggests that respondents with a positive attitude toward advertising in general seem to recall more outdoor advertisements than those who have a negative attitude (Donthu, Cherian, & Bhargava, 1993). In another study, James and Kover (1992) evaluated the impact of overall attitudes toward advertising on advertising “involvement,” measured as the amount of time spent looking at print advertisements. They found that those who felt advertising was not manipulative and was a good way to learn about products were more involved with the advertisements, that is, spent more time looking at the advertisements. On the other hand, those who said they were irritated by program interruptions (by commercials on television) and thought that products did not perform as well as advertisements claimed were also generally more involved with the print advertisements. There may be two explanations. First, because viewers of advertisements are critical of advertising in general, they are more prone to finding faults with particular advertisements. Second, television advertising is much more intrusive and irritating

63 than print advertisements, so critical readers of print advertisements dwell longer on print advertisements because they enjoy more respondent control. James and Kover also suggest that overall advertising attitudes are likely to influence other aspects of advertising communications as well. Mehta’s (2000) study showed that individual attitudinal factors related to advertising in general did influence how a respondent reacted to any particular advertisement. Specifically, he found that the degree of attention that respondents would pay to magazine advertisements, measured as recall of the brand in the advertisement the day after exposure, was influenced by how much they liked to look at advertising, whether they believed advertising helped them stay informed about developments in the marketplace, and whether they saw it as not being manipulative. Respondents’ buying interest was also found influenced by five of the six advertising beliefs explored in his study, including liking to look at advertisements, the value advertising had for the brands advertised, and how informative or truthful advertising was perceived. Persuasion levels were significantly lower among those who believed that advertising was annoying and that advertised brands were often not as good as advertisements claim. To put it in another way, if consumers believe that the advertising is truthful and/or that advertised brands are better than unadvertised brands, they will be significantly more interested in buying the advertised products. Moreover, consumers’ general attitudes toward advertising can influence their attitudes toward the advertisement, a significant predictor of brand attitudes and purchase intents (Lutz, 1985; Mackenzie & Lutz, 1989; Mackenzie, Lutz, & Belch,

64 1986; Mehta, 2000; Mehta & Purvis, 1995; Muehling, 1987; Shimp, 1981). Generally, people with more favorable feelings about advertising in general find specific advertisements more acceptable, informative, and enjoyable (Bartos & Dunn, 1974; Bauer & Greyser, 1968; Lutz, 1985). The influence of attitudestoward-the-advertisement on brand attitudes is found even more significant under low-involvement conditions and for emotionally based advertising. The Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) Copy Research Validity Project also showed commercial liking (similar to attitudes-toward-the-advertisement) was among the strongest predictors of sales differences attributable to advertising (cited in Haley & Baldinger, 1991). Consumers’ beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising are also associated with their exposure to advertising and media use. Bauer and Greyser’s (1968) classic study showed that people with negative or positive attitudes toward advertising viewed more advertisements than people with neutral attitudes. James and Kover (1992) found that general attitudes toward advertising, negative or positive, could influence people’s involvement with specific advertisements, and the involvement was greater both among people who were irritated by advertising and among those who did not believe that advertising manipulated them. Specifically, people who thought that advertising was a good way to learn about products, that it was not manipulative, looked at advertising more as a source of good information. On the other hand, people who were irritated by advertising also spent more time looking at advertisements, possibly because they were more prone to finding faults with those advertisements. Bush, Smith, and Martin (1999)

65 reported that African Americans were more favorably predisposed toward advertising, watched more television, and relied on advertising to help choose the best product (social utility). They found that television viewing was a significant predictor of African Americans’ attitude toward advertising. However, their study has not provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between media consumption and beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising. Nan (2003) also found that people with more resistance to inappropriate advertising content had less media consumption, people who held more positive belief toward advertising’s informational value spent more time on traditional media, and people who held more negative beliefs about advertising spent more time on the Internet. Again, her study is correlational and cannot support the causality and directionality. Various demographic and psychographic antecedents of beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising have been examined in the research literature. Generally, attitudes toward advertising are found to be only moderately related to respondents’ age, gender, income, and education (e.g., Bauer & Greyer, 1968). Some studies have identified significant correlations between certain demographics and attitudes toward advertising. For example, Greyser and Reece (1971) and Haller (1974) reported that students tended to hold more negative attitudes toward advertising than did businessmen. Larkin’s (1977) study corroborated that students had generally negative attitudes toward advertising. Reid and Soley (1982) also confirmed that students were more critical of advertising than was the public. However, Andrew (1989) found that students regarded the social aspects of

66 advertising negatively and the economic aspects positively, just as did the general public. Female students found advertising more offensive and felt that it used too many sexual appeals (Dubinsky & Hensel, 1984), but Petroshius (1986) found that female students had a more favorable attitude toward the institution of advertising, while male students had a more favorable attitude toward the ethics of advertising. Zanot (1984) found that young people tended to be more critical of advertising. Alwitt and Prabhaker (1992) found that older and wealthier respondents (all above 18 years of age) were more likely to dislike television advertising, while those with more television sets were more likely to like television advertising. James and Kover’s (1992) study suggested that age, sex, and education might not be the mediators of overall attitudes toward advertising, but Shavitt, Lowery, and Haefner (1998) found that males, younger consumers, the less educated, those with small incomes, and nonwhites generally had more favorable attitudes. So far as race is concerned, Yoon (1995) reported that African Americans had more favorable beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising, and a more recent study confirmed that African American college students tended to have more positive attitudes toward advertising than did their Caucasian counterparts (Bush et al., 1999). Nan’s (2003) secondary analysis showed that age, gender, income, and ethnicity were significant predictors of beliefs about advertising. Specifically, demographic factors predicted resistance to inappropriate advertising content (sex, violence, and alcohol). Older people were more resistant than younger people; females were more resistant than males; people with lower income were more resistant than people with higher income; black people were more resistant than

67 white people. Gender and ethnicity significantly predicted appreciation of advertising’s informational value: females had more favorable beliefs than males; black people held more favorable beliefs than both whites and Hispanics. Age, education, and ethnicity were significant predictors of beliefs toward advertising’s social effect: older people were more critical than younger people; people with higher education were more critical than people with lower education; black people held the most favorable attitudes, while white people held the most negative attitudes toward advertising. Mixed results suggest that psychographics may be better predictors than demographics of beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising, but few studies have been conducted to explore the relationships. Durand and Lambert (1985) argued that criticisms of advertising were explained more by a sense of consumer and political alienation than by demographic characteristics. At a cultural and social level, Zinkhan and Balazs (1998) reported that Hofstede’s values of uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and individualism were important predictors of consumers’ confidence in advertising as a reliable source of information about the marketplace. Specifically, they found that people who were averse to uncertainty (risk) were more confident in the advertising messages they received even though uncertainty avoidance was not a significant predictor of confidence in advertising. They also detected that confidence in the advertising industry was higher in countries with masculine values than in countries with feminine values. Finally, they found that consumers in collectivist countries had more confidence in advertising than those in individualistic countries. Both individualism/collectivism

68 and masculinity were significant predictors of consumers’ confidence in the advertising industry. It is noteworthy that people with high masculine scores value material success and possessions more dearly than those with low masculine scores. It suggests that materialism should also be an important predictor of general attitudes toward advertising. Actually, a few studies have identified a positive correlation between consumers’ materialism and attitude toward advertising among college students and even adult consumers. Surlin and Squire’s (1987) study showed that Canadian students with materialistic values had a more positive perception of advertising and a stronger desire for the lifestyles depicted in advertising. Yoon (1995) also found a positive and significant relationship between materialism and general attitudes toward advertising among both African Americans and Caucasians. Consumers’ personality traits are also found to be important antecedents to their global attitudes toward advertising. Surlin (1973) reported that high authoritarian-prejudiced individuals held a more favorable attitude toward the institution of advertising than did low authoritarian-prejudiced individuals. Cetola and Prinkey (1986) found that introversion and extroversion influenced audience response to high-intensity advertising appeals. Haugtvedt, Petty, and Cacioppo (1992) examined the role of need for cognition on attitudes formed as a result of exposure to advertisements. Their study revealed that, after exposure to advertisements, individuals with high need for cognition generated more favorable thoughts than individuals with low need for cognition while low-need-for-cognition individuals were more influenced by the attractiveness of the product endorsers

69 than were high-need-for-cognition individuals. Nan (2003) found that people who were more risk averse and masculine tended to be more resistant to inappropriate advertising content (sex, violence, and alcohol) and more critical of advertising’s social effects, but more appreciative of advertising’s informational value. Evidently, it is significant to study consumers’ general beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising. Consumers’ beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising can directly or indirectly influence the effectiveness of advertising messages and campaigns. Consumers’ beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising can somehow influence consumers’ involvement with particular advertisements, attitudes toward a specific advertisement, brand attitudes, brand recall, purchase intent, and even advertising exposure. To have a better understanding of consumers’ general beliefs and global attitudes toward advertising, both demographic and psychographic antecedents should be examined. This study is thus very meaningful because it explores the complicated interrelationships among media use, materialism, status consumption, compulsivebuying tendencies, and beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising among contemporary U.S. college students. Purpose of the Study This exploratory study is intended to examine the complicated relationships between U.S. college students’ media use, materialism, status-consumption tendency, compulsive-buying tendency, unaided brand recall, and purchase intent of luxury products. Specifically, it is meant to find out whether television viewing, magazine reading, and film consumption contribute to U.S. college students’

70 materialism. If so, to what extent have these media helped foster their materialism? It is also meaningful to examine the link of materialism, status consumption, and compulsive-buying tendencies. It will help marketers of status products gain a better understanding of their target consumers, especially consumers’ values and lifestyles. On the other hand, it may evoke the attention of concerned parents and consumer educators that young people’s materialistic values are likely to get them into financial troubles. The study also attempts to provide some empirical evidence that media use, materialism, status consumption, and compulsive-buying tendencies are important antecedents or predictors of recall and purchase intent regarding luxury brands. Advertisers will be happy to know that these variables are significant predictors of brand recall and purchase intent and their market segmentation will be more effective by taking these variables into account. The study has also tried to test whether the scales of materialism, status consumption, and compulsive buying are reliable and valid for contemporary U.S. college students. The study has also tapped the underlying dimensions of U.S. college students’ materialism, beliefs about advertising, status consumption, and compulsive-buying tendencies.

71 CHAPTER THREE LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter is a review of previous studies that examined the complicated relationships of media use, materialism, beliefs and attitudes toward advertising, status consumption, compulsive buying, brand recall, and/or purchase intent of luxury products. Based on the research literature, 20 hypotheses were proposed. Mass Media and Materialism Television and Materialism Television has become an indispensable part of American family life and a very important socializing agent for both children and adults. In the United States today, 98.2% of households own a television set while 99.9% of the televisions are color sets (Television Bureau of Advertising, 2003). Television is the number one after-school activity for American children aged two to 18, who spend almost 20 hours per week watching television (Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999). American households on average spend more than 60 hours per week watching all sources of television (Nielsen Galaxy, 2002). It is understandable that many American scholars and parents are concerned about the pervasive impact of television and television advertising (e.g., Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2000; Mittal, 1994; Pollay, 1986; Prawd, 1995). Their worries are exacerbated as the television industry has become more and more commercialized. Commercial television often adapts its standards to the lowest common denominator to attract a large crowd and deliver a mass audience to advertisers. At the same time, television advertising clutter has been on the rise, especially in

72 recent years. According to the 2001 Television Commercial Monitoring Report, the amount of network television non-program time (including network and local commercial time, public-service announcements, public-service promotions, network promotions, and others) ranged from just over 16 minutes per hour to nearly 21 minutes per hour for the six television dayparts (Early Morning, Daytime, Early Prime, Prime Time, Late Prime and Overnight) important to advertisers (ANA/AAAA, 2002). As a result, commercialism, that is, selling a product or service, becomes the most consistent message of commercial television (Harmon, 2001). In addition, idealized, high social class images and lifestyles are pervasive on television, especially in television commercials. These images can lift the life expectation level of heavy viewers of television because they often compare themselves with what they saw and try to catch up through increased consumption (Richins, 1993). It is no wonder that many parents and social critics accused television, especially television advertising, of fostering and promoting materialism. Numerous studies have been conducted in the United States to explore the impact of television and television advertising on viewers’ conceptions (including beliefs, attitudes, and values) of social reality and their behavior. Scholars have found that television contributes to heavy viewers’ worldview that the world is a dangerous place where people are distrustful of each other, looking out only for themselves (Gerbner & Gross, 1976), political agenda (McCombs & Shaw, 1972), racial perceptions (Greenberg & Brand, 1994), even health problems (Brown & Walsh-Childers, 1994) and aggression (Wilson et al., 1997). Several marketing and

73 advertising researchers have also found that television viewing is correlated with consumer’s knowledge of the marketplace (e.g., Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Clark, Martin, & Bush 2001). Voluminous cultivation studies within Gerbner’s Cultural Indicator Project found an effect of television on heavy viewers’ perceptions of violence, race, gender roles, age-role stereotypes, health, work, science, family, educational achievement, aspirations, and politics (for a review, see Gerbner et al., 2002; for meta-analysis, see Morgan & Shanahan, 1997). Most cultivation studies have focused on the extent that television affects the feelings, perceptions, and attitudes of heavy viewers of television. Only a few studies have approached materialistic values from the cultivation perspective in the Western Hemisphere. Reimer and Rosengren (1990) conducted a values survey in Sweden and found some evidence to support the close relationship between media use and values. Among other things, they found that materialism was strongly related to watching television news (Pearson’s r = 0.203) and entertainment programs (r = 0.283). Brand and Greenberg (1994) compared Channel One viewers and non-viewers among middle and high school adolescents in the United States. Channel One is the television program targeting to high school students whose founder gives schools audiovisual equipment in exchange for showing students a twelve-minute program with two minutes of commercials. More Channel One viewers than non-viewers reported that they usually wanted what was featured in television commercials and that designer clothing labels were important to them. Greenberg and Brand’s (1993) second survey of 383 students in Channel One schools and 437 in control schools

74 also identified a statistically significant increase in materialistic values among the Channel One viewers. It seems that young heavy viewers of television are more vulnerable to televised materialistic values. Most media scholars believe that television promotes excessive materialism in children in a survey conducted in the mid-1980s (Bybee, Robinson, & Turow, 1985). Empirical studies of mass communications over the past three decades have provided support for this argument. Goldberg and Gorn’s (1978) study of preschoolers suggested that television advertising directed at children might lead the child to choose material objects over socially oriented alternatives. Churchill and Moschis (1979) assessed the interrelationships among television viewing, sex, age, birth order, family, and peer communication about consumption, materialism, and social and economic motives for consumption. Based on the data collected from 806 adolescents, Churchill and Moschis found that the amount of television viewing was positively correlated with materialistic values (r = 0.101, p < 0.05). In a longitudinal study of television advertising effects on 683 6th-12th graders, Moschis and Moor (1982) found that increased advertising exposure contributed to the development of materialistic values among those who had not yet developed such predispositions. Buijzen and Valkenburg (2003) conducted a survey of 360 parent-child dyads (8- to 12-year-olds), and their analyses of the survey data with structural equation modeling showed that advertising exposure was positively and directly related to children’s purchase requests and materialism. Past research strongly suggests that children under the age of 18 are susceptible to the materialistic influences of television advertising.

75 Compared to teenagers, college students are more mature, experienced, and better educated. However, they still cannot resist some materialistic influences of television and commercials. Easterlin and Crimmins’ (1991) secondary analysis of two major data sets, the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) and the Monitoring the Future Project, did not find a strong television viewing and materialism link among college freshmen and high school seniors. However, they still identified a “substantial increase in private materialism as a life goal, a modest turning away from the public interest, and a sharp decline in emphasis on personal self-fulfillment” (p. 529). Harmon (2001) conducted more recent secondary analyses to determine whether a correlation existed between heavy television viewing and materialistic values. After analyzing the data from Simmons Market Research Bureau, 1996, and the General Social Survey, 1972-1996, Harmon noticed that only three questions in the GSS data showed strong correlations between television viewing and materialism. Primary research has provided more empirical evidence for the link. Richins (1987) found that television viewing was positively correlated with materialistic values of the viewers who perceived television commercials to be realistic portrayals of consumers. Recently, Kwak et al. (2002) analyzed their cross-cultural undergraduate samples from the United States and South Korea and tested their cultivation effects model of television shows and television advertising. Kwak and his associates found that heavy exposure to television advertising increased the audience’s perceptions of a materialistic society in the United States and South

76 Korea. Shrum (1995) not only proposed a social cognitive perspective on cultivation effects, but also developed an heuristic availability model to study the underlying processes of television cultivation of consumer values, perceptions and knowledge (e.g., O’Guinn & Shrum 1997; Shrum, 2002; Shrum, Wyer, & O’Guinn 1998). O’Guinn and Shrum (1997) found that total television viewing and soap opera viewing were significantly correlated with viewers’ affluence estimates or the perception of a materialistic society. Shrum et al. (2003) provided new empirical evidence that the increases in television viewing led to the increases in material values, especially for adult viewers of television with high involvement (paying close attention to television programs). In a survey with a convenience student sample (N = 316) at a large Midwestern university, the correlation between daily television viewing and materialism (r = 0.161, p < 0.01) and that of weekend television viewing and materialism (r = 0.176, p < 0.01) were found to be significantly positive (Ganahl, Yang, & Liu, 2003). Obviously, the link between television viewing and materialism in the United States has been established. Past research on television use and materialism strongly suggests the following hypothesis: H1:

The more time U.S. college students spend watching television, the more materialistic they will be.

Motion Pictures and Materialism Many American people, especially young Americans, love to see films. According to an exclusive poll conducted for American Demographics by market

77 research firm Audits Surveys Worldwide, 70% of Americans said they went to the cinema. Respondents from the Western states were at the front of the line; 74% said they checked out their local multiplex, followed by 70% of Northeastern Americans, and 68% of Southern Americans and Midwestern Americans (Fetto, 2000). In 2002, total U.S. theater admissions increased by 10% to 1,639 million, and the number of admissions was the highest since the late 1950s. Accordingly, total U.S. moviegoers increased by 6% in 2002 to 165.9 million, while 38% of the total moviegoers were frequent moviegoers, and 39% of them were between the ages of 12 and 29. Six out of ten frequent moviegoers were between the ages of 18 and 20. From 1998 to 2002, the 12-29 age group made up 31% of the total moviegoers population, but consisted of 50% of all motion picture admissions (MPAA, 2003a). As a result of increased cinema attendance, annual box office receipts reached the new record of about $9.5 billion, above the previous record figure of $8.35 billion in 2001, despite an economic slump in the United States and a widespread piracy problem in the film industry (MPAA, 2003b). As so many Americans see films in cinemas, advertising on cinema screens before any feature presentations has now become a flourishing business with a huge captive audience. According to National Cinema Network, the cinema advertising market increased 30% to $200 million in 2002 (Dawson, 2003), while Screenvision, another large cinema advertising firm, believes that the U.S. cinema advertising revenue is currently about $300 million (Benz, 2003). The reach of cinema advertising is very impressive. For example, in June 2001, Screenvision’s research showed that its screens reached 12.8 million 12- to 17-

78 year-olds and 21.5 million 18- to 34-year-olds per month. Cinema advertising can also achieve a much higher recall than television commercials. Screenvision’s research showed that consumers remembered cinema advertisements better than television commercials: 43% of moviegoers recalled advertisements they saw onscreen, unaided, versus 6% for television. Moreover, moviegoers are much more tolerant of cinema advertising. Based on 14 exit studies conducted in 2000 and 2001 by Certified Reports, Inc., 88% of moviegoers who watched on-screen commercials liked them (58%) or were neutral (30%) (Grimm, 2003). Americans also like to see films on videotapes and DVDs. In 1996, Video Store Magazine surveyed 4,000 consumers and found that 21% of American households were heavy renters who rent one or more VCRs a week. Medium renters rented one to three times per month and represented 32% of households. Light renters rented every two to three months and comprised 21% of households (Sweeting, 2003). American motion pictures are a very good transmitter of popular American values. For example, Tanner, Haddock, Zimmerman, and Lund (2003) analyzed the contents of 26 Disney animated classics and recently released films and identified four overarching themes: (a) family relationships are a strong priority, (b) families are diverse, but the diversity is often simplified, (c) fathers are elevated, while mothers are marginalized, and (d) couple relationships are created by love at first sight, are easily maintained, and are often characterized by gender-based power differentials. Heavy exposure to American films may lead to the internalization of repetitive cinematic messages and images and even the imitation of cinematic behavior.

79 Thomsen (1993) found that the themes and myths in the portrayal of teachers in American films were closely related to the current trends in American public opinion on teachers, educational issues, and public schools as reported by the annual Gallup polls. Pechmann and Shih’s (1999) two experiments of 800 ninthgraders showed that smoking (versus non-smoking) scenes in films positively arouse young viewers, enhanced their perceptions of smokers’ social stature, and increased their intent to smoke. Similarly, Sargent et al. (2002) examined the association between viewing tobacco use in films and attitudes toward smoking among 3,766 middle-school students who had never smoked a cigarette. Sargent and his associates found that the prevalence of susceptibility to smoking increased with higher categories of exposure: 16% among students who viewed 0 to 50 cinematic tobacco occurrences; 21% (51 to 100), 28% (101 to 150), and 36% (>150). Their findings were corroborated by Goldberg’s (2003) survey study of 1,700 Hong Kong adolescents. Among other things, he found that the exposure to American films was significantly related to two smoking behaviors. In other words, the more American films to which the teenagers were exposed, the greater the likelihood of their having puffed a cigarette and the greater likelihood of their smoking in one year’s time. Many studies of violent films show that heavy exposure to media violence not only can influence the viewers’ world view, but also can increase their aggressive or even violent behavior. Based on more than 1,000 studies, six major professional societies (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical

80 Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association, 2000) concluded that viewing entertainment violence (including television, films, and video games) could lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children. To be specific, the effects of media violence include the following: 1.

Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior.

2.

Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs.

3.

Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others.

In short, heavy exposure to violence on television or cinematic screens can cultivate the following attitudes and values: violence is the right way to resolve conflicts, the world is a mean dangerous place where people look out for themselves and violence is a normal thing in life. The consumption of motion pictures is also associated with viewers’ sexual and contraceptive attitudes and behaviors. Wingood and her colleagues’ (2001) study of 522 black teenage girls showed that adolescents’ exposure to X-rated films was associated with having negative attitudes regarding contraception use, engaging in

81 risky contraceptive practices, and having a strong desire to conceive. Based on the above studies of American films, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2:

The more time U.S. college students spend seeing films, the more materialistic they will be.

Magazine Readership and Materialism American people are still reading magazines. A 1991 survey conducted by the market research firm Audits & Surveys Worldwide (now called RoperASW) revealed that overall, four out of five American households (81%) subscribed to or purchased (from a newsstand or another retailer) at least one magazine a year. Of magazine-consuming households, 24% subscribed to specific magazines while another 17% of households purchased exclusively from the newsstand. Nearly six in 10 (59%) both subscribed to and purchased magazines from the rack. Whether they got their magazines from the postman or the newsstand, the average U.S. household received six different titles a year (Fetto, 2002). According to 2001 Mediamark Research Inc. data, the average American reads 7 of the top 200 titles (only the data of top 200 magazine titles are provided by Mediamark Research Inc.) during a six-month period. Most Americans (73%) said they read a magazine at home. Other popular locales for reading include the doctor’s office (24%), work (24%), and a newsstand or shop (21%). Indeed, 10% of Americans also said they read magazines at the barbershop or beauty salon. At least 1 in 5 men read sports magazines and car titles, but nearly as many males also admitted to taking a peek at women’s magazines regularly. Only 7% of women felt

82 the need to read what men’s magazines had to say. According to the new Mediamark Research Inc. audience data, total U.S. magazine readership grew by 0.4% in 2002. The men’s category showed the most growth, up 8.3% over the previous year. The leading men’s magazine, Maxim, owned by Dennis Publishing, saw its total audience rise an impressive 13% to 12.3 million, exceeding Playboy’s 10.3 million readership and Gentlemen’s Quarterly’s 6.1 million audience. Also showing solid increases were the epicurean category (which includes Condé Nast’s Gourmet and American Express Publishing’s Food & Wine), up 4.5%, and the newsweeklies (Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report), up 3.5%. The Atlantic Monthly had the highest percentage gain, rising 38.5% to 1.4 million (Granatstein, 2002). Today, there are more and more print advertisements involving luxury and status in popular American magazines, especially lifestyles magazines. Belk and W. P. Pollay (1985a) analyzed the contents of a random sample of 411 American magazine advertisements portraying the interior or exterior of a home in the 80 years of the 20th century. They identified an increasing trend of materialism appeals, including luxury and status appeals, and a decreasing trend of nonmaterialism or utilitarian appeals in U.S. print advertising during the twentieth century. Thematically, they also detected a general trend of decreasing instrumental materialism and increasing terminal materialism after the 1970s even though generally the materialistic emphasis in print advertising was more involved with instrumental themes of using the advertised item than with terminally materialistic themes of having the product for its own sake.

83 The similar increasing trend of materialism appeals was found in a different cultural context. Belk and W. P. Pollay (1985b) conducted a content analysis on sample U.S. and Japanese magazine advertisements that ran from 1940 to the late 1970s. They identified a general trend of increasing materialism appeals involving luxury/pleasure and status and decreasing non-materialism or utilitarian appeals in both U.S. and Japanese print advertising. They found that materialism was an increasingly powerful theme in the print advertising of both countries; for example, the terminally materialistic “having” appeal of print advertising was increasing in the late 1970s and the early 1980s in both countries. Belk and W. P. Pollay further discovered that there was a much greater emphasis on the instrumentally materialistic “doing” theme in U.S. advertising than Japanese advertising. Very similarly, Belk and Bryce (1986) analyzed the contents of magazine advertisements and television commercials in the United States and Japan and found that Japanese emphasis on status symbolism remained substantially higher and U.S. emphasis on individualism and standing out remained higher as well. Their study suggested that Japanese were drawn to materialism appeals involving luxury/pleasure and status more than Americans from the 1960s to the 1980s. Their findings supported their hypothesis that Japanese advertising should stress status symbols more than U.S. advertising as a reflection or result of Japan’s higher economic growth and more job opportunities in the period from the 1960s to the 1980s. Research shows that magazine reading influences people’s perceptions, attitudes, values, and even behaviors. Some scholars argue that women’s magazines

84 have a significant role in the cultivation and perpetuation of the stereotypical “thin ideal,” the development of personal values about thinness, and a sense of personal identity that is based primarily on how one looks (e.g., Rutberg, Sather, & Turner, 1991). Arnett (1995) explained that: Magazines are a medium where gender role identity formation is an especially common implicit theme, particularly in magazines for adolescent girls. Nearly half of the space of the most popular magazines for teenage girls is devoted to advertisements, mostly for fashion and beauty products and fashion and beauty is a prominent topic of the articles in these magazines. (p. 522) Actually, many studies have been conducted to establish a link between the frequency or recentness of exposure to media images and messages that promote a “thin ideal” and the increased presence of body-image disturbance and eatingdisorder-related thoughts and attitudes in young women (e.g., Cusumano & Thompson, 1997; Hamilton & Waller, 1993; Harrison & Cantor, 1997; Levine & Smolak, 1996; Myers & Biocca, 1992; Shaw, 1995; Silverstein, Perdue, Peterson & Kelly, 1986; Stice, Schupak-Neuberg, Shaw, & Stein, 1994; Thomsen, McCoy, Gustafson, & Williams, 2002; Turner & Hamilton, 1997). Magazine reading was also found to be closely related to the self-esteem of college students. For example, Newman and Dodd’s (1995) survey found that there was a negative relation of self-esteem to the reading of sports magazines and television and cinema guides among college students while confirming a negative relation of self-esteem and reading of glamour magazines. Based on the research literature of magazine advertising and readership, the

85 following hypothesis is tested in this study: H3:

The more time U.S. college students spend reading magazines, the more materialistic they will be.

Media Use, Status Consumption, and Compulsive-buying Tendencies Popular media, especially commercial television, constantly present the images, values, and lifestyles of the rich and beautiful people so that heavy users of media, especially heavy viewers of television, have internalized media portrayals of the world, developed an inflated sense of wealthy society, raised their aspirations and expected levels of living standards (O’Guinn & Shrum, 1997; Richins, 1991, 1995; Schor, 1999; Shrum et al., 1991). As early as 1978, Fox and Philliber found that television viewing contributed to viewers’ perception of a materialistic society, so heavy viewers overestimated the number of people owning a luxury car, belonging to a country club, and purchasing a built-in swimming pool. Shrum et al. (1991) reported that heavy viewers of television were more likely to overestimate the number of millionaires in the United States. Carlson (1993) found that even viewing news programs and situational comedies was related to viewers’ perception of affluence. Past studies have provided some hard evidence that television programs and television commercials often portray a world predominated by attractive, glamorous, and wealthy characters who have exciting adventures within luxurious and affluent settings. In television programs, about 45% of the characters hold comparable jobs (Greenberg, 1980). Similarly, Hajjar (1997) found that middleand professional-class characters were overrepresented in television commercials.

86 The world portrayed by television commercials is even more affluent than the world portrayed by television programs. For example, Allan and Coltrane (1996) found that almost two-thirds of all advertising characters with jobs were either professionals or managers. These images and stories have provided audiences with detailed descriptions of artificial and exaggerated lifestyles and instructions to follow these lifestyles (Belk & R. W. Pollay, 1985). O’Guinn and Shrum (1997) also commented that television commonly used consumption symbols as a means of visual shorthand and what television characters had and the activities in which they participated marked their social status with an economy of explanatory dialogue. All these media portrayals lead heavy users of popular media to connect possessions of luxury products with social status, prestige, and power. Consequently, they are more likely to become status-seeking consumers who purchase expensive and visible products and services to keep up with the affluent lifestyles in popular media. There is even some evidence to link media use with status consumption directly. For example, Wei and Pan’s (1999) survey in the two largest cities in China showed that younger, better-educated, and financially better-off Chinese citizens were most likely to bear three stable consumerist value orientations: conspicuous consumption, aspiration for self-actualization, and worship of Western lifestyles. They also found that media exposure played a significant role in the development of Chinese consumer values because holding these values was positively related to frequent reading of consumer magazines and frequent exposure to outdoor advertisements. The luxurious and affluent lifestyles frequently

87 portrayed in mass media have raised the social comparison level and consumers’ expectations of high living standards. To keep up with the Joneses, compulsive spenders are often encouraged by popular media to buy status products they cannot afford. Their unhealthy overspending patterns appear to mimic the norm as portrayed in media. On the other hand, the affluent settings in mass media, which do not necessarily reflect real social environments, may mitigate compulsive buyers’ feelings of post-purchase guilt. Furthermore, the exposure to marketing communications on television can generate exaggerated feelings of low selfesteem, gloom, and tension and can provoke the predisposition to shop (Faber & O’Guinn, 1988). This dysfunctional dynamic can be further facilitated by everpresent media messages that more is better (Zinkhan, 1994) and portray the shopping process as a coping strategy to overcome psychological tension (Faber, 1992; Faber & Christenson, 1996). There is some empirical evidence to support the connection of commercial media and compulsive-buying tendencies. For example, d’Astous, Maltais, and Roberge’s (1990) survey of 394 French-Canadian adolescents aged 13-19 years revealed that their estimates of television viewing hours per day were positively correlated with their compulsive-buying tendencies (r = 0.1123, p = 0.0136). Kwak, Zinkhan, and Dominick (2002) tried to demonstrate the important effect of television advertising on viewers’ compulsive-buying tendencies by examining the moderating role of compulsive-buying tendencies in the cultivation effects of television shows and television advertising in both the United States and South

88 Korea. They found that South Korean consumers who had higher compulsivebuying tendencies were more likely to have perceptions of a materialistic society by television advertising than others. It is understandable that a materialisticsociety perception from viewers with high compulsive-buying tendencies might mitigate their psychological aspects of purchasing behavior, which, in turn, makes them continue to engage in the purchasing because their materialistic view derived from television may rationalize such abnormal buying patterns. In this sense, it proved that South Korean television content contributed in some ways to compulsive buyers’ uncontrollable purchase drives. In the pilot survey with a convenience student sample (N = 360) conducted at a large Midwestern university in spring 2004, the author found that U.S. college students’ daily television viewing was positively correlated with their compulsive-buying tendencies (r = 0.165, p < 0.01). Based on the above research literature, the following hypotheses are proposed: H4:

U.S. college students’ television viewing is positively related to their status consumption tendencies.

H5:

U.S. college students’ television viewing is positively related to their compulsive-buying tendencies.

H6:

U.S. college students’ consumption of motion pictures is positively correlated with their status consumption tendencies.

H7:

U.S. college students’ consumption of motion pictures is positively correlated with their compulsive-buying tendencies.

H8:

U.S. college students’ magazine reading is positively correlated with

89 their status consumption tendencies. H9:

U.S. college students’ magazine reading is positively correlated with their compulsive-buying tendencies. Materialism and Beliefs About and Attitudes Toward Advertising

Materialism is directly connected with the social aspect of consumers’ beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising, but indirectly linked with other dimensions. According to Bauer and Greyser (1968), consumers’ beliefs about advertising consist of their beliefs about the social and economic effects of advertising. Many later studies adopted their views and their two-dimensional scale (e.g., Anderson et al., 1978; Greyser & Reece, 1971; Haller, 1974; Larkin, 1977; Schutz & Casey, 1981; Triff, Benningfield, & Murphy, 1987). On the other hand, Sandage and Leckenby (1980) believed that consumers’ attitudes toward advertising included both attitudes toward advertising as a social institution and attitudes toward advertising as an instrument. These two dimensions (institutional and instrumental) can explain more than 57% of the variance in the attitude-toward-advertising-ingeneral (Muehling, 1987). More recently, Pollay and Mittal’s (1993) seven-factor model of attitudes toward advertising proved the most comprehensive. They proposed and tested three personal-utility factors and four socio-economic factors. Their scale not only measured attitudes toward the institution of advertising and the instruments of advertising, but also explored personalized and generalized attitudes toward the social and economic effects of advertising. Three personal-utility factors refer to the role of advertising to provide product information (“Product Information”), the

90 function of advertising to provide lifestyles imagery (“Social Role and Image”), and the function of advertising to amuse or entertain its audience (“Hedonic/ Pleasure”). Four social and economical effects of advertising refer to the beneficial effects of advertising on national economy, the effect of materialism, the bad influence of advertising on social values, and the social consequence of misleading consumers (see Chapter Two for more details). This study follows their seven-dimensional model as other recent advertising attitudinal studies (e.g., Ramaprasad, 2001). The question is whether consumers with materialistic values would consider advertising as promoting materialism and making a materialistic society. In the research literature, the answer to the question is a qualified “no” but still not definitive. Many studies have been conducted to explore general attitudes toward advertising’s economic and social functions in both the United States and foreign countries (e.g., Bush et al., 1999; Kwak, Zinkhan, & DeLorme, 2002; Mehta, 2000; Ramaprasad, 2001). Generally, these studies found that student respondents were more or less critical of the social respects of advertising (e.g., Larkin, 1977), but held more favorable or mixed opinions about the economic aspects of advertising (e.g., Muehling 1987; Pollay & Mittal, 1993). However, only a few studies have related materialism to attitudes toward advertising. Generally, they have identified a positive correlation between consumers’ materialism and the attitudes toward advertising, especially among college students. Surlin and Squire’s (1987) study showed that Canadian students with materialistic values had a more positive perception of advertising and a

91 stronger desire for the lifestyle depicted in advertising. Yoon (1995) found a positive and significant relationship between materialism and general attitudes toward advertising among both African Americans and Caucasians. Evrard and Boff’s (1998) survey of 125 Brazilian executives showed that their materialistic orientation positively influenced their attitudes toward advertising. Their findings are generally in line with the consistency theory of cognitions and attitudes (e.g., Festinger 1957; Rosenberg, 1960). For Rosenberg (1960) and Fishbein (1963), attitude is an independent measure of affect for or against the attitude object. It is a function of value importance and perceived instrumentality (Rosenberg, 1960), and it is determined by the strength of belief that the attitude object possesses some attributes, the evaluation of these attributes, and the number of those attributes (Fishbein, 1963). In other words, cognitive antecedents (beliefs or values) predict the attitudes toward an object, person, issue, or behavior. In fact, Pollay and Mittal (1993) and Ramaprasad (2001) all found that beliefs about advertising explained a considerable proportion of variance in general attitudes toward advertising. The author conducted a pilot survey with a convenience student sample (N = 360) at a large Midwestern university in the spring of 2004 and found out that American college students’ materialism scores, their beliefs toward advertising in general, and their feelings toward television commercials were positively and significantly correlated. The Pearson correlation between their materialism and advertising beliefs was 0.275 (p < 0.01), the correlation of materialism and the attitude toward television commercials was 0.212 (p < 0.01), and the correlation of

92 their advertising beliefs and feelings toward television commercials was 0.461 (p < 0.01). Based on the consistency theories and past research, the following hypotheses are proposed: H10: U.S. college students with higher materialistic values will have more positive beliefs about advertising in general. H11: U.S. college students with relatively more positive beliefs about advertising will have favorable attitudes toward advertising in general. Materialism and Status Consumption Not much formal academic work has been done on the conceptualization and operationalization of status consumption. Only a few studies have been conducted to examine the relationship of materialism and status consumption. Simply put, status consumption is the consumption of products or services to achieve social status. Originally, status was the position or rank in a society or group awarded to an individual by others (Dawson & Cavell, 1986; Packard, 1959). Status can also be regarded as a form of power that consists of respect, envy, and consideration from others and represents the goals of a culture (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981). In modern society, status is more often achieved through the ownership of status products such as expensive cars, houses, jewels, and vacations than through personal, occupational, or family reputation (Dawson & Cavell, 1986). As one of the pioneers who addressed the issues of status and conspicuous consumption, Veblen (1912) pointed out that many expenditures of the leisure class

93 were the ostentatious display of wealth to secure high social status, which was an invidious comparison. Packard (1959) observed that, in modern society, people often consumed products to demonstrate a superior level of status both to themselves and to their friends. They were status seekers who were continually trying to surround themselves with visible evidence of the superior rank they were claiming. Kilsheimer (1993) held that status consumption mainly involved the purchase and use of products to increase one person’s social status. Eastman et al. (1999) followed her definition of status consumption as “the motivational process by which individuals strive to improve their social standing through the conspicuous consumption of consumer products that confer and symbolize status both for the individual and surrounding others” (p. 42). As their status consumption scale is adopted in this study, their definition is accordingly most relevant. Materialism as a marketing concept is generally concerned with beliefs and attitudes toward possessions and acquisition of consumer products. Belk (1984) defined materialism as the importance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions. For him, materialism is an object-oriented concept and a personal trait because material possessions are considered one’s “extended self.” He thinks that materialists are characterized by their possessiveness, non-generosity, envy, and tangibilization. To Richins and Dawson (1990), materialism is a second-order value orientation that material acquisition and possessions are appropriate means to the end states of achievement and happiness in life. Acquisition is central to materialists’ life. Possession of goods is the route to life satisfaction and well-

94 being. Materialists use material goods to display their success or status. So materialism can be measured by the dimensions of acquisition centrality, acquisition as the pursuit of happiness, and possession-defined success. Belk (1985) found that materialists tended to buy more luxury products, but he did not include status in his operationalization of materialism. For him, materialists treasure not only possessions with status but also all kinds of material goods. When Richins and Dawson (1992) measured materialism, status was closely linked with one component, the idea of possessions defining success. In a sense, status consumers are a special kind of materialistic consumers who place great importance on acquisition and possession of consumer products or services that can increase their perceived level of status. Richins (1994a) examined the types of possessions valued by consumers with high materialism scores and found that materialistic consumers placed higher emphasis on objects that created greater social visibility, had higher estimated value, and were classified as luxury goods. Shroeder and Dugal (1995) also observed that materialistic individuals were socially anxious – envious and more aware and concerned with possessions as social indicators. Wong (1997) inferred that materialism and status consumption were closely linked because the envy factor in Ger and Belk’s (1993) scale and the success factor in Richins and Dawson (1992) scale were significantly correlated in her study. She argued that a consumer only envies those expensive and visible products or services of others because he or she cannot afford them. While an envious consumer places a high value on luxury products or service, he or she is prey to

95 conspicuous consumption. As for success, it is popularly defined in financial terms in mainstream capitalistic culture. Success can be visibly demonstrated through possession of luxury goods. So high materialists are more likely to value expensive objects that convey prestige or enhance personal appearance in comparison with low materialists (Richins, 1994). Wong believed that status or conspicuous consumption has explained why the envy and success factors are significantly correlated (r = 0.28, p < 0.01). Eastman, Fredenberger, Campbell, and Calvert (1997) provided some hard evidence to establish the link of materialism and status consumption when they explored these variables in the United States, Mexico, and China. Three convenience samples of students were collected: 254 usable surveys from the United States of America, 311 from the People’s Republic of China, and 235 from Mexico. They employed Richins and Dawson’s (1992) materialism scale and Kilsheimer’s (1993) status consumption scale. They found that in the United States, status consumption was significantly correlated with all three factors of materialism and the total materialism variable. The highest Pearson productmoment correlation was with the possession-defined success (r = 0.47, p < 0.05) comparing with other two factors (centrality r = 0.29 and happiness r = 0.21, p < 0.05). The correlation of status consumption and overall materialism was 0.41, significant at the 0.05 level. The analyses of their China data revealed that the correlation between status consumption and overall materialism was lower but still significant (r = 0.21, p < 0.05). Status consumption was only significantly correlated with success (r = 0.26, p < 0.05) and centrality of acquisition (r = 0.13, p

96 < 0.05) factors in their China sample. However, status consumption was found significantly correlated with all three factors of materialism in Mexico (r = 0.43 with success, r = 0.48 with centrality, and r = 0.17 with happiness; p < 0.05). The Mexican data yielded the highest correlation between status consumption and overall materialism (r = 0.50, p < 0.05). Eastman and her associates’ (1997) study has shown that materialism and status consumption are two very similar variables. Later, Eastman et al. (1999) replicated the findings about the link of materialism and status consumption in their survey of 253 American business students. They found that the Pearson correlation between students’ scores on their status consumption scale and those on Richins and Dawson’s (1992) materialism scale was highly significant (r = 0.49, p < 0.001). The positive relationship of materialism and status consumption was also discovered in a survey of 588 South Korean adolescents. Kim (1998) found that materialism was a very strong predictor of conspicuous consumption, second only to the reference group, while his analysis of direct and indirect effects showed that materialism had the largest total effect on conspicuous consumption by adolescents. Similarly, the strong positive relationship of materialism and status consumption was again confirmed in a survey of 239 Malaysian college students. Using Eastman et al.’s (1999) Status Consumption Scale and Richins and Dawson’s (1992) materialism scale, Wan Jusoh, Heaney, and Goldsmith (2001) found that Malaysian college students’ scores of materialism and status consumption were significantly correlated (r = 0.51, p < 0.01). Furthermore, they found that economic conditions might have little or no influence on how consumers assessed their

97 materialism and status consumption. It suggests that the relationship of materialism and status consumption should stay consistent and persistent both in economic expansion or recession. In a pilot survey conducted at a large Midwestern university in the spring of 2004, the author’s data of a convenience sample (N = 360) yielded a very significant positive relationship between materialism and status consumption (r = 0.653, p < 0.01). Based on research literature, the following hypothesis is proposed: H12: U.S. college students’ materialistic values are positively correlated with their status consumption tendencies. Materialism, Status Consumption, and Compulsive Buying O’Guinn and Faber (1989) defined compulsive buying or consumption as “a response to an uncontrollable drive or desire to obtain, use or experience a feeling, substance or activity that leads an individual to repetitively engage in a behavior that will ultimately cause harm to the individual and/or others” (p. 148). It is chronic, repetitive purchasing that becomes a primary response to negative events or feelings and that provides immediate short-term gratification, but that ultimately causes harm to the individual and/or to others. Researchers have found that, compared with other consumers, compulsive buyers have lower self-esteem, a greater tendency to fantasize, a stronger emotional life, stronger remorse from buying, greater levels of depression, higher levels of anxiety reactions and obsessions, a greater use of credit cards, and higher debts from buying (Christenson et al., 1992; d’Astous, 1990; d’Astous, Maltais, & Roberge, 1990; O’Guinn &

98 Faber, 1989; Scherhorn, Reisch, & Raab, 1990; Valence, d’Astous, & Fortier, 1988). Faber and O’Guinn (1992) constructed a clinic screener to identify compulsive buyers in the general population by examining in-depth interviews with selfreported compulsive buyers. They suggested that materialism as well as self-esteem and credit card use were associated with compulsive buying. However, they found that compulsive buying was related only to Belk’s (1984) envy subscale, but not linked to the non-generosity or possessiveness subscale. Some compulsive buyers develop their addictive buying tendencies because they envy the status products or services others have and they purchase compulsively to secure both social status and self-esteem (Boundy, 2000). Belk (2000) suggested that materialistic consumers had a strong desire to make possessions as extensions of themselves, so some compulsive spenders acquired possessions for self-enhancement. Dittmar (2000) held that compulsive buyers were more likely to think that consumer products or services were an important route to success, identity, and happiness than did general consumers. It followed that compulsive buyers scored higher on Dawson and Richins’ materialism scale than non-compulsive consumers. Dittmar also pointed out that compulsive buyers showed great interest in visible status products such as designer clothes and jewelry. Self-discrepancies (between actual self and ideal self) and materialism were significant predictors of impulsive and excessive buying. Wong’s (1997) study showed that Ger and Belk’s (1993) envy subscale was

99 positively correlated with Richins and Dawson’s (1992) success subscale. They shared elements of status consumption. If compulsive spenders indulged themselves in status consumption, they would establish the link of the envy subscale and success subscale. Research showed that they often did. d’Astous and Trembly (1989) found that compulsive buyers were more likely to associate buying with social status. Hanley and Wilhelm (1992) found that compulsive spenders were preoccupied with money as a solution to problems and as a means of comparison. Compulsive spenders were more likely to report the need to spend money in such a way as to reflect power and status. Elliot (1994) found that one of the primary functions of compulsive buying was to increase the compulsive buyer’s ability to match his or her subjective perceptions of socially desirable or required appearances. Roberts and Martinez (1997) and Roberts (1998) also found a positive relationship between the social status associated with buying and compulsive buying both in the U.S. and Mexico. Mick (1996) conducted two survey studies to explore the effect of socially desirable responding on dark-side (negative) variables of consumer research such as materialism and compulsive buying. He identified a strong positive correlation of materialism and compulsive buying (r = 0.43, p < 0.01 for the first study and r = 0.35, p < 0.01 for the second study). Rindfleisch et al.’s (1997) study confirmed that materialism and compulsive buying were strongly correlated (r = 0.36, p < 0.01) while their major findings revealed that young adults from disrupted families scored higher on Richins and Dawson’s materialism scale and Faber and O’Guinn’s (1992) compulsive buying screener than did those from intact families. Roberts and

100 Jones (2001) found that the materialistic attitude toward money as a tool of power and prestige (status) significantly predicted their respondents’ compulsive buying (b = 0.30, t = 4.0) and the Pearson correlation was strong (r = 0.31, p < 0.01). Kwak, Zinkhan and Dominick (2002) found the positive relationship between compulsive-buying tendencies and perceptions of a materialistic society in their U.S. sample. A survey of 669 teenagers by Roberts, Manolis, and Tanner (2003) showed that compulsive tendencies were positively correlated with the centrality and success dimensions of materialism measured with Richins and Dawson’s (1992) scale (the factor inter-correlation for centrality: r = 0.67, p < 0.01; success: r = 0.38, p < 0.01). Watson’s (2003) study explained why materialists were more likely to become compulsive spenders. He found that highly materialistic people were more likely to view themselves as spenders and had more favorable attitudes toward borrowing. For consumers of status products, there is some evidence that materialism, status consumption, and compulsive buying are closely related. For example, Tanner and Roberts’ (2000) study of racehorse owners revealed that these owners’ status seeking correlated with success, materialism, centrality, and compulsive buying. Compulsive-buying tendencies have been explored in different cultures such as Germany (Scherhorn et al., 1990), Canada (d’Astous et al, 1990), Mexico (Roberts, 1997; Roberts & Sepulveda, 1999), Israel (Shoham & Brencic, 2003), and South Korea (Lyi, Lee, & Kwak, 1997; Kwak, Zinkhan, & Crask, 2003). The most recent cross-cultural study showed that in an Eastern culture, compulsive buying might

101 not be a unidimensional construct as it is in the United States (Kwak et al., 2003). However, the reliability that their Korean samples yielded (Cronbach a = 0.71 and 0.76) was acceptable and very similar to their U.S. sample’s reliability (a = 0.75 and 0.76). These findings suggested that the compulsive buying scale was measuring the same construct in a different cultural context. In a pilot survey with a convenience sample (N = 360) conducted at a large Midwestern university in the spring of 2004, the author found that materialism, status consumption, and compulsive buying were significantly and positively correlated with each other. The Pearson correlation between materialism and compulsive buying was 0.452 (p < 0.01) and the correlation of status consumption and compulsive buying was 0.377 (p < 0.01). Based on the research literature, the following hypothesis has been proposed: H13: U.S. college students’ materialistic values are positively correlated with their compulsive-buying tendencies. H14: U.S. college students’ status consumption tendencies are positively correlated with their compulsive buying tendencies. Predicting Brand Recall and Purchase Intent of Luxuries Brand awareness (recognition and recall), attitudes (advertising likeability and brand attitudes), and purchase intent are three extremely important criteria to measure the communication effects of advertising campaigns (Brenner, 1972; Parente, 1999). Consumer researchers generally assume that the ability of the consumer to remember a brand or product strongly correlates to the probability of it being considered for purchase. Consumers’ decision to buy a brand product is

102 based largely on consumers’ brand and product knowledge, including their brand awareness. In other words, brand awareness (recognition and recall) is the foundation of consumer choice. Purchase intent is very useful in predicting consumers’ actual purchase behavior, and some marketing research firms even use purchase intent to forecast sales of new packaged goods. For example, The National Statistics Institute (INSEE) in France tracks household purchase intent toward durable goods and other major expenses to assess consumers’ confidence in the economy (Bemmaor, 1995). Therefore, to understand the determinants of brand awareness and purchase intent remains a central research issue for advertising scholars and practitioners. Many advertising and marketing scholars have tried to defend the recall of brands as a reliable and valid measure of advertising effectiveness (e.g., Dubow, 1994). By reexamining the recall reliability and validity analyses in Gibson’s (1983) recall-impugning article, Dubow concluded that – with new operationalization techniques, data collection techniques, and statistical analyses – the day-after-recall of television commercials, as practiced by today’s vendors of recall, proved to be a valid measure of the ability of commercials to impact sales even though it did not bear a linear relationship to sales. Numerous advertising studies are devoted to the antecedents or predictors that influence the recall of advertised brand names. They have examined the impact of different executional techniques of advertising messages on the recall of brand names of advertised products or services. For example, Gelb and Zinkhan (1986) found that humor appeal might not be very helpful for brand recall as it was

103 negatively related to the recall of brand name in their study. Generally, the effect of sexual appeals on brand recall was found to be negative, probably because explicit sexual content distracted viewers from product information (e.g., Alexander & Judd, 1978; Judd & Alexander, 1983; LaChance & Lubitz, 1977; Richmond & Hartman, 1982; Steadman, 1969; Weller, Roberts, & Neuhaus, 1979). Donthu’s (1998) study revealed that comparative advertisements overall were recalled more than non-comparative advertisements in Americas, Europe, and Asia. Sengupta and Gorn (2002) found that even the omission of crucial elements from an advertisement might actually lead to improvement of brand recall. Research shows that message characteristics (such as length, picture, scent, meaningfulness, etc.) influence consumers’ recall of advertised brands. For instance, Patzer (1991) found that brand recall was higher for viewers who saw a 30-second television commercial than for those who saw a 15-second commercial. Researchers found that advertisements with both pictures and words produced greater levels of brand name recall than those with words alone (e.g., Childers & Houston, 1984; Leong & Ang, 1996). Kisielius (1982) argued that advertisements with higher levels of meaning would generate greater brand name recall by causing consumers to form more retrieval paths, thus increasing the availability of material in memory. Leong and Ang’s study provided some empirical evidence that the level of meaning in advertisements had a very strong relationship with brand name recall. Recently, an interesting study showed that an ambient scent improved both recall and recognition of familiar and unfamiliar brands (Morrin & Ratneshwar, 2003).

104 Past studies have found that media context (different media forms, program type, placement, etc.) affects brand recall. For example, a joint research project of the Magazine Publishers of America and J. Walter Thompson, Inc., reported that brand recalls for television commercials were generally higher than print advertisements (Confer & McGlathery, 1991). A Microsoft Network-sponsored study showed that online advertising increased unaided brand recall of established brands by as much as 300% while it had more impact on consumers’ purchase intent toward new brands (Kuchinskas, 1999). Soldow and Principe (1981) found that the recall of brand names was worse from an involving program than a relatively non-involving program, probably because more annoyance was caused by advertisements to viewers of the involving program than to viewers of the noninvolving program. Similarly, Gunter and Furnham (1997) found that the unaided recall of advertised brands became poorer as viewers’ involvement with the program they were watching became stronger. Advertising scholars have also investigated whether the specific placement of advertisements in a television program affects brand recall. For example, Newell and Wu (2003) confirmed the positive primacy effects of the placement of advertisements, both within the program and within a group of advertisements, on brand recall. Newell and Wu found that those brands positioned first in their commercial pod and at the beginning of the television program (Super Bowl games) were recalled significantly more than those placed later in the pod and later in the program. The individual characteristics of consumers (demographics, psychological

105 states, emotional responses, behavioral differences, values, lifestyles, etc.) also have significant effects on their recall of brand names. For instance, age is found negatively associated with brand recall. After analyzing three sets of data provided by copy research companies, Dubow (1995) concluded that young adults remembered advertising better than older adults while teens remembered advertising better than young adults across three common awareness measures: day-after-recall, brand recall, and brand recognition. Consumers’ deeper level of information processing and involvement often enhance the memory of brand names (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Beattie & Mitchell, 1985; Lynch & Srull, 1982; Saegert & Young, 1982). Situational factors such as moods may influence the recall of advertised brands. For example, Lee and Sternthal’s (1999) four studies showed that a positive mood enhanced the learning of brand names in comparison to a neutral mood. One of the ultimate purposes of advertising is to persuade consumers to buy some brands over others. Naturally, purchase intent of advertised brands becomes a very important measure of advertising effectiveness. Like brand recall, numerous studies have been conducted to examine the factors that influence consumers’ purchase intent of advertised brands. Again, advertising researchers found that different executional techniques, message characteristics, and the individual characteristics of an audience all affect consumers’ purchase intent of brand products. For example, Martin, Lang, and Wong (2003) found that implicit conclusions of advertisements with strong argument quality would solicit more favorable brand attitudes and purchase intent

106 from consumers with high need for cognition. Research shows that both source credibility (including endorser credibility) and corporate credibility or advertiser credibility play an important role in influencing consumers’ brand attitudes and purchase intent (Goldsmith, Lafferty, & Newell, 2000; Harmon & Coney, 1982; Lafferty & Goldsmith, 1999; Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Newell, 2002). Zhang (1996) found that the need for cognition moderated the effects of humor advertising on consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intent. Consumer values, attitudes, and inclinations are very important individual characteristics that influence advertising effectiveness, consumer learning, and purchase decisions. Marketing and advertising scholars have long acknowledged the importance of attitude and attitude change in marketing and consumer behavior (see Lutz, 1991), but the role of values has not received enough attention. Vinson, Scott, and Lamont (1977) argued that because consumers’ basic value orientations were expected to vary across geographical regions of the United States, it was feasible to use values as a standard consideration in market analysis and as a tool to achieve greater precision and effectiveness in market segmentation. Based on four years of in-depth data on American values and attitudes from its annual monitor survey, researchers from Yankelovich, Inc., actually divided American consumers into eight major consumer groups with shared life attitudes and motivations. It is also known as Yankelovich’s eight major Mindbase segments. Materialism served as an important variable because one segment of Generation Xers was named “Young Materialists” and was characterized as single without children, having average incomes, enthusiastic about shopping, style-conscious, adventurous, and

107 self-absorbed (Lipke, 2000). The instrumentality of consumer values segmentation to marketing communication campaigns is based on the assumption that consumers’ values, attitudes, and lifestyles affect consumers’ attention, information processing, memory of advertisements and brand names, and purchase intent of advertised brands. Hunt, Kernan, and Mitchell (1996) proposed that a materialistic value system could guide consumers’ interpretation of information in such a way as to reflect materialistic values. Chatterjee (1997) examined the impact of materialism on the strategies used by consumers in their processing of advertisements. By utilizing the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), he found that materialists exhibited greater response to peripheral cues and engaged in more heuristic processing than non-materialists, while non-materialists exhibited greater use of central message arguments and engaged in more elaborate processing. Maher and Hu’s (2003) experimental study showed that consumers compared material values portrayed by product/ad claims to their own material values before they made a judgment. When the values reflected in the ad were dissimilar to the viewer’s own material values, the product and the advertisement would receive less favorable evaluation than when the personal values were similar to those in the advertisement. Similarly, consumers would display stronger purchase intent when the values in the ad matched their personal material values. Research shows that consumption of luxury goods is inherently related to materialism, status consumption, and compulsive-buying tendencies (Belk, 1985; Frank, 1999; Packard, 1959; Richins, 1994; Schor, 1998; Twitchell, 2002; Veblen,

108 1912; Wong, 1997). The author ran several backward regressions of media use, materialism, status consumption, compulsive buying, advertising beliefs, the attitude toward television commercials, commercial avoidance behavior (“zapping”), and demographics on the recall and purchase intent of luxury brands to analyze the convenience sample data (N = 360) collected at a large Midwestern university in the Spring of 2004. He found that U.S. college students’ weekend television viewing (b= 0.117, t = 2.351, p < 0.05), materialism (b = 0.202, t = 4.018, p < 0.05), age (b = -0.105, t = -2.077, p < 0.05), income (b =0.151, t = 3.004, p < 0.05) and gender (b = -0.196, t = -3.915, p < 0.05) were significant predictors of their recall of luxury car brands. Materialism (b =0.142, t = 2.646, p < 0.05) and beliefs about advertising (b =0.114, t = 2.118, p < 0.05) were found to be significant predictors of their purchase intent of a luxury car, but their weekend television viewing was only a marginally significant predictor (b =0.094, t = 1.813, p = 0.071). For the brand recall of designer clothes, there were five significant predictors: magazine readership (b =0.135, t = 2.912, p < 0.05), materialism (b =0.303, t = 6.386, p < 0.05), age (b = -0.155, t = -2.76, p < 0.05), income (b = 0.157, t = 3.361, p < 0.05) and gender (b = 0.231, t = 4.98, p < 0.05). Their feelings toward television commercials (b = 0.083, t = 1.759, p = 0.079) and their year of school (b = -0.108, t = -1.949, p = 0.052) were marginally significant predictors of their brand recall of designer clothes. Interestingly, U.S. college students’ weekend televising viewing (b = 0.113, t = 2.474, p < 0.05), materialism scores (b = 0.27, t = 4.468, p < 0.05), status consumption tendencies (b = 0.184, t = 3.03, p < 0.05), their

109 beliefs about advertising (b = 0.166, t = 3.461, p < 0.05), and gender (b = 0.126, t = 2.782, p < 0.05) were significant predictors of their purchase intent of designer clothes. Their status consumption tendencies (b = 0.131, t = 2.325, p < 0.05), income (b = 0.113, t = 2.148, p < 0.05) and year of school (b = -0.123, t = -2.359, p < 0.05) were found to be significant predictors of their brand recall of jewelry. Their compulsive-buying tendencies (b =0.097, t = 1.759, p = 0.079) and their family SES (b = -0.098, t = -1.846, p = 0.066) were marginally significant predictors. The significant predictors of their purchase intent of jewelry include their magazine readership (b =0.111, t = 2.46, p < 0.05), materialism scores (b =0.309, t = 5.15, p < 0.05), status consumption tendencies (b =0.14, t = 2.272, p < 0.05), advertising beliefs (b =0.114, t = 2.196, p < 0.05), income (b = -0.092, t = -2.018, p < 0.05), and gender (b =0.2, t = 4.13, p < 0.05). Those American students’ brand recall of beauty products had five significant predictors: their weekend television viewing (b = 0.111, t = 2.364, p < 0.05), materialism scores (b = 0.114, t = 2.433, p < 0.05), family SES (b = -0.116, t = 2.48, p < 0.05), year of school (b = -0.117, t = -2.503, p < 0.05), and gender (b = 0.411, t = 8.8, p < 0.05). The significant predictors of those students’ purchase intent of beauty products were their consumption of films in the cinema and on DVDs or VCRs (b = 0.089, t = 1.997, p < 0.05), their materialism scores (b = 0.219, t = 4.852, p < 0.05), their feelings toward television commercials (b = 0.118, t = 2.603, p < 0.05), and their gender (b = 0.488, t = 10.998, p < 0.05). As consumer values, attitudes, and personal traits influence their brand recall

110 and purchase intents, it is reasonable to propose the following hypotheses: H15a: U.S. college students’ materialism is a significant predictor of their unaided brand recall of luxury cars. H15b: U.S. college students’ materialism is a significant predictor of their unaided brand recall of designer clothes. H15c: U.S. college students’ materialism is a significant predictor of their unaided brand recall of jewelry. H15d: U.S. college students’ materialism is a significant predictor of their unaided brand recall of perfume. H16a: U.S. college students’ materialism is a significant predictor of their purchase intent of luxury cars. H16b: U.S. college students’ materialism is a significant predictor of their purchase intent of designer clothes. H16c: U.S. college students’ materialism is a significant predictor of their purchase intent of jewelry. H16d: U.S. college students’ materialism is a significant predictor of their purchase intent of perfume. H17a: U.S. college students’ television viewing is a significant predictor of their unaided brand recall of luxury cars. H17b: U.S. college students’ television viewing is a significant predictor of their unaided brand recall of designer clothes. H17c: U.S. college students’ television viewing is a significant predictor of their unaided brand recall of jewelry.

111 H17d: U.S. college students’ television viewing is a significant predictor of their unaided brand recall of perfume. H18a: U.S. college students’ television viewing is a significant predictor of their purchase intent of luxury cars. H18b: U.S. college students’ television viewing is a significant predictor of their purchase intent of designer clothes. H18c: U.S. college students’ television viewing is a significant predictor of their purchase intent of jewelry. H18d: U.S. college students’ television viewing is a significant predictor of their purchase intent of perfume. H19a: U.S. college students’ consumption of films significantly predicts their unaided brand recall of luxury cars. H19b: U.S. college students’ consumption of films significantly predicts their unaided brand recall of designer clothes. H19c: U.S. college students’ consumption of films significantly predicts their unaided brand recall of jewelry. H19d: U.S. college students’ consumption of films significantly predicts their unaided brand recall of perfume. H20a: U.S. college students’ consumption of films significantly predicts their purchase intent of luxury cars. H20b: U.S. college students’ consumption of films significantly predicts their purchase intent of designer clothes. H20c: U.S. college students’ consumption of films significantly predicts their

112 purchase intent of jewelry. H20d: U.S. college students’ consumption of films significantly predicts their purchase intent of perfume. H21a: U.S. college students’ magazine readership significantly predicts their unaided brand recall of luxury cars. H21b: U.S. college students’ magazine readership significantly predicts their unaided brand recall of designer clothes. H21c: U.S. college students’ magazine readership significantly predicts their unaided brand recall of jewelry. H21d: U.S. college students’ magazine readership significantly predicts their unaided brand recall of perfume. H22a: U.S. college students’ magazine readership significantly predicts their purchase intent of luxury cars. H22b: U.S. college students’ magazine readership significantly predicts their purchase intent of designer clothes. H22c: U.S. college students’ magazine readership significantly predicts their purchase intent of jewelry. H22d: U.S. college students’ magazine readership significantly predicts their purchase intent of perfume.

113 CHAPTER FOUR METHOD This chapter deals with the methodological aspects of this study. The advantages and disadvantages of survey and mail survey are explained. The sampling universe is defined. The sampling technique is chosen and the use of random student sample is justified. The scales and measurements are introduced in the review of their research history while the considerations of choosing these established scales are explained. The procedure for the mail survey is explained. Finally, statistical techniques to analyze survey data are presented. Survey: Strengths and Weaknesses A one-shot cross-sectional mail survey was used in this study to explore the complex relationship between U.S. college students’ media use, materialism, status-consumption tendency, compulsive-buying tendency, brand recall, and purchase intent of luxury products. The survey method is one of the most common approaches used in social science to investigate empirically the characteristics and interrelations of sociological and psychological variables. Its popularity can be explained by the following factors. First, surveys allow social researchers to collect factual, attitudinal, and behavioral data at the same time to examine the relations between various sociological and psychological variables (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Kinnear & Taylor, 1996). The scope of survey research is very impressive: it enables researchers to collect efficiently a great deal of information from a large population (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). In addition, it has a unique advantage among social

114 science methods: it is often possible to check the validity of survey data. Researchers can re-interview respondents, and researchers can also compare survey results to some outside criterion or criteria (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). For example, market researchers can check a homemaker’s shopping list to validate her selfreport of shopping patterns. Compared to experimental research, survey research provides more realism, so its external validity is higher (Roberts, 1999). Finally, survey research conforms to the specifications of scientific research: it is logical, deterministic, general, parsimonious, and specific (Hart, 1987). Like any research method, survey research has its limitations. First, according to Kerlinger and Lee (2000), in a survey, social scientists do not have direct control of independent variables because the manifestations of these variables have already occurred or because these variables are inherently not manipulable. Accordingly, the investigators cannot come to the conclusion that certain independent variables have caused certain dependent variables even though there is a statistically significant relation between independent and dependent variables. In other words, survey research cannot prove that those independent variables precede these dependent variables, or more importantly, causality. Secondly, there is a potential problem of self-selection when survey respondents differently possess characteristics or traits extraneous to the research problem; their characteristics possibly influence or are otherwise related to the variables of the research problem. In addition, the respondents may be different from non-respondents. The mail survey is especially vulnerable to this challenge because its response rate is generally low. Returns of less than 40% are common while researchers must be

115 content with returns as low as 50% or 60% (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Thirdly, intervening variables may be present but not included in the survey questionnaire because researchers fail to recognize them as important. Finally, the order and phrasing of the questions may influence the validity of survey results, which is also called “measurement error” (Dillman, 1991). In spite of its limitations, survey research is often employed by social and market researchers to test their causal models. A causal model can be tested by survey data if the model is built on research literature and solid theory with rigorous thinking, logical clarity, and argumentation (Marsh, 1982). In recent years, linear structural equation modeling has been used frequently to fit different pre-constructed causal models to the marketing survey data with the help of LISREL (e.g., Kwak, Zinkhan, & DeLorme, 2002; Randell et al., 2002; Trommsdorff, 1984). The response rate of a mail survey can be increased by several follow-up methods, such as a second mailing, follow-up telephone calls, and cash or non-cash incentives (Dillman, 2000; Shank, Dar, & Werner, 1990). Because this study is intended to collect both attitudinal and factual data to examine the relationship of media use and several consumer research variables, survey is the most appropriate method. Because the findings of this study may be able to be generalized to all U.S. college students at public universities, a sample survey is very suitable for the purpose. Compared with other methods of collecting survey data, a mail survey has some special advantages. It is more cost-efficient and time-saving than personal interviewing. When the population is spread widely and thinly and limited funds

116 are available, a mail survey is the only feasible approach (Moser & Kalton, 1972). The coverage of mail surveys is generally higher than telephone, facsimile, webbased, or e-mail surveys (Cobanoglu, Warde, & Moreo, 2001). Some potential respondents do not have access to a telephone, many respondents do not own a facsimile machine, and many respondents have several e-mail accounts, but they all have a mailing address. Also, the non-deliverable surveys in the mail method are relatively fewer than web-based surveys because people change their e-mail addresses and Internet service providers (ISPs) much more frequently than their postal addresses. In addition, with a postal address change, the person can file a forwarding address that may be valid for 12 months (Cobanoglu et al., 2001). The mail method can avoid interviewer errors that may seriously undermine the reliability and validity of survey results. Because the mail questionnaire is selfadministered, respondents can take their time, and their answers can be more accurate, especially when the questions demand consultation of documents. In addition, respondents feel more comfortable in answering some personal, sensitive, or embarrassing questions in a mail survey. There is no problem of non-contacts in a mail survey, and respondents will get the questionnaire eventually even if they are not at home when the mail questionnaire arrives (Moser & Kalton, 1972). The mail method is definitely more scientific than collecting survey data in classrooms. Numerous academic field surveys have been conducted in a classroom setting, to the extent that some scholars are accused of “convenient abusive research” (e.g., Rotfeld, 2003). To collect survey data in classrooms is very efficient and convenient with high internal validity and “better” results. Burnett

117 and Dunne (1986) concluded that “in the case of alpha scores, factor structures and correlational results, the quality of the student responses was better….” However, there are several serious flaws with regard to external validity or generalizability. First, a mail survey usually uses a random sample while a student sample from classrooms is always a convenient sample except that the population of interest is all students enrolled in one class. Secondly, even though the response rate is often very high when collecting survey data in a classroom, there is a potential threat to the validity of a survey: respondents are eager to please the interviewers who are often instructors or the friends of instructors. Similarly, Sears (1986) pointed out that the student-teacher relationship might create bias because of the implied power structure that is present in the university environment. When students finish the survey at home, the results can be significantly different. Park and Lessig’s (1977) study divided their student subjects into two groups: one group completed the survey in the classroom, and one group completed the survey at home. The results showed significant differences in the responses of these two groups of students. In addition, a classroom is a peer group setting, much more like a laboratory. The peer pressure and discussion are often inevitable, which weakens both the internal and external validity of a survey. Finally, a non-response bias exists because some students would not show up to take a survey. Non-respondents may be drastically different from respondents. On the other hand, apart from the problem of non-response mentioned above, there are several disadvantages of a mail survey, especially compared with a field

118 survey. First, if the questions are not sufficiently simple and straightforward, a mail questionnaire will not be filled out satisfactorily. A mail survey is not recommended when the objective and purpose of the survey take a great deal of explaining, when many difficult questions are posed, or when it is desirable to probe deeply or get the respondent talking. Second, there are some problems in checking the validity of responses. It is not possible to go beyond the given answer, to clarify an ambiguous one, to overcome unwillingness to answer a particular question, or to appraise the validity of one’s response in sight of how one said it. Third, a mail survey cannot guarantee that the answers are spontaneous, personal, and untainted because respondents may discuss the questions and answers with others; this is a potential threat to validity when a person’s own opinions and knowledge are sought. Fourth, because the respondent can see all the questions before answering any of them, different answers cannot be treated independently because an interaction effect possibly exists. Fifth, the researcher cannot be sure that the pre-selected person has completed the questionnaire. Finally, there is no chance to supplement the respondent’s answers with observational data (Moser & Kalton, 1972). After the pros and cons of different survey methods were weighed, a mail survey was considered the most appropriate method of collecting the survey data for this study. Personal interviewing on a university campus was not feasible because the author lived far away from the campus. More importantly, personal interviewing on campus can only result in an accidental sample. Similarly, even though collecting data in classrooms can be very efficient, the convenient sample

119 would significantly limit the generalizability of survey results. The survey questionnaire (61 questions) is too long to be administered over the telephone. It is also not promising to invite respondents to a website to finish such a long survey without offering some incentive. Therefore, this study has used a mail questionnaire to collect the survey data. In addition to a cover letter (Appendix A), a pre-addressed pre-stamped envelope was enclosed with the questionnaire. Incentives included the following: (a) a dollar bill with a Domino’s coupon, (b) two dollar bills with a Domino’s coupon, (c) only a dollar bill, or (d) only two dollar bills. Universe The universe of the mail survey is all U.S. college students enrolled at public universities in spring and fall of 2005. The population of the study is all U.S. college student enrolled at Southern Illinois University Carbondale in spring and fall of 2005 (N=20,820). Because of limited resources, a national mail survey could not be conducted. In addition, it is almost impossible to acquire a complete mailing list of all U.S. college students enrolled at public universities in spring and fall of 2005. As the author was a doctoral candidate at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, the students from the university were expected to be more sympathetic and willing to help with the survey so that the response rate would be higher than a national survey. Because the university was chosen out of convenience, generalizing the findings to all similar large public universities in the United States should be considered with caution.

120 Sampling A simple systematic random sampling technique was applied to a complete mailing list of American students enrolled at Southern Illinois University Carbondale in spring of 2005. Specifically, because there were 20,820 U.S. college students on the mailing list, the sampling interval was 42. Sampling began with a randomly selected number from 1 to 42. The 20th student on the mailing list was chosen as the starting point, and the 82nd student became the second respondent. Sampling continued until a random sample of 500 U.S. college students was selected. Altogether survey questionnaires were mailed to 500 randomly selected SIUC college students in April 2005; 259 completed questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 51.8%. Another 500 survey questionnaires were mailed in September 2005; 265 survey questionnaires were filled out and returned, which increased the response rate to 53%. The total sample size was 524 SIUC college students. However, the sample size was reduced to 501 after international students were excluded from statistic analyses. Student samples are widely used in the social and behavioral science as well as marketing and advertising research. There are some critics of using college students as research subjects (e.g., Potter, Cooper, & Dupagne, 1993; Rotfeld, 2003). For example, Sears (1986) identified three problematic characteristics of college student samples most relevant for communication: college students (a) may have a less strongly formulated sense of self (and a stronger need for peer approval), (b) have higher than average cognitive skills, and (c) may have a higher

121 level of compliance to authority. However, many scholars argue that the differences between undergraduate students and adult consumers are negligible. For example, Sheth (1970) found that there was a remarkable degree of similarity between students and housewives in their post-decision dissonance. Shuptrine (1975) examined the self-reports of female graduate students and housewives about their perceptions, consumption, and purchase patterns of 61 new products. After comparing their responses, he found that only six out of 61 differences were significant at the 0.01 level, although student responses tended to have smaller variance than those of housewives and also tended to be lower than the product novelty ratings by housewives. Brown and Brown (1993) compared the lottery use of the general population with that of marketing students and found there was no difference in overall favorable responses to lottery gambling between students and the general sample. Brown and Brown also identified a similar pattern of playing lottery games and preference rankings between two groups. Brown and Brown suggested that student samples might be sufficiently representative of the general population to provide valid information, especially if qualitative rather than quantitative issues were the concern. Deshpande and Joseph (1994) conducted two meta-analyses to evaluate the equivalence of student samples and non-student samples with respect to the effectiveness of cross-cultural training. They did not report any significant difference of observed mean correlations and true mean correlation, even though student samples might underestimate the effectiveness of the cross-cultural

122 training. While college students may not have formed stable purchase patterns at this stage of their lives, they still have general purchase knowledge and shopping experience because they make shopping and purchase decisions in a fairly autonomous manner (Cole & Sherrell, 1995). Sometimes they may engage in excessive shopping behaviors (e.g., in terms of credit card use) (d’Astous et al., 1990; Roberts, 1998). College students’ compulsive buying phenomenon is roughly equivalent to that of general consumers. For example, Roberts and Jones (2001) concluded that 9% of their student sample was made of compulsive buyers, which is very close to the 8.1% of the general adults sample reported by Faber and O’Guinn (1992). In addition, all major scales used in this study were developed from student samples and then applied to the general population. It strongly suggests that as consumers, college students are not drastically different from the general population. Basil (1996) pointed out that whenever a study was examining a phenomenon, unless the phenomenon was different for different groups of the population, the findings for students held for the general public and the conclusions were indeed valid. He also argued that college students were usually an appropriate sample when looking at a hypothesized relationship between two variables and when no inferences about the general population needed to be drawn. This exploratory study will examine the enduring beliefs and attitudes of U.S. college students, namely, materialism, beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising, status consumption,

123 and compulsive-buying tendencies. The findings will not be generalized to the general population of young American consumers. In this case, a student sample is permissible. College students are the future of a country because with a good education, most of them will become middle-class professionals. At present, America’s 15.6 million college students spend more than $200 billion annually, but their individual monthly discretionary income averages only $287, according to the “360 Youth/Harris Interactive College Explorer Study” (cited in Sokol, 2002). On the other hand, most well-educated college students in the future will become relatively high-income professionals and spend much more money on luxury products or services. Understanding their beliefs, attitudes, values, and inclinations is useful for predicting the purchase patterns of young American working professionals. Scales and Measurements Media Use Measures In this study, U.S. college students’ media use was measured with the “yesterday” method practiced by authoritative survey organizations (e.g., the Pew Research Center, 2004) and many mass communication scholars (e.g., Perse & Dunn, 1998). The single-day focus moves respondents from the almost impossible task of trying to estimate the complex effects of mass media on their lives to the simpler task of merely reporting what they did the previous day. To counterbalance the daily variation of media use, 100 survey questionnaires were mailed on successive weekdays.

124 The daily television viewing of college students was measured by asking the question “How much time did you spend watching television yesterday?” Television exposure during the weekend was measured by the question “How many hours did you watch television last Saturday?” It was expected that college students usually watched more television during the weekend when their classes were not in session during Spring and Fall semesters of 2005. Similarly, magazine reading of college students was measured by asking the question “How much time did you spend reading magazines yesterday?” Motion pictures consumption was measured by asking the question “How much time did you spend watching movies in a cinema last week?” The consumption of films and programs on digital video disks (DVD) or videocassettes (VCR) can also be considered as a part of students’ total consumption of motion pictures because the DVD or VCR versions of many motion pictures are quickly released after their public screenings, and people with little income, including students, tend to see those films on digital video disks or videocassettes. Such viewing was measured by the question “How much time did you spend watching movies and programs on VCR or DVD yesterday?” Materialism Scales Many scales have been developed to measure materialism, but Belk’s scale (1984) and Richins and Dawson’s scale (1992) are the most influential. These two Likert scales have been widely adopted and tested cross-culturally. Belk (1984, 1985) approached materialism by measuring three traits associated with it: envy, non-generosity, and possessiveness. Nine items measured

125 possessiveness, which was defined as “the inclination and tendency to retain control or ownership of one’s possessions” (Belk, 1983, p. 51__). Later, only seven items were kept in the scale (Ger & Belk, 1990): I get very upset if something is stolen from me, even if it has little monetary value; I don’t like to have anyone in my home when I’m not there; Renting or leasing a place to live is more appealing to me than owning one; I don’t get particularly upset when I lose things; I never discard old pictures or snapshots; I am less likely than most people to lock things up; I would rather buy something I need than borrow it from someone else. Originally, seven items measured non-generosity, which was regarded as “an unwillingness to give possessions to or share possessions with others” (Belk, 1984, p. 29__). Later, six statements were retained (Ger & Belk, 1990): I enjoy having people I like stay in my home; I enjoy sharing what I have; I don’t like to lend things, even to good friends; When friends do better than me in competitions it usually makes me feel happy for them; I worry about people taking my possessions; I enjoy donating things for charity. At first, there were eight items to measure envy, which was defined as “displeasure and ill will at the superiority of another person in happiness, success,

126 reputation, or the possession of any thing desirable” (Schoeck, 1966, p. ). Later, the subscale was downsized to five items (Ger & Belk, 1990): There are certain people I would like to trade places with; I don’t seem to get what is coming to me; If I have to choose between buying something for myself versus for someone I love, I prefer buying for myself; I am bothered when I see people who buy anything they want; People who are very wealthy often feel they are too good to talk to average people. At the same time, a new five-item subscale of tangibilization was created to tap the fourth dimension of materialism, and it was defined as the conversion of experience in material form. The subscale consists of the following statements: I tend to hang on to things I should probably throw out; When I travel I like to take a lot of photographs; I have a lot of souvenirs; I would rather give someone a gift that will last than taking them to dinner; I like to collect things. Belk’s measures have been borrowed by advertising scholars such as Wallendorf and Arnould (1988), O’Guinn and Faber (1989), Wong (1997), and Evrard and Boff (1998). Moreover, Belk’s scale has been tested in the United States, Turkey, and France (Ger & Belk, 1990), Denmark and Romania (Ger & Belk, 1999) and other countries or cultures, such as Niger (Wallendorf & Arnould, 1988) and Brazil

127 (Evrard & Boff, 1998). The problem with Belk’s scale is that most studies failed to achieve high reliability in terms of Cronbach’s coefficient. A liberal minimum requirement for scale reliability is 0.60 (Churchill, 1979), while some scholars recommended a stricter minimum requirement of 0.70 (e.g., Nunnally, 1978). The performance of Belk’s individual scales is often below 0.60 even though the overall reliability has usually reached 0.60. While developing the scale, Belk’s (1984) student sample yielded the Cronbach’s coefficient alphas of 0.68, 0.72, and 0.80 for the subscales of possessiveness, non-generosity, and envy; the retest data produced the alphas of 0.57, 0.58, and 0.64. Belk (1985) reported alphas from 0.66 to 0.73 for the overall scale. Ger and Belk’s (1990) subscale of possessiveness resulted in the coefficient of 0.76, which was the highest reliability they obtained in the United States, France, and Turkey. The reliability of their aggregate scale was 0.49 in the United States, 0.67 in France, and 0.56 in Turkey. Wong (1997) utilized both Belk’s scale and Richins and Dawson’s scale. She reported the coefficient alphas for Belk’s three subscales as 0.74 for non-generosity, 0.55 for possessiveness, and a very poor 0.27 for envy. Belk’s scale seems to be particularly unreliable in a different cultural context. In France, although the overall reliability was 0.67, the coefficient alphas of three major subscales of possessiveness, non-generosity, and envy were poor: 0.52, 0.53, and 0.42 (Ger & Belk, 1990). In Brazil, Belk’s scale was so unreliable that Evrard and Boff (1988) failed to confirm the three-factor structure of materialism and then dismissed it from further analyses. Sirgy et al. (1998) applied

128 both Belk’s scale and Richins and Dawson’ scale to their U.S., Canadian, Australian, Turkish, and Chinese samples from 1989 to 1991. Their Cronbach reliability analyses showed inadequate internal consistency in relation to Belk’s three subconstructs: possessiveness, non-generosity, and envy (alpha coefficients ranged from 0.024 to 0.713). Actually, several scholars have already challenged the reliability and validity of Belk’s materialism scale. For example, Ellis (1992) tested Belk’s construct validation with confirmatory factor analyses and concluded that Ellis’s survey data did not fit very well the first-order and the second-order factor models as well as a composite-model alternative. He found that a reduced set of scale items performed remarkably better than the full set and called for continued work on scale development. He cautioned that any complex theories based in part on present operationalization of these materialism subscales would be problematic. Richins and Dawson (1992) tested Belk’s scale with 12 separate data sets and found that the alphas for the individual subscales ranged from 0.09 to 0.81, while the aggregate scale yielded alphas of 0.48 to 0.73. Cole et al. (1992) also tried to assess the reliability and validity of Belk’s scale, and their factor analysis failed to replicate three-factor structure solution to their data; they found that 64.5% of the variance in their data set could be explained by nine factors while the reliability of individual subscales was low. Micken (1995) tested Ger and Belk’s (1990) revised scale and found that the six-factor solution instead of four-factor solution was the most interpretable. Her study achieved the overall reliability of 0.66 ,while the coefficient alphas for the individual subscales of possessiveness, non-generosity,

129 envy, and tangibilization were low: 0.38, 0.64, 0.50, and 0.65. In a pilot survey conducted in spring 2003, the author and his associates administered both Belk’s and Richins and Dawson’s materialism scales to 358 U.S. college students in a large Midwestern university. Statistical analyses were run on 316 usable survey questionnaires. The overall reliability of Belk’s 23-item scale was 0.4952, while the coefficient alphas of the individual subscales of possessiveness, non-generosity, envy, and tangibilization were 0.5081, 0.5157, 0.3281, and 0.4976. Use of Richins and Dawson’s (1992) 18-item materialism scale produced a much higher overall reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.7673) while the reliability alphas of three subscales were also higher: their six-item success subscale had an alpha of 0.6256, the seven-item centrality subscale had an alpha of 0.5932, and the five-item subscale had 0.545 (Ganahl et al., 2003). In addition to concerns about the poor reliability and validity of Belk’s materialism scale, this study closely follows Richins and Dawson’s definition of materialism as a three-component second-order value orientation. Therefore, their scale has been adopted. Richins and Dawson (1990) found that four consistent factors of materialism emerged from their three data sets: possessions as symbols of success, possessions as a source of pleasure, and the belief that more possessions lead to more happiness and asceticism. Finally, Richins and Dawson (1992) came up with a five-point Likert scale to measure three-dimensional materialism in terms of material possessions as a symbol of success (six items), the centrality of objects in one’s life (seven items) and the belief that material possessions are a great source of pleasure

130 or happiness (five items). The statements measuring material possessions as a symbol of success include the following: I admire people who own expensive homes, cars and clothes. Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions. I don’t place much emphasis on the amount of material objects people own as a sign of success. The things I own say a lot about how well I’m doing in life. I like to own things that impress people. I don’t pay much attention to the material objects other people own. Seven questions are asked to measure the centrality of objects in one’s life, as follows: I usually buy only the things I need. I try to keep my life simple, as far as possessions are concerned. The things I own aren’t all that important to me. I enjoy spending money on things that aren’t practical. Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure. I like a lot of luxury in my life. I put less emphasis on material things than most people I know. A five-item subscale is used to measure the belief that material possessions are a great source of pleasure or happiness: I have all the things I really need to enjoy life.

131 My life would be better if I owned certain things I don’t have. I would be happier if I owned nicer things. I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things. It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I can’t afford to buy all the things I’d like. Richins and Dawson’s scale has been adopted by Wong (1997), Mick (1997), Evrard and Boff (1998), Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002), and Shrum, Burroughs, and Rindfleisch (2003). Richins and Dawson’s scale of materialism has been applied and tested in different countries and cultures, including New Zealand (Watson, 1998), Brazil (Evrard & Boff, 1998), Thailand (Webster & Beatty, 1997), China (Eastman et al., 1997; Sirgy et al., 1998; Zhou, Xue, & Zhou, 2002), Mexico (Eastman et al., 1997), Turkey, Canada, and Australia (Sirgy et al., 1998). Richins and Dawson’s materialism scale has generally achieved better reliability in comparison with Belk’s materialism scale. For instance, Mick’s (1997) two studies obtained the overall reliability of 0.88 and 0.85 for Richins and Dawson’s scale. More recently, Shrum et al. (2003) reported the overall reliability of 0.84 from Richins and Dawson’s (1992) scale. The author’s pilot survey also confirmed that Richins and Dawson’s (1992) scale was more internally consistent than Belk’s (1990) scale (Ganahl, Yang, & Liu, 2003). Moreover, Richins and Dawson’ materialism scale performed fairly well in a different culture, even in mainland China. In Thailand, Webster and Beatty (1997) found after their factor analysis, that although the factor loadings of materialism items were not identical, the items generally loaded in the same factors as they did in Richins and Dawson’s

132 (1992) study; the high overall reliability of 0.83 was reported. In Brazil, Richins and Dawson’s scale helped Evrard and Boff (1998) to identify two identical dimensions of materialism: “acquisition centrality” and “acquisitions as the pursuit of happiness.” In New Zealand, Watson (1998) obtained the overall reliability of 0.83 while the coefficient alphas for the subscales of “centrality,” “success,” and “happiness” were respectively 0.68, 0.79, and 0.70. In Turkey, Canada, and Australia, Sirgy et al. (1998) tested seven items of Richins’ (1987) materialism scale, and it yielded a moderate overall reliability: 0.522 for Canada, 0.574 for Turkey, and 0.616 for Australia. In Mexico, two subscales met the liberal minimum requirement for scale reliability: the alphas for possession-defined success were 0.62 and for possession as a route to happiness, 0.60 (Eastman et al., 1997). In mainland China ten years ago, the first test of Richins and Dawson’s materialism scale produced moderate reliability: 0.56 for possession defined success, 0.52 for possessions as a route to happiness, but 0.31 for centrality for acquisition (Eastman et al., 1997). The seven-item Richins’ (1987) scale displayed a low reliability (alpha = 0.303) in mainland China partly because it was still an immature scale (Sirgy et al., 1998). However, the most recent use of Richins and Dawson’s (1992) scale in mainland China achieved an acceptable reliability with a coefficient alpha of 0.68 (Zhou, Xue, & Zhou, 2002). Because Richins and Dawson’s materialism scale is more reliable and valid than Belk’s scale at home and abroad, this study has borrowed their 18-item scale. Advertising Beliefs Scale A nine-item scale is borrowed and adapted from Pollay and Mittal’s (1993)

133 Likert scale of consumers’ general beliefs about advertising. Their scale is the most comprehensive scale to measure the general beliefs about advertising. In their seven-factor model, they have distinguished those factors that explicate the personal uses and utilities of advertising from those that reflect consumers’ perceptions of advertising’s social and cultural effects. They have posited three personal uses and four societal effects. Three personal uses include product information, social role and image, and hedonism/pleasure. “Product information” is measured with three statements: Advertising is a valuable source of information about local sales. Advertising tells me which brands have the features I am looking for. Advertising helps me keep up to date about products/services available in the marketplace. “Social role and image” are measured by three items: From advertising I learn about fashions and about what to buy to impress others. Advertisements tell me what people with life styles similar to mine are buying and using. Advertising helps me know which products will or will not reflect the sort of person I am. “Hedonic/pleasure” is measured with: Quite often, advertising is amusing and entertaining. Sometimes advertisements are even more enjoyable than other media contents. Sometimes I take pleasure in thinking about what I saw or heard or read in

134 advertisements. Advertising societal effects consist of four major dimensions: good for the economy, materialism, value corruption, and falsity/no sense. “Good for the economy” is measured with three questions: In general, advertising helps our nation's economy. Advertising is wasteful of our economic resources. In general, advertising promotes competition which benefits the consumer. “Materialism” is measured with four statements: Advertising is making us a materialistic society - overly interested in buying and owning things. Advertising makes people buy unaffordable products just to show off. Advertising tends to make people live in a world of fantasy. Because of advertising, people buy a lot of things that they do not really need. “Value corruption” is measured with two questions: Advertising promotes undesirable values in our society. Most advertising distorts the values of our youth. “Falsity/no sense” is measured with three items: In general, advertising is misleading. Most advertising insults the intelligence of the average consumer. In general, advertisements present a true picture of the product advertised. Pollay and Mittal developed their seven-factor model and constructed their scale to measure general beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising based on several benchmark studies (e.g., Bauer & Greyser, 1968; Reid & Soley, 1982;

135 Sandage & Leckenby, 1980). Bauer and Greyser (1968) cooperated with the American Association of Advertising Agencies to examine consumers’ beliefs about the social and economic role or effects of advertising. They created a seven-item scale and grouped the items into two clusters of “economic” and “social” effects based solely on apparent coherence of topics. “Economic” items are the following: Advertising is essential. Advertising helps raise our standard of living. Advertising results in better products for the public. In general, advertising results in lowers prices. “Social” items include the following: In general, advertising presents a true picture of the product advertised. Most advertising insults the intelligence of the average consumer. Advertising persuades people to buy things they should not buy. Many subsequent studies borrowed their seven-item, two-dimensional scale to measure different population groups, such as executives (Greyser & Reece, 1971), subscribers to Consumer Reports (Anderson, Engledow, & Becker, 1978), and students (e.g., Haller, 1974). Later, advertising scholars attempted to supplement Bauer and Greyser’s measures and tapped into the following dimensions of general beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising: advertising as an information source (Barksdale & Darden, 1972; Haller, 1974; Muehling, 1987), materialism (Larkin, 1977), falsehood and deception (Muehling, 1987; Ford, Smith, & Swasy, 1990),

136 ethics in advertising (Triff, Benningfield, & Murphy, 1987), enjoyment of advertising (Russell & Lane, 1989), and issues of poor taste and sexuality in advertising (Larkin, 1977). Sandage and Leckenby (1980) found that two distinctive aspects of advertising emerged from students’ evaluations of advertising: (a) attitudes toward advertising as a social institution and (b) attitudes toward advertising as the instrument of the institution. Reid and Soley (1982), who assessed Bauer and Greyser’s items twice, distinguished generalized and personalized attitudes toward advertising’s social and economic effects. They inspired Pollay and Mittal (1993) to consider not only the personal uses and utilities of advertising, but also consumers’ perceptions of advertising’s social and cultural effects. Cross-cultural studies of beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising in general have been conducted in many foreign countries, including Germany (Anderson & Engledow, 1978), Denmark, Greece, and New Zealand (Andrews & Lysonski, 1991), Russia (Andrews, Durvasula, & Netemeyer, 1994), Ukraine (von Dorn & Akimova, 1998), Egypt (Wentz, 1993), Saudi Arabia (Al-Makaty et al., 1996), South Asia (Ramaprasad, 2001), South Korea (La Ferle & Lee, 2002), and China (Ho & Sin, 1986; Kwan, Ho, & Cragin, 1983; La Ferle & Lee, 2002; Pollay, Tse, & Wang, 1990; Semenik, Zhou, & Moore, 1986; Wei, 1997). This study is intended to examine American college students’ general beliefs and overall attitude toward advertising. Specifically, the focus is how college students perceive the social and economic consequences of advertising. Therefore, Pollay and Mittal’s 12-item scale measuring consumers’ beliefs about advertising

137 societal effects is relevant, but the measures about three personal uses of advertising were excluded. Three items measuring falsity/no sense actually examine consumers’ trust or credibility of advertising in general, so they were not used. Finally, only nine items were kept to measure American college students’ general beliefs about the social and economic effects of advertising. Advertising Attitudinal Measures Global attitudes toward advertising were measured by three statements recommended by Pollay and Mittal (1993): Overall, I like advertising. My general opinion about advertising is unfavorable. Overall, I consider advertising a good thing. Status Consumption Scale The Eastman et al. (1999) five-item status consumption scale is borrowed for this study to measure U.S. college students’ status-consumption tendency, which is defined as “the motivational process by which individuals strive to improve their social standing through the conspicuous consumption of consumer products that confer and symbolize status both for the individual and surrounding significant others” (p. 42). For Eastman and her associates, status consumption has one dimension, an interest in consuming for status, which involves a desire for status and conspicuous consumption. A desire for status involves an interest in status and status products. It is shown by buying something that represents status to both the individual and to surrounding significant others. Conspicuous consumption is expressed in the

138 manner of buying a higher priced product to inflate one’s ego. The short scale consists of the following five items: I am interested in new products with status. I would buy a product just because it has status. I would pay more for a product if it has status. The status of a product is irrelevant to me. A product is more valuable to me if it has some snob appeal. Eastman et al. (1999) conducted six studies to develop, purify, and validate their status consumption scale. In five studies, they achieved scale reliability above 0.80, and their confirmatory analyses for one factor yielded an AGFI above 0.90. Eastman et al. (1997) tested the scale in Mexico and China. They obtained a moderate but acceptable reliability in Mexico (a = 0.63), but the scale did not fare very well in China (a = 0.37). As another established scale of status consumption is not available, this study will include Eastman et al.’s (1999) scale. Compulsive Buying Scale Roberts and Tanner’s (2000) five-item compulsive buying scale was borrowed for this study. The most important consideration is its brevity and convenience. Second, the scale is more suitable for some college students who still live on an allowance from their parents, do not work to pay their tuition, and do not own a credit card. Roberts and Tanner first developed an 11-item scale to measure the compulsive buying behavior of American adolescents based on existing compulsive buying scales created by Faber and O’Guinn (1992), Edwards (1993), and Valence et al.

139 (1988). Roberts and Tanner even followed Edwards’ (1993) definition of compulsive buying behavior: a chronic, abnormal form of shopping and spending characterized by (in extreme forms) an overpowering, uncontrollable, and repetitive urge to buy, with disregard for the consequences. Roberts and Tanner argued that extant scales were designed for adults and not appropriate for teenagers. For example, in the most popular Faber and O’Guinn (1992) compulsivebuying screener, there are questions about writing checks, payday, and credit cards. These questions are not applicable to those college students who are supported by their parents and do not work to pay their tuition. After running a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation, Roberts and Tanner (2000) found that several factors existed within the scale, and they dropped the items that cross-loaded at 0.4 or above on more than one factor. Their unidimensional five-item scale accounted for 45% of the variance. Roberts and Tanner’s (2000) scale includes the following statements: I feel I have to spend any money I have (adapted from the Valence et al., 1988, scale), I am always asking my parents or other people for money. I always buy something when I go shopping. I buy things even though I cannot afford them (taken from the Edwards, 1993, compulsive buying scale). When I want something but have no money, I will try to borrow it. All responses to these questions will be recorded on five-point Likert scales anchored by strongly disagree (0) and strongly agree (4). As shown in the scale,

140 Roberts and Tanner operationalized compulsive buying as a compulsion to spend or even overspend one’s money, an urge to buy something even if one cannot afford, and a habit to get more money or borrow something when one has no money to spend. Valence et al. (1988) developed the first scale to measure three dimensions underlying compulsive buying behavior. The first dimension is the “tendency to spend,” in which compulsive buyers exhibit a higher propensity to spend than others. The second dimension is “reactive respect,” dealing with the individual’s response to strong urges to buy. The last one is associated with post-purchase guilt. The scale consists of 12 items such as the following: When I have money, I cannot help but spend part or the whole of it. I have often bought a product that I did not need, while knowing I have very little money left. I sometimes feel that something inside of me pushed me to go shopping. There were times when I have a strong urge to buy (clothes, compact discs, etc.). The Valence et al. (1988) scale has been used in several studies. For example, Scherhorn et al. (1990) applied the scale to compare self-reported compulsive and normal German consumers. The scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92 across two samples and produced a three-factor structure in the compulsive consumer sample. d’Astous et al. (1990) used their scale to study teenagers’ compulsive buying behavior, and the scale displayed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.78 for the sample respondents.

141 The most frequently used screening scale was developed by Faber and O’Guinn (1992) to identify compulsive buyers among the general population. Their sevenitem diagnostic screener consists of statements such as the following: If I have any money left at the end of the pay period, I just have to spend it. Bought things even though I couldn’t afford them. Wrote a check when I knew I didn’t have enough money in the bank to cover it. Made only minimum payments on my credit cards. Faber and O’Guinn’s (1992) screener has been employed in many subsequent studies in different countries including Mexico and South Korea (Cole & Sherrell, 1995; Faber & Christenson, 1996; Faber, Christenson, Zwaan, & Mitchell, 1995; Kwak, Zinkhan, & Crask, 2003; Lyi, Lee, & Kwak, 1997; Rindfleisch, Burroughs, & Denton, 1997; Roberts, 1998; Roberts & Jones, 2001; Roberts & Martinez, 1997; Roberts & Sepulveda, 1999; Rook & Fisher, 1995). The internal consistency of their scale in previous studies has been acceptable with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 or above reported. For example, Cole and Sherrell (1995) applied Valence et al.’s (1988) scale and Faber and O’Guinn’s (1992) scale to a U.S. student sample for comparative purposes. Their confirmatory factor analyses revealed that Valence et al.’s three-factor model fit the data very well (GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.87, RMSQR = 0.06) and Faber and O’Guinn’s scale was unidimensional (GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.91, RMSQR = 0.05) because the goodness-of-fit indices were above or very close to the recommended level of 0.9 and the root mean square residuals fell within the acceptable range of 0.08 or less. The reliability alphas for the “tendency to spend,” “reactive aspect,” and “post-purchase guilt” were respectively 0.69, 0.86, and 0.61

142 (Valence et al., 1988). Faber and O’Guinn’s scale produced the reliability alpha of 0.76. Faber and O’Guinn’s screener is not suitable for this study because its purpose is not to identify whether college students have compulsive buying behavior, but whether they have compulsive-buying tendencies. In addition, some students, especially freshmen, do not work and do not own credit cards, so some questions from the screener are not relevant. Therefore, Roberts and Tanner’s (2000) scale was used in this study. Unaided Brand Recall Measures Brand recall examines consumers’ ability to retrieve the brand when given the product category (Keller, 1993). Usually, the unaided recall of brand names is measured by asking subjects “Please name all the brand names you can recall that are associated with each category” (e.g., Alpert & Kamins, 1995) or “Name the first brand of [category] that comes to mind” (e.g., Nicholls & Roslow, 1999). The traditional measure examines what brand names the respondents can recall and what brand is ranked first by respondents. As the quantity of brand names recall is the main interest of this study, the traditional unaided brand recall measure has to be adapted. The unaided brand recall of luxury products in four categories is thus measured by asking “How many brand names of luxury car/designer clothes/jewelry/perfume can you recall?” In the pretests conducted at a large Midwestern university in fall 2003 and spring 2004, students were asked to write down brand names they could recall. The

143 results were not satisfactory because quite a few students had given us a number or written down “a few,” “too many,” or “numerous.” Later, an interval measure with the answer choices of (A) 0, (B) 1-5, (C) 6-10, (D) 11-15, (E) 16-20, and (F) Over 20 was created and tested. The results were better than that of open-ended questions. Therefore, in this study, an interval measure of unaided brand recall was used with eight answer choices from 0 to more than 30. Four categories of luxury products were chosen, including luxury car, designer clothes, jewelry, and perfume because they were identified as status products in several past studies (e.g., Danziger, 2002; Eastman et al., 1999; Frank, 1999; Schor, 1999; Twitchell, 2002). Purchase Intent Measures Purchase intent is customers’ predicted or planned behavior of purchase and can be defined as a possibility of beliefs and attitudes being converted into purchase acts (Engel, Rogers, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1995). Many marketing scholars measure purchase intent by posing the question “How likely would you be to buy a product or use a service?” For example, Shao, Baker, and Wagner (2004) recently employed the measure to examine the likelihood of their subjects to use banking services and to recommend an investment banker to friends. Similarly, Morwitz and Fitzsimons (2004) used a very similar measure, “How likely are you to buy a product or service?,” to explore the mere measurement effect of measuring purchase intensions on actual purchase behavior. Some scholars use several bipolar adjectives to measure their respondents’ purchase intent (e.g., Maxham & Netemeyer, 2002). More recently, Putrevu (2004)

144 measured purchase intent with three sets of seven-point bipolar adjectives: unlikely/likely, improbable/probable, and impossible/possible. In an experimental study, Lafferty and Goldsmith (2004) adopted an almost identical three seven-point bipolar adjective scale: very likely–very unlikely, probable–improbable, and possible–impossible. In this study, the first shortest measure of purchase intent was preferred. Therefore, the purchase intent of luxury products in four categories was measured by the question “How likely would you be to purchase a luxury car/designer clothes/a piece of jewelry/a bottle of perfume in six months?” with the Likert-type answer choices of (1) Very likely, (2) Likely, (3) Not sure, (4) Unlikely, (5) Very unlikely. Demographics Respondents were asked to provide their gender, race, year in school, and birth year. Their family income was measured by the question “The annual household income of my family is________,” using six answer choices ranging from less than $20,000 to more than $100,000, with an interval of $20,000. Finally, their monthly personal income including family allowance was asked with nine answer choices ranging from less than $200 to more than $1600 with an increment of $200. The final survey questionnaire is included in Appendix B. Data Collection and Coding The data were collected in a self-administered mail survey conducted in April 2005 and September 2005. With the approval of Southern Illinois University Carbondale (Appendix C), a complete mailing list of U.S. college students was

145 obtained from the Admissions and Record Office in March 2005, and it was updated in late August 2005. A random sample of 500 SIUC college students was selected with the systematic random sampling technique in April 2005. Similarly, a random sample of 500 SIUC students was generated in late August 2005. Five hundred survey questionnaires with cover letters were mailed to 500 randomly selected students in April 2005. The same procedure was repeated in September 2005. On each weekday (Monday through Friday), 100 mail pieces were put into the mail drop box in front of the U.S. Post Office at Woodhaven, New York 11421. The cover letter was included, written in a polite and personal manner with the author’s genuine signature so that respondents would be persuaded to help with the project. A stamped envelope with the author’s address on it was enclosed in each mail piece. Each outgoing envelope and return envelope was carefully marked in fine print with a number at the right bottom to keep track of each mail piece. In the first round of mailing, Domino’s coupons were inserted in 500 mail pieces. One-dollar bills were enclosed in 300 mail pieces, while two dollar bills were attached to the questionnaire in 100 mail pieces. As a result, 100 mail pieces with only Domino’s coupons achieved the response rate of 35%; 100 mail pieces with two dollar bills and Domino’s coupons increased the response rate to 59%; 300 mailed pieces with one-dollar bills and Domino’s coupons had a response rate of 55%. Obviously, incentives were very useful to increase the response rate and to establish trust because it took students at least 10 minutes to finish the survey (Dillman, 2000).

146 Because two dollar bills were not significantly more effective than one dollar bills, in the second round of the survey, only one-dollar bills and Domino’s coupons were used as incentives to avoid waste. The response rate was only 53%, which is normal. Altogether, 524 completed survey questionnaires were returned. Finally, 501 completed survey questionnaires were subject to further statistical analyses after the responses from international students were omitted. To boost the response rate, almost all respondents were contacted by email and reminded of the survey if their email addresses could be found in the university’s online directory. About 20 survey questionnaires were mailed to those who failed to receive the survey or misplaced the survey. The coding was done on spreadsheets of the SPSS program. Reverse coding was used wherever a statement was negatively worded or it suggested a negative meaning. Statistical Analysis The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and LISREL were used for statistic analyses. The reliability alphas were calculated for multi-item scales including Richins and Dawson’s (1992) materialism scale, Pollay and Mittal’s (1993) advertising beliefs and attitudes scales, Eastman et al.’s (1999) status consumption scale, and Roberts and Tanner’s (2000) compulsive buying scale. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test these scales against the survey data. Exploratory factor analyses were run to tap any underlying dimensions of materialism, general beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising, statusconsumption tendency, and compulsive-buying tendency. Pearson correlational

147 analyses were calculated to examine the relationship between media use, beliefs about and attitudes toward advertising, materialism, status consumption, and compulsive-buying tendencies. Multiple regression procedures were operated to identify the significant antecedents or predictors of unaided brand recall and purchase intent of luxury goods.

148 CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS In this chapter, the research findings of two mail surveys are reported in detail. First, the descriptive statistics are reported. The correlation matrixes of important variables are presented. The chapter shows the results of confirmatory factor analyses and exploratory factor analyses run on the established scales of materialism, advertising beliefs, status consumption, and compulsive buying. Finally, the results of multiple regressions of materialism, status consumption, compulsive buying, brand recall, and purchase intent are reported. Only six demographic variables were included in two mail surveys: gender, race, year in college, age, family annual income, and personal monthly income. Among 501 respondents, 50.7% (254) of them were women and 49.3% (247), men. The distribution was surprisingly symmetric: the genders were almost even in number. The mode of the respondents’ age was 21 years (17.2%). The average age or mean age was 24.73, with a standard deviation of 6.18. The youngest respondent was only 18 while the oldest respondent was 57. The racial makeup roughly matches that of the 2000 U.S. Census data. White college students made up 81.8% (410) of all respondents; 8.8% (44) of them were African Americans, while 4% (20) of them were Hispanic college students. College students with Asian origins made up only 1% (5) of the respondents. There were eight Native American students (1.6%), while ten respondents (2%) chose the category of “racially mixed.”

149 The respondents consist of freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors, and graduate students. The percentages suggest that the sample is representative of all SIUC college students. Senior students made up 30.3% (152) of all respondents. There were 116 junior students (23.2%) and 84 sophomore students (16.8%). Freshmen made up 15.8% of the respondents (79), while 70 graduate students (14%) completed the survey questionnaires. The family income of respondents was almost normally distributed. Thirtythree students (6.6%) reported a family annual income of above $100,000, while 36 of them (7.2%) reported a household annual income of $80,001 to $100,000. There were 64 students (12.8%) whose reported family income fell into the category of $60,001 to $80,000, and the income bracket of $40,001 to $60,000 included the families of 183 respondents (36.5%, the highest percentage). The income range of $20,001 to $40,000 consisted of the families of 134 respondents (26.7%, the second highest percentage). Only 51 students (10.2%) reported the lowest family income, under $20,000. More than half of the respondents reported a monthly income below $400 (55.6%). There were 88 students (17.6%) who reported a monthly income ranging from $401 to $800. Sixty respondents (12%) earned a monthly income between $801 and $1200, while 44 students had a monthly income ranging from $1201 to $1600. Only 30 students (6%) had a monthly income above $1600. The use of only three media was measured in this survey. Daily and weekend television viewing were separately measured because it was assumed that respondents probably watched more television during the weekend.

150 Because of the “yesterday” media measure, 47 respondents (9.4%) reported that they did not watch television on the day before they completed the survey. Seventy-one students (14.2%) watched television for less than one hour on the day before the survey instrument was filled out, while 96 college students (19.2%) reported television viewing of one hour to one hour 59 minutes on the day before they finished the survey instrument. One hundred ten respondents (22%, largest percentage) watched television for at least two hours but less than three hours on the day before they answered the survey. Eighty-five students (17%) said that they watched television for at least three hours but less than four hours the day before the survey was completed. Forty-one students (8.2%) claimed they viewed television more than four hours but less than five hours on the day before they filled out the survey. Only 20 (4%) students reported the television viewing of more than five hours and less than six hours on the day before they took the survey. There were 15 students (3%) who reported television viewing that ranged from six hours to seven hours on the day before the survey was done. Only six students (1.2%) watched television for more than seven hours but less than eight hours on the day before they answered the survey questionnaire. There were only 10 heavy viewers of television (2%), those who watched for more than 8 hours on the day before the survey was finished. According to U.S. Census Data, the projected television viewing hours in 2004 for adults 18 and older was 1749 hours (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Thus, average daily television viewing for U.S. adults 18 and older should be about 4.86 hours per

151 day in 2004. Because college student have to take several courses during weekdays and do the homework at night, the average daily television viewing should be lower than the national average. Therefore, in this study, 214 respondents were considered light television viewers because their daily television viewing was less than two hours, and 236 students were regarded as medium television viewers as their daily television viewing hours were below five hours. Only 51 college students in this survey were classified as heavy television viewers because their daily television viewing exceeded five hours. Weekend television viewing was evenly distributed across the first eight categories. Fifty-four respondents (10.8%) did not watch television on the Saturday before the survey was done. Fifty-nine of them (11.8%) watched television for less than one hour, and 57 respondents (11.4%) watched television for more than one hour but less than two hours on the Saturday before they took the survey. Fifty-nine (11.8%) college student reported Saturday television viewing of more than two hours and less than three hours, and 52 respondents remembered their Saturday television viewing as more than three hours and less than four hours. Forty-four students (8.8%) recalled their Saturday television viewing as more than four hours and less than five hours, while the same number of respondents (44) claimed Saturday television viewing of more than five hours and less than six hours. There were 42 respondents (8.4%) who reported television viewing of more than six hours but less than seven hours. Only nine students (1.6%) said that they watched television on that particular Saturday for more than seven hours and less than eight hours, but 82 respondents (16.4%) chose the answer of Saturday television viewing

152 of more than eight hours. Almost one-third (165) of respondents (32.9%) did not see a movie on the day before they completed the survey. Thirty-five students (7%) reported that they watched a movie for less than one hour on the day before they took the survey, and 28 respondents said that they saw a movie for more than one hour but less than two hours. Fifty-five students (11%) said that they spent more than two hours but less than three hours watching movies the day before they finished the survey. Twentyfour respondents (4.8%) reported movie viewing time of more than three hours but less than four hours, and 36 students (7.2%) remembered their movie viewing time as more than four hours but less than five hours on the day before they filled out the survey. Thirteen respondents (2.6%) recalled their movie viewing time as more than five hours but less than six hours on that particular day, and 22 students (4.4%) reported movie viewing time of more than six hours but less than seven hours. Sixteen students (3.2%) spent more than seven hours but less than eight hours watching movies on the day before they took the survey. One hundred and seven respondents (21.4%) reportedly spent more than eight hours watching movies on that particular day. More than one-third (188, 37.5%) of the respondents did not read any magazines the day before they completed the survey. Nearly one-third (158, 31.5%) of the respondents said that they read magazines for less than one hour. Ninety college students (18%) read some magazines for more than one hour and less than two hours on the day before they finished the survey. There were 37 respondents (7.4%) who read some magazines for more than two hours and less than three hours

153 on the day before the survey was done. Fifteen college students (3%) read some magazines for three hours but less than four hours on the day before they took the survey. Eight respondents (1.6%) reportedly read some magazines for more than four hours but less than five hours on the day before they answered the survey questionnaire. Only three respondents (0.6%) reported they read some magazines for more than five hours and less than six hours on the day before they filled out the survey. Just two college students (0.4%) claimed they read some magazines for more than six hours but less than seven hours on the day before they did the survey. As for the brand awareness of luxury cars, 85 respondents (17%) could not recall any brand name of luxury cars. One hundred eighty-five college students (36.9%) were aware of one to five brand names of luxury cars, and 129 respondents (25.7%) claimed they knew six to ten kinds of luxury cars. Fifty-eight respondents (11.6%) believed they remembered 11 to 15 makes of luxury cars. Thirty-four college students (6.8%) reported they could recall 16-20 brand names of luxury cars. Only five respondents (1%) chose the brand recall of 21-25 brand name luxury cars, and just two respondents (0.4%) claimed the recall of 26-30 luxury car brands. Finally, three respondents (0.6%) answered they could recall more than 30 luxury car brands. Table 1 is a cross-tabulation of the brand recall of luxury cars by gender. Table 2 shows the cross-tabulation of the brand recall of luxury cars by two races. Family income is cross-tabulated against the recall of luxury car brands in Table 3. The cross-tabulation of years in school and the recall of luxury car brands is shown in Table 4. Table 5 is the cross-tabulation of personal monthly income and the recall of luxury car brands.

154 Table 1 Cross-Tabulation of Gender and Recall of Luxury Car Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0

1-5

6-10

11-15

16+

Total

Gender

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

M ale

38

15.4

87

35.2

52

21.1

38

15.4

32

13.0

247

100 .0

Fem ale

47

18.5

98

38.6

77

30.3

20

7.9

12

4.7

254

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Chi square: F = 21.035, df = 4, p < 0.01.

Table 2 Cross-Tabulation of Race and Recall of Luxury Car Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0

1-5 N

6-10

Race

N

%

%

Non-whites

18

19.8

31

34.1

W hites

67

16.3

154

37.6

N

11-15 %

N

%

25

27.5

11

104

25.4

47

16+

Total

N

%

N

%

12.1

6

6.6

91

100 .0

11.5

38

9.3

410

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Chi square F test is not significa nt.

Table 3 Cross-Tabulation of Family Income and Recall of Luxury Car Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0

1-5

6-10

11-15

16+

Fam ily I nc o m e

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Under 40K

25

13.5

76

41.1

44

23.8

25

13.5

15

40K-80K

55

22.3

80

32.4

66

26.7

24

9.7

Over 80K

5

7.2

29

42.0

19

27.5

9

13.0

No te. N = 501. Chi Square: F = 14.127, df = 8, p = 0.079, not significa nt.

Total N

%

8.1

185

100 .0

22

8.9

247

100 .0

7

10.1

69

100 .0

155 Table 4 Cross-Tabulation of Years in School and Recall of Luxury Car Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0

1-5

6-10

11-15

16+

Years in school

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

Freshman

15

19.1

29

36.7

15

19.0

13

16.5

Soph omore

15

17.9

29

34.5

21

25.0

11

Junior

20

17.2

42

36.2

35

30.2

Senior & Gra dua te

35

15.8

85

38.3

58

26.1

Total

%

N

%

7

8.9

79

100 .0

13.1

8

9.5

84

100 .0

8

6.9

11

9.5

116

100 .0

26

11.7

18

8.1

222

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Chi Square F test is not significa nt.

Table 5 Cross-Tabulation of Personal Monthly Income and Recall of Luxury Car Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0

1-5

6-10

11+

Total

I nc o m e

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Under $400

67

24.0

102

36.6

56

20.1

54

19.4

279

100 .0

$401-800

11

12.5

28

31.8

33

37.5

16

18.2

88

100 .0

Over $801

7

5.2

55

41.0

40

29.9

32

23.9

134

100 .0

Note: N = 501. Chi Square: F = 31.588, df = 6, p < 0.01.

When asked about the brands of designer clothes, only eight respondents (1.6%) could not recall any brand name of designer clothes. One hundred seventeen (23.4%) respondents reported the recall of 1-5 brand names of designer clothes. There were 125 college students (25%) who remembered 6-10 brand names of designer clothes while 96 respondents (19.2%) could recall 11-15 brand names of

156 designer clothes. One hundred twenty seven respondents (25.3%) claimed that they could recall 16-20 brand names of designer clothes. Eleven college students (2.2%) answered that they remembered 21-25 brand names of designer clothes. Six respondents (1.2%) said they could recall 26-30 brands of designer clothes while 10 respondents believed that they could recall 31-35 brands of designer clothes. Only one respondent (0.2%) claimed the recall of more than 36 brands of designer clothes. The recall of brand name designer clothes by gender is shown on Table 6. Table 7 is a cross-tabulation of brand recall of designer clothes and race. The brand recall of designer clothes is also cross-tabulated against the years in school in Table 8. The brand recall of designer clothes and the family income are also crosstabulated in Table 9. Table 10 is the cross-tabulation of personal monthly income and the recall of designer clothes.

Table 6 Cross-Tabulation of Gender and Recall of Designer Clothes Number of Brands Recalled 0-5

6-10

11-15

16+

Total

Gender

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

M ale

70

28.3

70

28.3

43

17.4

64

25.9

247

100 .0

Fem ale

55

21.7

55

21.7

53

20.9

91

35.8

254

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Eight categories of the brand recall of designer clothes were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square: F = 9.249, df = 3, p = 0.026.

157 Table 7 Cross-Tabulation of Race and Recall of Designer Clothes Number of Brands Recalled 0-5

6-10

Race

N

Non-whites

18

19.8

107

26.1

W hites

%

N

11-15

16+ N

Total

%

N

%

%

N

%

21

23.1

22

24.2

30

33.0

91

100 .0

104

25.4

74

18.0

125

30.5

410

100 .0

Note. N = 501.Eight categories of the brand recall of designer clothes were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F test is not significa nt.

Table 8 Cross-Tabulation of Years in School and Recall of Designer Clothes Number of Brands Recalled 0-5

6-10

11-15

16+

Total

Years in school

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Freshman

13

16.5

13

16.5

18

22.1

35

44.3

79

100 .0

Soph omore

17

20.2

17

20.2

14

16.7

36

42.9

84

100 .0

Junior

17

14.7

35

30.2

24

20.7

40

34.5

116

100 .0

Senior & Gra dua te

78

35.1

60

27.0

40

18.0

44

19.8

222

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Eight categories of the brand recall of designer clothes were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F = 40.741, df = 9, p < 0.01.

158 Table 9 Cross-Tabulation of Family Income and Recall of Designer Clothes Number of Brands Recalled 0-5

6-10

11-15

16+

Total

Fam ily i nc o m e

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Under 40K

54

29.2

36

19.5

39

21.1

56

30.3

185

100 .0

40K-80K

52

21.1

68

27.5

44

17.8

83

33.6

247

100 .0

Over 80K

19

27.5

21

30.4

13

18.8

16

23.2

69

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Row percentages were s ho w n in parentheses. Eight categories of the brand recall of designer clothes were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F test is not significa nt.

Table 10 Cross-Tabulation of Personal Monthly Income and Recall of Designer Clothes Number of Brands Recalled 0-5

6-10

11-15

16+

Total

M onthly i nc o m e

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Under $400

57

20.4

69

24.7

55

19.7

98

35.1

279

100 .0

$400-$800

18

20.5

33

37.5

17

19.3

20

22.7

88

100 .0

Over $801

50

37.3

23

17.2

24

17.9

37

27.6

134

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Row percentages were s ho w n in parentheses. Eight categories of the brand recall of designer clothes were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square: F = 24.156, df = 6, p < 0.01.

The frequency statistics show that only 11 respondents (2.2%) reported no recall of brand-name jewelry. A majority of respondents (317, 63.3%) could recall 1-5 kinds of brand name jewelry, and 105 respondents (21%) claimed the recall of 6-10 brand names of jewelry. Thirty-six respondents (7.2%) answered that they

159 could recall 11-15 brand names of jewelry, and 32 college students (6.4%) believed that they remembered more than 15 brand names of jewelry. The cross-tabulation of jewelry recall and gender is shown in Table 11. The recall of brand names of jewelry is cross-tabulated by race in Table 12. Table 13 is the cross-tabulation of the recall of brand name jewelry and family income, and Table 14 shows the cross-tabulation of personal monthly income and the recall of jewelry brands. Finally, the years in school and the brand recall of jewelry are cross-tabulated in Table 15.

Table 11 Cross-Tabulation of Gender and Recall of Jewelry Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0-5 Gender

6-10

11-15

16+

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

M ale

160

64.8

54

21.9

17

6.9

16

6.5

247

100 .0

Fem ale

168

66.1

51

20.1

19

7.5

16

6.3

254

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Eight categories of the brand recall of jewelry were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F test is not significa nt.

160 Table 12 Cross-Tabulation of Race and Recall of Jewelry Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0-5 Race

N

Non-whites W hites

6-10

11+

Total

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

59

64.8

19

20.9

13

14.3

89

100 .0

269

65.6

86

21.0

55

13.4

410

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Eight categories of the brand recall of jewelry were collapsed into three categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F test is not significa nt.

Table 13 Cross-Tabulation of Family Income and Recall of Jewelry Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0-5 Fam ily i nc o m e

6-10

11+

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Under 40K

108

60.7

40

22.5

30

16.9

178

100 .0

40K-80K

160

65.6

52

21.3

32

13.1

244

100 .0

Over 80K

49

72.1

13

19.1

6

8.8

68

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Eight categories of the brand recall of jewelry were collapsed into three categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F test is not significa nt.

161 Table 14 Cross-Tabulation of Personal Monthly Income and Recall of Jewelry Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0-5 M onthly i nc o m e

6-10

11+

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Under $400

181

64.9

62

22.2

36

12.9

274

100 .0

$400-$800

57

64.8

18

20.5

13

14.8

88

100 .0

Over $801

90

67.2

25

18.7

19

14.2

134

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Eight categories were collapsed into three categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F test is not significa nt.

Table 15 Cross-Tabulation of Years in School and Recall of Jewelry Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0-5 Years in school

N

Freshman

6-10

11+

Total

%

N

%

N

%

50

63.3

10

12.7

19

24.1

79

100 .0

Soph omore

48

57.1

21

25.0

15

17.9

84

100 .0

Junior

70

60.3

34

29.3

12

10.3

116

100 .0

160

72.1

40

18.0

22

9.9

222

100 .0

Senior & Gra dua te

N

%

Note. N = 501. Eight categories were collapsed into three categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F = 21.53, df = 6, p < 0.01.

The recall of perfume is similarly distributed as the recall of jewelry brands by frequency. No brand of perfume came to mind for 21 respondents (4.2%), but 181 respondents (36.1%) could recall 1-5 brands of perfume. One hundred twenty-one college students (24.2%) said they could recall 6-10 brands of perfume, and 61 respondents (12.2%) believed they could recall 11-15 brands of perfume.

162 Amazingly, 109 respondents (21.8%) reported they could recall 16-20 brands of perfume, but only 8 college students (1.6%) could recall more than 20 brands of perfume. The cross-tabulations of the perfume recall, gender, race, family income, personal monthly income and years in school are respectively shown in Table 16, Table 17, Table 18, Table 19, and Table 20.

Table 16 Cross-Tabulation of Gender and Recall of Perfume Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0-5 Gender M ale Fem ale

6-10

11-15

16+

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

131

53.0

53

21.5

23

9.3

40

16.2

247

100 .0

71

28.0

68

26.8

38

15.0

77

30.3

254

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Eight categories were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F = 34.98, df = 3, p < 0.01.

Table 17 Cross-Tabulation of Race and Recall of Perfume Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0-5

6-10

Race

N

Non-whites

35

38.5

167

40.7

W hites

%

N

11-15

16+

Total

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

21

23.1

14

15.4

21

23.1

91

100 .0

100

24.4

47

11.5

96

23.4

410

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Eight categories were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F test is not significa nt.

163 Table 18 Cross-Tabulation of Family Income and Recall of Perfume Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0-5

6-10

11-15

16+

Total

Fam ily i nc o m e

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Under 40K

86

46.5

37

20.0

18

9.7

44

23.8

185

100 .0

40K-80K

82

33.2

66

26.7

34

13.8

65

26.3

247

100 .0

Over 80K

34

49.3

18

26.1

9

13.0

8

11.6

69

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Eight categories were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F = 14.819, df = 6, p = 0.022.

Table 19 Cross-Tabulation of Personal Monthly Income and Recall of Perfume Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0-5 M onthly i nc o m e

6-10

11-15

16+

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Under $400

104

37.3

67

24.0

33

11.8

75

26.9

279

100 .0

$401-$800

36

40.9

27

30.7

8

9.1

17

19.3

88

100 .0

Over $801

62

46.3

27

20.1

20

14.9

25

18.7

134

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Eight categories were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than five cases. Chi Square F test is not significa nt.

164 Table 20 Cross-Tabulation of Years in School and Recall of Perfume Brands Number of Brands Recalled 0-5 Years in school

N

Freshman

6-10 %

N

%

24

30.4

17

21.5

Soph omore

31

36.9

15

Junior

47

40.5

100

45.0

Senior & Gra dua te

11-15 N

16+

Total

%

N

%

N

%

6

7.6

32

40.5

79

100 .0

17.9

13

15.5

25

29.8

84

100 .0

28

24.1

14

12.1

27

23.3

116

100 .0

61

27.5

28

12.6

33

14.9

215

100 .0

Note. N = 501. Row percentages were s ho w n in parentheses. 8 categories were collapsed into four categories to insure that any individual cell has more than 5 cases. Chi Square F = 26.46, df = 9, p < 0.01.

The mean materialism score of 501 respondents was 64.25, with a standard deviation of 14.98; there were multiple modes, the smallest of which was 50. As the neutral score was 54 and the median was 62, most of the respondents (65.5%) scored higher than the neutral score; 39.7% of respondents scored 72 and higher, meaning that they were materialists in their own opinions. There was no significant gender difference when materialism scores were categorized into three groups (lower than mean score, mean score, and higher than mean score) and crosstabulated with gender. The mean score of status consumption tendencies was 16.13, with a standard deviation of 5.78. The mode was 9, but the median was 16. Because the neutral score was 15, slightly more than half of respondents (50.3%) scored higher than the neutral score, and 34.5% of the respondents admitted that they had status consumption tendencies. The scores of status consumption showed no gender

165 difference on the cross-tabulation of the three groups (lower than mean score, mean score, and higher than mean score) and gender. The mean score of their compulsive buying tendencies was 15.14, with a standard deviation of 6.75. The mode was 25, but the median was only 15, the neural score. These statistics indicate that half of the students (47.5%) scored lower than the neutral score. However, 35.1% of the respondents scored 20 and above, indicating that more than one-third of respondents might have compulsive buying tendencies. The distribution of the scores of male and female respondents was very similar on the cross-tabulation of the three groups (lower than mean score, mean score, and higher than mean score) and gender. The reliability of the scales of advertising beliefs, materialism, status consumption tendencies, and compulsive buying tendencies was measured first by the alpha reliability test. The general reliability of the nine-item scale of advertising beliefs was 0.7893. An exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed to identify the dimensionality of the advertising beliefs scale. Only two factors with an eigenvalue higher than 1.0 emerged from the procedure (3.479 and 1.368), and the scree test also suggested a two-factor solution. A parallel analysis indicated that the said two factors should be retained because their eigenvalues were larger than the first two factors of the random data on which the same procedure was run (1.189, 1.154). The rotated two-factor solution is shown on Table 21. Then, a confirmatory analysis was conducted to validate the scale of advertising beliefs.

166 Table 21 The Dimensionality of Advertising Beliefs Scale (Two Factor Rotated Solution) M easu reme nts

Factor 1

Factor 2

Advertising Beliefs Sca le (1) Function of Materialism Advertising is making us a mate rialistic socie ty - ove rly interested in buying and owning things.

0.733

Advertising makes peo ple buy unafforda ble prod ucts just to show off.

0.708

Advertising makes peo ple live in a wo rld of fantasy.

0.669

Because of advertising, peo ple buy a lot of things that they do not really need.

0.710

(2) Value Corruption Advertising promotes und esirab le values in our socie ty.

0.715

Mo st advertising distorts the values of our youth.

0.724

(3) Good for e c on o m y In gen eral, advertising promotes competition, which ben efits the consumer.

0.746

In gen eral, advertising helps our nation’s e c on o m y. M ostly, advertising is wasteful of our econ omic resources.

0.752 0.686

Note. Principal Component An alysis with Varimax Rotation. N=501. On ly loadings higher than 0.4 were retained, and any cross loadings are s ho w n in parentheses.

The overall reliability coefficient (alpha) of the 18-item materialism scale was 0.9076. The alpha of the six-item success subscale was 0.8227. The reliability coefficient of the seven-item centrality subscale was 0.7367. The reliability of the five-item happiness subscale was 0.7493. Two confirmatory factor analyses were run with LISREL to validate the 18item materialism scale. A one-factor model of materialism was tested first by

167 fitting the correlation matrix to the parameter estimates. The procedure yielded a Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of 0.87, an Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) of 0.83, and a Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) of 0.069. The correlation matrix from the data was not a very good fit for the one-factor model. When the threefactor model of materialism was tested with the same procedure, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) increased to 0.92, the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) reached 0.89, and the Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) decreased to 0.057. These results suggest a fairly good fit for the three-factor model because the Goodness of Fit Index is above 0.9 and the Root Mean Square Residual is very close to 0.05. A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was run to examine the dimensionality of materialism. The procedure produced five factors whose initial eigenvalues are higher than one. The rotated five-factor solution is shown in Table 22. The scree test or the observation of the scree plot where the eigenvalues were plotted against component numbers shows that the one-factor solution provides the best fit of the data. However, the parallel analysis with random data pointed to the three-factor solution as the best fit of the data. The eigenvalues of five factors were respectively 4.825, 1.595, 1.36, 1.175, and 1.025, and the eigenvalues of first five components from the random data were 1.378, 1.345, 1.322, 1.287 and 1.232. As the eigenvalues of the first three factors from the survey data were higher than the eigenvalues of the first three factors from the random data, the three-factor solution should be recommended as the best fit of the data. Three factors of materialism accounted for 58.648% of the variance in materialism.

168 Table 22 Dmensionality of Materialism (Five-factor Solution) M easu reme nts

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Success subs cale I admire peo ple who o w n expensive homes, cars, and clothes.

0.706

S o m e of the most important achie vem ents in life include acquiring material possessions.

0.598

I don’t place much emp hasis on the amount of material objec ts peo ple o w n as a sign of success.

0.732

The things I o w n say a lot about how we ll I’m doing in life.

0.572

I like to o w n things that impress people.

0.627

(0.482)

I don’t pay much attention to the material objec ts that other peo ple own.

0.717

Ce ntrality subs cale I usua lly buy only things I need.

0.827

I try to keep m y life simple, as far as possessions are concerned.

0.682

The things I o w n aren’t all that important to me.

0.611

I enjoy spending money on things that aren’t practic al.

0.588

Buying things gives m e a lot of pleasure.

0.616

I like a lot of luxury in m y life.

0.507

I put less emp hasis on material things than most peo ple I know.

0.552

Happiness subs cale I have all the things I really need to enjoy life.

0.696

M y life wo uld be better if I owned certain things I don’t have.

0.679

I wo uld be happier if I owned nicer things.

(0.529)

0.583

I’d be happier if I cou ld afford to buy more things.

(0.478)

0.536

It sometimes bothers m e quite a bit that I can’t afford to buy all the things I’d like.

(0.428)

Note. Principal Component An alysis with Varimax Rotation. On ly loadings higher than 0.4 were retained, and cross-loadings are s ho w n in parentheses.

169 The reliability test of the Status Consumption Scale yielded a Cronbach Alpha of 0.8065, and the reliability coefficient of the Compulsive Buying Scale was 0.8580. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the validity of the Status Consumption Scale. The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) was 0.98, the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) was 0.95, and the Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) was 0.021. These results suggest that the one-factor model is a very good fit for the survey data because the Goodness of Fit Index is higher than 0.9 and the Root Mean Square Residual is much lower than 0.05. A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was also conducted to tap the dimensions of status consumption tendencies. Only one component was extracted, so the varimax rotation could not be conducted. A parallel analysis is not necessary because only one eigenvalue was larger than one. The scree test clearly suggested a one-factor solution; 57.934% of the variance in status consumption tendencies can be explained by the one-factor solution. Table 23 shows us the loadings of five items of the Status Consumption scale.

170 Table 23 Loadings of Status Consumption Items (One-factor Solution) Status Consumption I te m s

Factor 1

I am interested in new prod ucts with status.

0.784

I wo uld buy a product just because it has status.

0.854

I wo uld pay more for a product if it has status.

0.864

The status of a product is irrelevant to me.

0.288

A product is more valua ble to m e if it has s o m e snob app eal.

0.85

Note. N = 501. Principal Component Analysis.

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the scale of compulsive buying tendencies. It produced a Goodness of Fit Index of 0.99, an Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index of 0.96, and a Root Mean Square Residual of 0.02. It indicates a perfect fit for the one-factor model. A principal component analysis yielded a one-factor solution to fit the survey data. The one factor solution accounted for 63.971% of the variance in compulsive buying tendencies. Because only one eigenvalue is higher than one, the parallel analysis is not useful. The loadings of five items of Compulsive Buying Scale are shown on the Table 24. To validate the nine-item advertising beliefs scale, two confirmatory factor analyses were conducted; the results suggested a nearly perfect fit for the threefactor model. The two-factor test produced a Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of 0.95, an Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) of 0.92, and a Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) of 0.047. The three-factor test achieved a better Goodness of Fit

171 Index (GFI) of 0.96, the same Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) of 0.92, and a lower Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) of 0.046. Two analyses both yielded goodness-of-fit indexes above 0.9 and a root mean square residual below 0.05. However, the three-factor model seems to be the better fit for the survey data.

Table 24 Loadings of Compulsive Buying Items (One-factor Solution) Compulsive Buying Sca le

Factor 1

I feel I have to spend any money I have.

0.817

I am always asking m y paren ts or other peo ple for money.

0.819

I always buy something when I go shopping.

0.68

I buy things even though I cannot afford t he m .

0.864

W hen I want som ethin but have no money, I will try to borrow the thing.

0.808

Note. N = 501. Principal Component Analysis.

Correlational analyses were conducted with SPSS. Daily television viewing was significantly correlated to materialism (r = 0.109, p < 0.05) and compulsive buying tendencies (r = 0.116, p < 0.05). Weekend television viewing was significantly correlated to advertising beliefs (r = 0.13, p < 0.05), materialism (r = 0.20, p < 0.01), status consumption (r = 0.141, p < 0.05), and compulsive buying tendencies (r = 0.165, p < 0.01). Movie consumption was significantly correlated to materialism (r = 0.343, p < 0.01), status consumption (r = 0.249, p < 0.01), and compulsive buying tendencies (r = 0.269, p < 0.01). Magazine reading was significantly correlated to materialism (r = 0.168, p < 0.01) and compulsive buying

172 (r = 0.113, p < 0.05). The correlations of media use with advertising beliefs, materialism, status consumption, and compulsive buying tendencies are shown in Table 25.

Table 25 Correlations: Media Use with Ad Beliefs, Materialism, Status Consumption, and Compulsive Buying Tendencies Daily TV

Weekend TV

Movies

Magazine -0.02

Ad beliefs

0.103

0.130*

-0.038

Materialism

0.093*

0.282*

0.368*

0.241**

Status consumption

0.082

0.23**

0.266**

0.186**

Compulsive buying

0.116**

0.204**

0.234**

0.142**

Note. N = 501. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

The correlational analysis also yielded four significantly inter-correlated psychographic variables (advertising beliefs, materialism, status consumption, and compulsive buying tendencies). The correlation matrix of advertising beliefs, materialism, status consumption, and compulsive buying tendencies is presented in Table 26.

173 Table 26 Correlations: Ad Beliefs, Materialism, Status Consumption, and Compulsive Buying Tendencies Ad Beliefs

Materialism

Status Consumption

Compulsive Buying

0.317**

0.242**





Materialism

0.414**



Status Consumption

0.434**

0.647**



Compulsive Buying

0.136*

0.455**

0.376**

A d Attitudes



Note. N = 501. * p > 0.05 ** p > 0.01

To determine the predictors of materialism, a backward regression was run on daily television viewing, weekend television viewing, movie consumption, magazine reading, gender, age, years in school, family income and personal monthly income. Six significant predictors and two marginally significant predictors were retained: daily television viewing ($ = 0.154, t = 2.859, p < 0.01), weekend television viewing ($ = 0.187, t = 3.126, p < 0.01), movie consumption ($ = 0.288, t = 5.647, p < 0.01), age ($ = -0.193, t = -4.095, p < 0.01), income ($ = 0.142, t = 2.981, p < 0.01), family income ($ = 0.076, t = 1.861, p = 0.063), and magazine reading ($ = 0.075, t = 1.664, p = 0.097). A backward regression procedure was performed to regress advertising beliefs upon media use variables (daily television viewing, weekend television viewing, movie consumption, and magazine reading) and demographic variables (gender, income, family income, age, and years in school). Only one significant predictor was finally retained: the weekend television viewing ($ = 0.13, t = 2.072, p =

174 0.039). One more backward regression procedure was performed on status consumption tendencies as the dependent variable. It yielded five significant predictors: daily television viewing ($ = 0.113, t = 2.012, p = 0.045), weekend television viewing ($ = 0.185, t = 2.993, p < 0.01), movie consumption ($ = 0.233, t = 4.574, p < 0.01), age ($ = -0.229, t = 4.665, p < 0.01), and personal monthly income ($ = 0.12, t = 2.412, p = 0.016). The same procedure was repeated with compulsive buying tendencies as the dependent variable. It produced five significant predictors and one marginally significant predictor: daily television viewing ($ = 0.128, t = 2.255, p = 0.025), weekend television viewing ($ = 0.174, t = 2.76, p < 0.01), movie consumption ($ = 0.19, t = 3.662, p < 0.01), age ($ = -0.164, t = -3.299, p < 0.01), family income ($ = 0.091, t = 2.099, p = 0.036), and personal monthly income ($ = 0.094, t = 1.858, p = 0.064). The backward regression procedure was also adopted to explore predictors of brand recall and purchase intent of luxury cars, designer clothes, jewelry, and perfume. The media use variable (daily television viewing, weekend television viewing, movie consumption, and magazine reading), psychographic variables (materialism), and demographic variables (gender, age, years in school, family income, and personal income) were regressed upon brand recall and purchase intent of these luxury products. For the brand recall of luxury cars, two significantly predictors and three marginally significant predictors were identified: materialism ($ = 0.22, t = 3.684,

175 p = 0.000), gender ($ = -0.147, t = -2.477, p = 0.014), weekend television viewing ($ = 0.113, t = 1.901, p = 0.058), age ($ = -0.105, t = -1.73, p = 0.085), and income ($ = 0.1, t = 1.666, p = 0.097). Only one significant independent variable emerged in predicting college students’ purchase intent of luxury cars: materialism ($ = 0.229, t = 3.787, p = 0.000). Four significant precedent variables and three marginally significant variables were found in predicting college students’ brand recall of designer clothes: materialism ($ = 0.31, t = 5.595, p = 0.000), gender ($ = 0.212, t = 3.80, p = 0.000), income ($ = 0.129, t = 2.314, p = 0.021), age ($ = -0.169, t = -2.578, p = 0.011), years in school ($ = -0.124, t = -1.906, p = 0.058), magazine reading ($ = 0.10, t = 1.794, p = 0.074), and weekend television viewing ($ = 0.099, t = 1.787, p = 0.075). The backward regression yielded three significant predictors and one marginally significant predictor for college students’ purchase intent of designer clothes: materialism ($ = 0.424, t = 7.647, p = 0.000), gender ($ = 0.116, t = 2.089, p = 0.038), weekend television viewing ($ = 0.113, t = 2.035, p = 0.043), and movie consumption ($ = 0.102, t = 1.827, p = 0.069). Two significant predictors and two marginally significant predictors were retained in the final model of the backward regression to predict the brand recall of jewelry: materialism ($ = 0.176, t = 2.943, p = 0.004), years in school ($ = -0.187, t = -3.112, p = 0.002), income ($ = 0.115, t = 1.912, p = 0.057), and weekend television viewing ($ = 0.111, t = 1.858, p = 0.064). To best predict the purchase intent of jewelry, the procedure eventually kept four significant predictors and one marginally significant variable: materialism ($ = 0.435, t = 8.092, p = 0.000),

176 gender ($ = 0.235, t = 4.341, p = 0.000), income ($ = -0.165, t = -3.072, p = 0.002), magazine reading ($ = 0.107, t = 1.965, p = 0.05), and movie consumption ($ = 0.105, t = 1.93, p = 0.055). Another backward regression procedure was performed to identify three significant predictors and one marginally significant predictor of the brand recall of perfume: weekend television viewing ($ = 0.152, t = 2.691, p = 0.008), gender ($ = 0.375, t = 6.64, p = 0.000), years in school ($ = -0.141, t = -2.499, p = 0.013), and materialism ($ = 0.097, t = 1.714, p = 0.088). However, only two significant predictors were retained by the backward regression on the purchase intent of perfume as the dependent variable: gender ($ = 0.455, t = 8.496, p = 0.000) and materialism ($ = 0.26, t = 4.85, p = 0.000).

177 CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION In this chapter, the survey data are examined to see whether or not they support the hypotheses. The significance of the findings is discussed, and reasonable explanations of the research results are offered. The first hypothesis proposed a positive relationship between television viewing and materialism of college students. The survey data supported the first hypothesis. Both daily television viewing and weekend television viewing by SIUC college students were found to be significantly correlated with their scores of materialism. In addition, they were both retained as significant predictors of materialism in the final model of a backward regression procedure in which materialism was a dependent variable while television viewing, magazine reading, seeing films, and demographic variables were used as independent variables. Needless to say, this finding is very consistent with past studies (e.g., Easterlin & Crimmins, 1991; Harmon, 2001; Richins, 1987; Shrum et al., 2003). The finding suggests that television not only cultivates the viewers’ perceptions of the “mean world,” but also fosters the viewers’ materialistic values. Even well-educated college students are often vulnerable to the materialistic influences of television’s portrayal of high-class lifestyles in both drama and commercials. To some extent, television has also contributed to college students’ perceptions of success and happiness. For many of them, success is often associated with worldly possessions such as luxury cars, big houses, exotic vacations, beautiful companions, and so on. At the same time, their happiness will frequently be derived from the joy of having

178 all those good things and from the social recognition that wealth brings. As the pursuit of financial success, fame, and social status becomes central to their lives, moral and spiritual development will definitely be marginalized and even neglected. In reality, not all materialists can fulfill their American dream, and eventually some of them will even develop a sense of disillusionment and despair. According to past studies, materialism is negatively correlated to life satisfaction and happiness. For example, Kasser and Ryan (1993) found that highly central financial success aspirations were associated with less self-actualization, less vitality, more depression, and more anxiety. They believed that lower wellbeing and greater distress might occur when goals regarding extrinsic rewards or the contingent approval of others were more central to an individual than were goals concerning intrinsic actualizing tendencies. Cohen and Cohen (1996) found that materialism was associated with several kinds of personality disorders, and Kasser and Ryan (2001) even found that college students with a strong materialistic value orientation were highly likely to use substances such as tobacco, alcohol, and drugs frequently. More shockingly, Diener and Oishi (2000) identified a negative correlation between a strong value on making money and life satisfaction in more than 7,000 college students from 41 different nations. In this sense, too much television viewing is definitely not a boon to teenagers and college students. Fortunately, life cycle will save some materialists, as age was found to be a significant negative predictor of materialism in this study. It also confirmed the findings of some past studies. For instance, Sheldon and Kasser (2001) found that

179 older people cared less about material possessions and felt happier than younger people. Past studies suggested that because adolescents were concerned with their identities, they develop a tendency to define themselves through identification with things and activities (Csikszentmihayi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Weiland, 1955). College students are still in the process of building their self-esteem and value system; therefore, they are more likely to be influenced by materialistic portrayals on television. Another savior of materialists might be religion. The United States is a very religious country, where millions of people believe in spiritual development and heavenly happiness. Based on the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) of 50,281 American residential households in the continental USA (48 states), about 159,506,000 American adults regarded themselves as adherents of Christianity, and about 7,704,000 American adults considered themselves as believers of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamism, and so on (Kosmin, Mayer, & Keysar, 2001). In other words, about 80% of American adults in 2001 would describe themselves as religious. Actually, several past studies have already provided empirical evidence that religious beliefs might have mitigated materialism, led to more happiness, and benefited the well-being of the American people. For example, a six-year National Project on Youth and Religion conducted by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill using a large telephone survey of 3,290 teenagers (ages 13 to 17) from July 2002 to April 2003 as well as 276 extensive personal interviews showed that devout teenagers seemed to be better off in emotional health, academic success, and community involvement; they showed

180 more concern for others, exhibited more trust of adults and avoidance of risky behavior than their nonreligious counterparts (Smith & Denton, 2005). It would be very interesting in future studies to measure the religious beliefs of college students in order to identify to what extent religion can moderate college students’ consumerism. It would be even more meaningful for marketing scholars to study the impact of religion on consumers’ desire for luxurious status products. Personal monthly income of college students was found to be another significant predictor of their materialistic values. It is possible that more needy college students strive to earn more money to support their college education. It makes sense that people from poor families tend to be more materialistic than people from richer families. Past studies also showed that teenagers who strongly valued materialism were more likely to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than were children who valued self-acceptance, relationship, and community contribution (Cohen & Cohen, 1996; Kasser et al., 1995). The second and third hypotheses predicted a similar positive relationship between materialism and other entertainment media, including motion pictures and magazines. Again, the survey data supported these two hypotheses. However, only the consumption of motion pictures was found to be a significant predictor of materialism in the backward regression procedure; magazine readership was a marginally significant predictor. This finding can probably be attributed to the measurement of magazine readership. The measured magazine reading included not only the reading of lifestyles magazines, but also that of news or sports magazines. The readership of lifestyles magazines should be a significant predictor of

181 materialism as suggested by past studies (e.g., Newman & Dodd, 1995; Rutberg et al., 1991). Though many studies have been conducted to link television viewing with materialism, this study is the first to examine empirically and directly the relationship between materialism and the consumption of other entertainment media, including motion pictures and magazines. The study has provided some empirical evidence to apply cultivation analysis to other entertainment media. The findings suggest that other entertainment media, including motion pictures and lifestyles magazines, could also contribute to the development of U.S. college students’ materialistic values. On the other hand, future studies should measure not only the overall use of television, films, and magazines, but also the media use by genres to find out which television programs, films, and magazines may significantly contribute to college students’ materialism. In addition to shedding light on the relationship of entertainment media and materialism, this study also shows that entertainment media not only greatly contribute to materialistic value orientations of U.S. college students, but also deeply influence their status consumption and compulsive buying tendencies. The fourth hypothesis proposed that television viewing was positively correlated to status consumption tendencies of U.S. college students, while the fifth hypothesis posited that television viewing was positively correlated with their compulsive buying tendencies. The sixth hypothesis predicted a similarly significant positive relationship between the consumption of motion pictures and status consumption tendencies of U.S. college students. The seventh hypothesis assumed that there was

182 a similar relationship between the consumption of motion pictures and their compulsive buying tendencies. The eighth hypothesis presumed that a similar relationship existed between magazine reading and status consumption by U.S. college students. The ninth hypothesis postulated a similar relationship between magazine reading and compulsive buying tendencies of the sample population. These eight hypotheses were all supported by the survey data. It is not surprising that television viewing is retained as a significant predictor of college students’ status consumption tendencies in a backward regression procedure. Past studies revealed that the world of television programs and television commercials was dominated by attractive, glamorous, and wealthy characters who had exciting adventures in luxurious and affluent settings (Allan & Coltrane, 1996; Greenberg, 1980; Hajjar, 1997). It is easy for heavy television viewers to internalize all those consumption symbols (luxury cars, big houses, exotic vacations, jewelry, beauty products, etc.) and to try to keep up with the fashionable lifestyles of popular media figures by buying expensive and visible brand products (O’Guinn & Shrum, 1997). What if they cannot afford those status products? Consequently, some status consumers will suffer from compulsive buying disorder. It partly explains why television viewing was retained as a significant predictor of compulsive buying tendencies of U.S. college students in a backward regression procedure in this study. Past studies suggested that television programs and television commercials might have encouraged the overspending propensity of heavy television viewers and fostered the idea of shopping as a coping strategy to overcome psychological

183 tension and build up self-esteem (Faber, 1992; Faber & Christenson, 1996; Faber & O’Guinn, 1988; Zinkhan, 1994). Studies by d’Astous, Maltais, and Roberge (1990) and by Kwak, Zinkhan, and Dominick (2002) have provided empirical evidence to link television viewing with compulsive buying tendencies. This study has confirmed and validated their findings. This pioneering study has provided empirical evidence to link motion picture viewing and magazine reading with U.S. college students’ status consumption and to connect these two entertainment media with U.S. college students’ compulsive buying tendencies. It has added a new perspective to the media effect studies of mass communication. In addition, it has also shed new light on the marketing studies of status consumption and compulsive buying. Motion pictures often feature the stories of beautiful men and women and include a happy ending, fulfilling the fantasies of millions of viewers. One of the most important American fantasies reflected in motion pictures is having “The Good Life.” Actually, it is the typical American dream that many ordinary Americans share: having career success, exotic experiences, and the acquisition of great wealth or possessions (Caughey, 1984). The perennial theme of upward mobility in American motion pictures suggests that ordinary Americans can raise their social status if they work hard and earn enough to buy all those status products, such as big houses, luxury cars, exotic vacations, jewelry, and designer clothes. Although only a small percentage of American lives exemplify the dream, television and motion pictures perpetuate the myth that achieving the American dream is within everyone’s reach (Berk, 1977; Freeman, 1992; Powers, Rothman,

184 & Rothman, 1996). For example, in their analysis of 120 Hollywood sound business films made from 1927 to 1995, Pileggi, Grabe, Holderman, and de Montigny (2000) found that the prevalent theme of the American dream myth fluctuated between rags-to-riches tales and money-can’t-buy-happiness tales while upper middle and upper class White men were disproportionately over-represented in these films. In addition, Gitlin (1990) pointed out that motion pictures (and other visual media) often depicted a high-consumption lifestyle that was largely unattainable for most youth. The quick pacing and rapid, up-tempo montages produced a visual experience of constant stimulation and might induce a gap between media-fueled expectations of material gratification and experience that failed to meet them. Snyder (1995) believed that the idea of instant gratification and the freedom to obtain personal happiness had been a Hollywood tradition for generations. Cinematic portrayals of seeking pleasure, sensations, self-fulfillment, and immediate gratification were related to the delinquent behaviors of urban youths. The link of film consumption with status consumption and compulsive buying is thus significant. It is supported empirically that young people may internalize the materialistic values of films and may indulge in irresponsible consumption. The desire for more possessions and the gap between income and desire may lead to delinquent behaviors, such as grand theft auto, larceny, and even robbery. The study tries to call some attention to the unintended consequences of cinematic portrayals of possessions that define personal success. This study found that magazine reading was positively correlated with readers’

185 status consumption and compulsive buying tendencies. It is understandable that what motivates many people to read magazines is the diversion idea of improving their lifestyle or “living up” and the interaction concept of getting information to pass on to other people. Reading consumer magazines is specifically related to improving lifestyles, while reading newsmagazines put more emphasis on the interaction of understanding what is going on (Towers & Hartung, 1985). Many previous studies show that reading beauty and fashion magazines is negatively related to girls’ self-image and positively correlated to their eating disorder symptomatology (e.g., Harrison & Cantor, 1997; Thomsen et al., 2002; Thomsen, Weber, & Brown, 2001; Tiggemann, 2003; Vaughan & Fouts, 2003) because girls often internalize the thin ideals in beauty and fashion magazines. This study further shows that magazine readers not only internalize the thin ideals of beauty, but also the status symbols of wealth. The ideal images of men and women in lifestyle magazines may contribute to the low self-esteem of some magazine readers; to boost their self-image, they may indulge in buying status products that they cannot afford. The positive relationship between magazine reading and compulsive buying tendencies should serve as a warning to parents and educators that reading too many beauty and fashion magazines may not only lead to readers’ eating disorders, but also cause readers to overspend. One limitation of the study is that the overall time of reading magazines was measured instead of the time spent reading lifestyles magazines (beauty, fashion, fitness, etc.). Future studies should examine magazine readership by genres. The tenth hypothesis was supported by the survey data that materialistic values

186 were positively correlated with positive beliefs about advertising in general. The finding confirmed the validity of consistency theories. It is understandable that materialists tend to look favorably at the economic effects of advertising, reluctant to point their fingers at the negative social consequences of advertising. The central message of commercial television is clear: the more luxuries of life one possesses, the happier and more successful one will look (Twitchell, 1999). Materialists will encounter cognitive dissonance if they condemn advertising for corrupting social values of youths. The eleventh hypothesis is also supported by the survey data that U.S. college students with relatively more positive beliefs about advertising will have favorable attitudes toward advertising in general. It suggests that the general beliefs about advertising account for a great portion of the overall attitude toward advertising. It provides empirical support for the popular view that beliefs about advertising as a cognitive variable determine attitude toward advertising as an affect. It has also validated the findings of Pollay and Mittal (1993) and Ramaprasad (2001) that beliefs about advertising explained a considerable proportion of variance in general attitudes toward advertising. The twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth hypotheses are supported by the survey data; materialism, status consumption tendency, and compulsive buying tendencies are closely related to the psychological variables of consumers. It is natural that materialists and status-seeking consumers share similar beliefs and attitudes toward worldly possessions as they both attach importance to having things, especially those things signifying success and social status. The link of materialism with

187 status consumption in this study confirmed the findings of Eastman et al. (1997), and Eastman et al. (1999), and other marketing scholars. Materialists often view themselves as spenders and have more favorable attitudes toward borrowing (Watson, 2003). Their insatiable desire for status products and more possessions will certainly push some of them with limited means to credit card companies and loan sharks. Actually, this study confirms the finding of many marketing scholars that to achieve social status is one of the most important motivations of compulsive buyers (e.g., d’Astous & Trembly, 1989; Roberts, 1998; Roberts & Martinez, 1997). Hypotheses 15a, 15b, 15c, 16a, 16b, 16c, and 16d were all supported by the survey data except that 15d was marginally supported. They indicated that materialism was a significant predictor of brand recall (of luxury cars, designer clothes, and jewelry) and purchase intent (of luxury cars, designer clothes, jewelry, and perfume) of luxury products. The finding has justified the market segmentation of Yankelovich, Inc. that used materialism as one psychographic variable to segment consumer groups (Lipke, 2000). It also suggests that advertisers and media planners should take into consideration their target consumers’ materialistic values when they are selling luxury products. Certainly, demographic variables are still important predictors of brand recall and intent to purchase luxury products. Gender was a significant predictor of the brand recall of luxury cars, designer clothes, and perfume, and it was also a significant predictor of the purchase intent of designer clothes, jewelry, and perfume in this study. These findings suggest that many potential purchasers of

188 luxury products are women, and it is advisable to advertise luxury brands to girls and women. Age and income were marginally significant predictors of the brand recall of luxury cars, but they were significant predictors of the brand recall of designer clothes. The years in school were a marginally significant predictor of the brand recall of designer clothes, but a significant predictor of the brand recall of jewelry and perfume. Income was also a significant predictor of the brand recall of jewelry. Because age and years in school were two negative predictors, the results suggest that education level and age may be two moderating or even depressor variables related to college students’ materialism. In other words, when college students become more mature and educated, they may pay less attention to luxury brands. On the other hand, when their personal income increases, the brand awareness of college students may heighten accordingly. Nevertheless, these findings are exploratory and inconclusive. Once more, gender seems to be the most important demographic variable to predict the purchase intent of luxury products. Gender was the only significant demographic variable of the intent to purchase designer clothes and perfume, while gender and income were two significant demographic variables of the purchase intent for jewelry in this study. Again, the finding suggests that it is advisable to advertise fashion, jewelry, and beauty products in women’s magazines, on women’s television channels, and in cinemas. However, more authoritative studies need to be conducted to support those findings. The relationship between media use variables and brand recall of luxury products is inconclusive too. Weekend television viewing was a significant

189 predictor of brand recall of perfume, so H17d was supported, but H17a, H17b, and H17c were not supported. However, weekend television viewing was a marginally significant predictor of brand recall of luxury cars, designer clothes, and jewelry. While magazine reading was also a marginally significant predictor of the brand recall of designer clothes, television stood out as the most powerful branding medium for luxury products. Hypotheses 19a, 19b, 19c, 19d, 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d were not supported. It is uncertain whether television viewing, magazine reading, and film consumption are significant predictors of the intent to purchase luxury products. Television viewing was a significant predictor of purchase intent related to designer clothes, and even though H18b was supported, H18a, H18c, and H18d were not supported. Film consumption was not a significant predictor of intent to purchase luxury products despite the fact that it was a marginally significant predictor of intent to purchase jewelry and designer clothes. Hypotheses 20a, 20b, 20c, and 20d were not supported by the survey data. Magazine reading was a significant predictor of the intent to purchase jewelry, so H22c was supported, but H22a, H22b, H22d were not supported. The study fails to establish the important role that media are thought to play in influencing consumers’ brand recall and intent to purchase luxury products. Probably, overall media use measures are not very useful for identifying the complicated relationship between media use and brand recall and that between media use and purchase intent. In other words, perhaps television channels, magazine types, and film genres should also be specifically measured. Maybe

190 “zapping” or commercial avoidance behavior should be measured together with the overall time spent on the three media. In addition, Internet use by respondents was not measured with the preconception that Internet is not a good medium to advertise or sell luxury products. Actually, in the United States, e-commerce accounted for $2.5 billion in luxury sales, and this figure is expected to grow to $7 billion by 2010, according to Forrester Research (Hastings, 2005). Therefore, future research should incorporate Internet use as a very importance media use variable. The study successfully tested and validated the established scale of advertising beliefs. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed that the scale was reliable, stable, and valid. Three dimensions of advertising beliefs were confirmed: college students believe in the economic effects of advertising and the effects of advertising on materialistic values and other social values. The reliability test showed that the materialism scale was very reliable and even three subscales performed very satisfactorily. Both the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggested that the three-factor solution was the best fit for the survey data. The three factors accounted for 58.648% of the variance in materialism, which is very impressive. However, more than 40% of the variance is still not accounted for, and this suggests the possibility of improving the scale. Actually, even Richins and Dawson (1992) mentioned that their scale could not measure the extent to which individuals use material possessions to assist in defining the self or as an expression of group membership and belonging. Additional research should be conducted to broaden the conceptualization of

191 materialism offered by Richins and Dawson (1992). Given that the scale is the most comprehensive and reliable, it is reasonable to conclude that more than one-third (39.7%) of college students might be self-identified materialists. It is probably because young college students are still vulnerable to the materialistic influences of mass media and the society. When they become more mature and educated, they will attach less importance to material possessions – age and years in school are two significant negative predictors of materialism. The scales of status consumption and compulsive buying also achieved very high reliability from the survey data. Both the exploratory and confirmatory analysis supported one-dimensional model fit for the survey data. It is significant and even surprising to find out that more than one-third of respondents might possess status consumption (34.5%) and compulsive buying (35.1%) tendencies. The finding is very helpful for the marketing professionals of status products, including luxury cars, jewelry, perfume, and designer clothes. It is advisable for them to pay enough attention to teenagers and college students when marketing luxury brands. On the other hand, it is a whistle blower for concerned parents, professors, and consumer educators. The percentage of respondents who might have compulsive buying tendencies is shockingly higher than the most liberal estimate that up to 8% of the U.S. population is prone to compulsive buying disorder (e.g., Black et al., 1998; Hirschman, 1992). Professors and parents should try to help college students set up higher life goals and nobler pursuits of happiness other than “a good life.” At the same time, professors, parents, and consumer educators should warn college students of the consequences of becoming

192 financially delinquent or even going bankrupt if they cannot manage their finances responsibly. Inevitably, this study has some limitations. Methodological limitations have weakened to some extent the validity and generalizability of the research findings. Because respondents did not fill out the survey questionnaires on the same day, it is probably more appropriate to adopt the media use measures of asking them “How much time do you spend watching television/seeing films/reading magazines on an average day?” On the other hand, the genres of television programs, films, and magazines probably should be taken into consideration. In addition to measuring the media use of respondents, their advertising exposure and commercial avoidance behavior perhaps should be measured. To determine brand recall of luxury products, it might be more accurate and reliable if respondents were asked to recall and list all the brands of luxury cars, designer clothes, jewelry, and perfumes they can. The length of the survey questionnaire not only led the author to give up the more accurate recall measure, but also might have negatively influenced the response rate. Perhaps, advertising beliefs and compulsive buying should not be included in this study. Even if the survey employed a random student sample, caution should be used when the results are generalized to all college students in the Midwest of America, especially so when generalizing the results to ordinary consumers in the Midwest of America or in the United States. Future studies not only should adopt more accurate and specific measures of media use and commercial avoidance behavior, but also should employ more

193 reliable measures of brand recall. Interested researchers should apply to random adult samples of general population all these measures and the scales of materialism, status consumption, and compulsive buying. Future researchers should explore whether all these measures and scales are transferable to difference cultures, such as European cultures and Asian cultures (e.g., Japan, India, South Korea, and China) because the market for the “new luxury” products and services was $440 billion in 2003 in the U.S. while an additional $400 billion was outside the U.S., primarily in Japan, UK, and other Western European countries (Boston Consulting Group, 2004). Future researchers should also consider incorporating other relevant consumption-related psychographic variables, such as religious affiliation, self-esteem, peer pressure, etc. Conclusion This exploratory survey study of college students was designed to examine the complicated relationship between media use, materialism, advertising beliefs, status consumption, compulsive buying, brand recall, and purchase intent of luxury products. It has confirmed that television viewing contributed to college students’ materialistic values. It is probably the first time that a positive association between the consumption of motion pictures and materialism has been identified. However, overall magazine readership is not found to be a significant predictor of materialism. Results show that television viewing is not only significantly related to college students’ status consumption tendencies, but also significantly related to their compulsive buying tendencies. Similarly, seeing films is positively correlated

194 to college students’ status consumption and compulsive buying tendencies. Magazine reading is also found to be positively related to college students’ status consumption and compulsive buying tendencies. The study shows that the more materialistic that college students are, the more positive will be their beliefs about advertising. If they believe that advertising has positive social and economic effects, their attitudes toward advertising will be more favorable. Materialistic college students are more likely to become status consumers and compulsive spenders as materialism is positively related to status consumption and compulsive buying tendencies. Some status seekers tend to overspend and buy expensive products that they cannot afford when status consumption is positively correlated to compulsive buying tendencies. Materialistic college students are more likely to recall the brands of luxury cars, designer clothes, and jewelry, while materialistic college students are also more likely to express their intent to purchase luxury cars, designer clothes, jewelry, and perfume. Female students can recall more brand names of designer clothes and perfume than male students, but male students can recall more brand names of luxury cars. Older college students with more personal income will pay more attention to brand-name designer clothes. College students with more personal income will also recall more brand names of jewelry. More educated college students can recall more brand names of jewelry and perfume. Female students seem more likely to buy designer clothes and perfume within six months. Female students with more personal income expressed more likelihood to buy

195 jewelry within half a year. The evidence is not strong enough to conclude that media use variables are significant predictors of brand recall and purchase intent of luxury cars, designer clothes, jewelry, and perfume. Television viewing significantly contributes to the brand recall of some luxury products (perfume), but its influence on the brand recall of some luxury products (luxury cars, designer clothes, and jewelry) is only marginally significant. Television viewing probably can stimulate college students’ desire to buy designer clothes. Reading magazines can feed the romantic imagination of college student of purchasing a piece of jewelry. Seeing films may have something to do with college students’ purchase intent of jewelry and designer clothes. The established scales of advertising beliefs, materialism, status consumption, and compulsive buying tendencies have all achieved satisfactory reliability and validity in this mail survey study. Future research should adopt more accurate measures of media use and commercial avoidance behavior as well as more reliable measures of brand recall. A random adult sample from the general population is highly recommended for future researchers, and more relevant psychographic variables should be included. More cross-cultural studies of consumption related psychographic variables including materialism should be conducted in the near future.

196 REFERENCES Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454. Alexander, M. W., & Judd, B. (1978). Do nudes in ads enhance brand recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 18 (1), 47-51. Allan, K., & Coltrane, S. (1996). Gender displaying television commercials. Sex Roles, 35, 185-203. Alpert, F. H., & Kamins, M. A. (1995). An empirical investigation of consumer memory, attitude, and perceptions toward pioneer and follower brands. Journal of Marketing, 59(4), 34-45. American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians and American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children. Congressional Public Health Summit. July 2000. Retrieved December 25, 2003, from http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/ jstmtevc.htm ANA/AAAA (2002). The ANA/AAAA 2001 television commercial monitoring report. Retrieved October 1, 2003, from http://www.ana.net/com/ta/clutter.pdf Anderson, R. D., Engledow, J. L., & Becker, H. (1978). How consumer reports subscribers see advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 18(6), 29-34. Arnett, J. J. (1995). Adolescents’ use of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 511-518.

197 Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. L. (1976). A dependency model or mass-media effects. Communication Research, 3, 3-21. Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Rokeach, M., & Grube, J. W. (1984). The great American values test: Influencing behavior and belief through television. New York: Free Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 121153), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bandura, A., Grusec, J. E., & Menlove, F. L. (1966). Observational learning as a function of symbolization and incentive set. Child Development, 37, 499-506. Bandura, A., & Jeffrey, R. W. (1973). Role of symbolic coding and rehearsal processes in observational learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 122-130. Bankruptcies up for the year; down for the quarter. (2003). Credit Union Journal, 7(47), 9. Bartos, R., & Dunn, T. (1974). Advertising and consumers: New perspectives. New York: American Association of Advertising Agencies. Basil, M. (1996). The use of student sample in communication research. Journal of

198 Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 431-440. Beattie, A., & Mitchell, A. A. (1985). The relationship between advertising recall and persuasion: An experimental investigation. In Linda F. Alwitt & Andrew A. Mitchell (eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects (pp. 129156), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Belk, R. W. (1982). Acquiring, possessing, and collecting: Fundamental processes in consumer behavior. In Ronald F. Bush & Shelby D. Hunt (Eds.), Marketing theory: Philosophy of science perspectives. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Belk, R. W. (1983). Worldly possessions: Issues and criticisms. Advances in Consumer Research, 10(1), 514-519. Belk, R. W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 291-297. Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265-280. Belk, R. W. (2000). Are we what we own? In A. L. Benson (Ed.), I shop, therefore I am: Compulsive buying and the search for self (pp. 27-53). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc. Belk, R. W., & Pollay, R. W. (1985). Images of ourselves: The good life in twentieth century advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 887-897. Belk, R. W., & Pollay, W. P. (1985a). Materialism and advertising during the twentieth century. Advances in Consumer Research, 12(1), 394-398.

199 Belk, R. W., & Pollay, W. P. (1985b). Materialism and status appeals in Japanese and US print advertising. International Marketing Review, 2(4), 38-47. Belk, R. W., & Bryce, W. J. (1986). Materialism and individual determinism in U.S. and Japanese print and television advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 568-572. Bemmaor, A. C. (1995). Prediction behavior from intention-to-buy measures: The parametric case. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 176-191. Benz, M. (2003). Ads at movies have small but growing role. Amusement Business, 115(17), 5. Berk, L. M. (1977). The great middle American dream machine. Journal of Communication, 27(3), 27-31. Berry, L., & Maricle, K. (1973). Consumption without ownership: Marketing opportunity for today and tomorrow. MSU Business Topics, 21(1), 33-41. Bever, T. G., Smith, M. L., Bengen, B., & Johnson, T. G. (1975). Young viewers’ troubling response to television ads. Harvard Business Review, 53(6), 109-120. Black, D. W., Repertinger, S., Gaffney, G. R., & Gabel, J. (1998). Family history and psychiatric comorbidity in persons with compulsive buying: preliminary findings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 960-963. Blosser, B. J., & Roberts, D. F. (1985). Age differences in children’s perceptions of message intent: Responses to television news, commercials, educational spots, and public service announcements. Communication Research, 12, 455-484. Boston Consulting Group. (2004). Trading up: Trends, brands, and practices -2004 Research Update.

200 Boundy, D. (2000). When money is the drug. In A. L. Benson (Ed.), I shop, therefore I am: Compulsive buying and the search for self (pp. 3-26). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc. Brand, J. E., & Greenberg, B. S. (1994). Commercials in the classroom: The impact of Channel One advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(1), 18-27. Brenner, V. C. (1972). Measuring effectiveness of advertising expenditures. Management Review, 61(3), 52-54. Brim, O. G., Jr., & Wheeler. S. (1966). Socialization after childhood. New York: John Wiley. Brown, B. A., & Brown, D. J. (1993). Using students as subjects in research on state lottery gambling. Psychological Reports, 72(3), 1295-1298. Brown J. D., & Walsh-Childers, K. (1994). Effects of media on personal and public health. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 389-415). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Buijzen, M. & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). The impact of television advertising on children's Christmas wishes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(3), 456-470. Buijzen, M. & Valkenburg, P. M. (2003). The unintended effects of television advertising. Communication Research, 30(5), 483-502. Burnett, J. J., & Dunne, P. M. (1986). An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing research. Journal of Business Research, 14(4), 329-343. Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348-370.

201 Bush, A. J., Smith, R., & Martin, C. (1999). The influence of consumer socialization variables on attitude toward advertising: A comparison of African-Americans and Caucasians. Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 13-25. Bybee, C., Robinson, J. D., & Turow, J. (1985). The effects of television on children: What the experts believe. Communication Research Reports, 2(1), 149-155. Carlson, J. M. (1993). Television viewing: Cultivation perceptions of affluence and support for capitalist values. Political Communication, 10(3), 243-257. Carlson, L., Grossbart, S. & Walsh, A. (1990). Mothers communication orientation and consumer socialization tendencies. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 27-38. Carlson, L., Walsh, A., Laczniak, R. N., & Grossbart, S. (1994). Family communication patterns and marketplace motivations, attitudes, and behaviors of children and mothers. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 28(l), 25-53. Caughey, J. L. (1984). Imaginary social worlds: A cultural approach. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Cetola, H. & Prinkey, K. (1986). Introversion-extroversion and low commercials. Psychology & Marketing, 3 (2), 123-132. Chan, R., & Joseph, C. (2000). Dimensions of personality, domains of aspiration, and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Difference, 24, 351-364. Chatterjee, A., & Hunt, J. M. (1996). Self-monitoring as a personality correlate of materialism: An investigation of related cognitive variables. Psychological Reports, 79(2), 523-528. Childers, T. L., & Houston, M. J. (1984, September). Conditions for a picture-

202 superiority effect on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 643-654. Christenson, G. A., Faber, R. J., DeZwaan, M., Raymond, N. C., Specker, S. M., & Mitchell, J. E. (1992). A descriptive study of compulsive shoppers. Paper presented at the American Psychiatric Association Conference. Washington, D.C. Churchill, G. A., & Moschis, G. P. (1979). Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 23-35. Clark, P. W., Martin, C. A., & Bush, A. J. (2001). The effect of role model influence on adolescents’ materialism and marketplace knowledge. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(4), 27-36. Claxton, R. P., & Murray, J. B. (1995). Spouses’ materialism: Effects of parenthood status, personality type, and sex. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18(2/3), 267-291. Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Moreo, P. J. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax, webbased survey methods. International Journal of Market Research, 43(4), 441452. Cobb, E. (1977). The ecology of imagination in childhood. New York: Columbia University Press. Cohen, P., & Cohen, J. (1996). Life values and adolescent mental health. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cole, D., Wright, N. D., Sirgy, M. J., Kosenko, R., Rahtz, D., & Meadow, H. L. (1992). Testing the reliability and validity of Belk’s and Richins’ materialism

203 scales. In V. L. Crittendon (Ed.), Development in marketing science (pp. 383387). Coral Gables, FL: Academy of Marketing Science. Cole, L., & Sherrell, D. (1995). Comparing scales to measure compulsive buying: An exploration of their dimensionality. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 419-427. Coleman, J. W. (1992, July/August). Crime and money. American Behavioral Scientist, 35, 827-836. Confer, M. G., & McGlathery, D. (1991). The research study: The advertising impact of magazines in conjunction with television. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1), 2-7. Copeland, M. (2000). Americans Are “spending” themselves into unhappiness. Baylor Business Review, 18(1), 6. Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2000). Media society: Industries, images and audiences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Cusumano, D. L., & Thompson, J. K. (1997). Body image and body shape ideals in magazines: Exposure, awareness, and internalization. Sex Roles, 37(9/10), 701721. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Danziger, P. N. (2002). Why people buy things they don’t need. Ithaca, NY: Paramount Market Publishing, Inc. d’Astous, A. (1990, March). An inquiry into the compulsive side of normal consumers. Journal of Consumer Policy, 13, 15-31.

204 d’Astous, A., Maltais, J., & Roberge, C. (1990). Compulsive-buying tendencies of adolescent consumers. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 306-312. d’Astous, A., & Trembly, S. (1989). The compulsive side of “normal” consumers: An empirical study. In G. J. Avlonitis, N. K. Papavasiliou, & A. G. Kouremenos (Eds.), Marketing thought and practice in the 1990s (pp. 657669). Athens, Greece: The Athens School of Economics and Business Science. Daun, A. (1983). The materialistic lifestyle: Some socio-psychological aspects. In L. Uusitalo (Ed.), Consumer behavior and environmental quality (pp. 6-16). New York: St. Martin’s. Dawson, C. (2003, July 14). Coming soon: More big screen ads. Business Week, 3841, 12. Dawson, S. A., & Cavell, J. (1986). Status recognition in the 1980s: Invidious distinction revisited. Advances in Consumer Research, 487-491. Denney, N. W. (1974). Evidence for developmental changes in categorization criteria for children and adults. Human Development, 17(1), 41-53. Deshpande, S. P., & Joseph, J. (1994). Does use of student samples affect results of studies in cross-cultural training? A meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, 74(3), 779-785. Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Money and happiness: Income and subjective wellbeing across nations. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Subjective well-being across cultures (pp. 185-218). Cambridge: MIT Press. Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225-249.

205 Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method, (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Dittmar, H. (2000). In A. L. Benson (Ed.), I shop, therefore I am: Compulsive buying and the search for self (pp. 27-53). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc. Dobbs, L. (2004). Dangerously dependent. U.S. News and World Report, 136(5), 40. Donthu, N. (1998). A cross-country investigation of recall of and attitude toward comparative advertising. Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 111-122. Dubois, B., & Laurent, G. (1994). Attitudes towards the concept of luxury. AsiaPacific Advances for Consumer Research, 1, 273-278. Dubow, J. S. (1994). Point of view: recall revisited: Recall redux. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(3), 92-111. Dubow, J. S. (1995). Advertising recognition and recall by age - including teens. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(5), 55-60. Easterlin, R. A., & Crimmins, E. M. (1991). Private materialism, personal selffulfillment, family life, and public interest: The nature, effects, and causes of recent changes in the values of American youth. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 499-533. Eastman, J. K., Fredenberger, B., Campbell, D., & Calvert, S. (1997). The relationship between status consumption and materialism: A cross cultural comparison of Chinese, Mexican and American students. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 5(1), 52-66. Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., & Flynn, L. R. (1999). Status consumption in

206 consumer behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 41-52. Edwards, E. A. (1993). Development of a new scale for measuring compulsive buying behavior. Financial Counseling and Planning, 4, 67-84. Elliot, R. (1994). Addictive consumption: Function and fragmentation in postmodernity. Journal of Consumer Policy, 17, 159-179. Ellis, S. R. (1992). A factor analytic investigation of Belk’s structure of the materialism construct. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 688-695. Emler, N., & Rushton, J. (1974). Cognitive development factors in children's generosity. British Journal of Sociology and Clinical Psychology, 13, 277-281. Engel, J. F., Rogers, F., Blackwell, D., & Miniard, P. W. (1995). Consumer behavior. Fort Worth; TX: The Dryden Press. Evrard, Y., & Boff, L. H. (1998). Materialism and attitudes toward marketing. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 196-202. Faber, R. J. (1992). Money changes everything. American Behavioral Scientist, 35, 809-819. Faber, R. J. (2000). A systematic investigation into compulsive buying. In A. L. Benson (Ed.), I shop, therefore I am: compulsive buying and the search for self (pp. 27-53). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc. Faber, R. J., & Christenson, G. A. (1996). In the mood to buy: Difference in the mood states experienced by compulsive buyers and other consumers. Psychology and Marketing, 13(8), 803-819. Faber, R., J., Christenson, G. A., Zwaan, M. D., & Mitchell, J. (1995). Two forms

207 of compulsive consumption: Comorbidity of compulsive buying and binge eating. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 296-304. Faber, R. J., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1988). Compulsive consumption and credit abuse. Journal of Consumer Policy, 11, 97-109. Faber, R. J., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1992). A clinical screener for compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3), 459-469. Faber, R. J., O’Guinn, T. C., & Krych, R. (1987). Compulsive consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 132-135. Federal Reserve. (2003). Consumer credit: Federal Reserve statistical release. Retrieved October 18, 2003, from http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/ g19/Current/. Festinger, L. A. (1957). Theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Fetto, J. (2000). Let’s go to the movies. American Demographics, 22(3), 9-10. Fetto, J. (2002). Reader request: Reading room. American Demographics, 24(4), 67. Fisher, J. (1968). The plot to make you buy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fournier, S. M., & Guiry, M. (1993). “An emerald green Jaguar, a house on Nantucket, and an African safari:” Wish lists and consumption dreams in materialist society. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 352-358. Fox, R. W., & Lears, T. J. J. (eds.) (1983). The culture of consumption: Critical essays in American history, 1880-1980. New York: Pantheon Books. Fox, S., & Philliber, W. (1978). Television viewing and the perception of

208 affluence. Sociological Quarterly, 19(1), 103-112. Frank, R. H. (1999). Luxury fever: When money fails to satisfy in an era of excess. New York: The Free Press. Freeman, L. (1992). Social mobility in television comedies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 9, 400-406. Frost, K. M. (1998). A cross-cultural study of major life aspirations and psychological well-being. Unpublished dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., & Williams, L. (2003). Compulsive buying, compulsive hoarding, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Behavior Therapy, 33(2), 201214. Furby, L. (1978). Possessions: Toward a theory of their meaning and function throughout the life cycle. In P. B. Baltes (Ed.), Life span development and behavior (pp. 297-336). New York: Academic Press. Galbraith, J. K. (1998). The affluent society (40 th Anniversary Edition). New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. Gallup. (October, 1990). Americans have love-hate Relationship with their TV sets. The Gallup Poll Monthly, 2. Ganahl, D. J., Yang, H. & Liu, J. (August, 2003). Cultivation effects of television viewing: A study of relationships among viewing, materialism and attitudes toward commercials. Paper presented at the National Conference of Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Advertising Division: Research, Kansas City, MO.

209 Gelb, B. D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1986). Humor and advertising effectiveness after repeated exposure to a radio commercial. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 15-20. Ger, G. & Belk, R. W. (1990). Measuring and comparing materialism crossculturally. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 186-192. Ger, G. & Belk, R. W. (1999). Accounting for materialism in four cultures. Journal of Material Culture, 4(2), 183-204. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). The scary world of television’s heavy viewer. Psychology Today, 9(11), 41-45, 89. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1982). Charting the mainstream: Television’s contributions to political orientations. Journal of Communications, 32(2), 100-127. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects (pp. 43-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gibson, L. D. (1983). Not recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 23(1), 39-46. Gitlin, T. (1990). On drugs and mass media in America's consumer society. In H. Resnik (Ed.), OSAP prevention monograph---6, Youth and drugs: Society’s mixed messages (DHHS Publication NC. ADM 90-1689). Office for Substance Abuse Prevention, Rockville, MD. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Goldberg, M. E. (2003). American media and the smoking-related behaviors of Asian adolescents. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(1), 2-11.

210 Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and endorser celebrity on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43-54. Granatstein, L. (2002). Men’s magazines top MRI fall readership report. MediaWeek, 12(42), 4. Greenberg, B. (1980). Life on television. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Greenberg, B. S., & Brand, J. E. (1993). Television news and advertising in the schools: The Channel One controversy. Journal of Communication, 43, 143151. Greenberg, B., & Brand, J. (1994). Minorities and the mass media: 1970s to 1990s. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 273-314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Greyser, S. A., & Reece, B. B. (1971). Businessmen look hard at advertising. Harvard Business Review, 49(3), 18-27. Grimm, M. (2003). Lights, camera, commercial. American Demographics, 25(1), 34-35. Griswold, D. T. (2004). A cause endures. National Review, 56(2), 20-22. Gunter, B., & Furnham A. (1997). Recall of television advertisements as a function of program evaluation. Journal of Psychology, 131(5), 541-553. Hajjar, W. J. (1997). The image of aging in television commercials. In H. S. N. AlDeen (Ed.), Cross-cultural communication and aging in the U.S. (pp. 75–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Haley, R. I., & Baldinger, A. L. (1991). The ARF copy research validity project.

211 Journal of Advertising Research, 31(2),11-32. Haller, T. F. (1974). What students think of advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 14(1), 33-38. Hamilton, K., & Waller, G. (1993). Media influences on body size estimation in anorexia and bulimia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 837-840. Hanley, A., & Wilhelm, M. S. (1992). Compulsive buying: An exploration into self-esteem and money attitudes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13, 5-18. Harmon, M. D. (2001). Affluenza: Television use and cultivation of materialism. Mass Communication & Society, 4(4), 405-418. Harmon, R. & Coney, K. (1982). The persuasive effects of source credibility in buy and lease situations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(2), 255-260. Harrison, K., & Cantor, J. (1997). The relationship between media consumption and eating disorders. Journal of Communication, 47, 40-67. Hart, S. (1987). The use of survey in industrial market research. Journal of Marketing Management, 3(1), 25-38. Hastings, M. (2005). No “High Touch.” Newsweek (Pacific Edition), 146 (4/5), 76. Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 239-260. Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1982). Television’s influence on social reality. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties (Vol. II, pp. 224-247). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

212 Heath, R. P. (1997). Life on easy street. American Demographics, 19(4), 33-38. Heeter, C., & Greenberg, B. S. (1985). Profiling the zappers. Journal of Advertising Research, 25(2), 15-19. Higgins, E. T. (1989). Knowledge accessibility and activation: Subjectivity and suffering from unconscious sources. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Unintended thought (pp. 75-123). New York: Guilford Press. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141154. Hirschman, E. C. (1992). The consciousness of addiction: Toward a general theory of compulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 155-179. Ho, S., & Sin, Y. (1986). Advertising in China: Looking back at looking forward. International Journal of Advertising, 5(4), 307-316. Horrocks, J. E. (1976). Psychology of adolescence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Hunt, J. M., Kernan, J. B., & Mitchell, D. J. (1996). Materialism as social cognition: People, possessions, and perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(1), 65-83. Inglehart, R. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. American Political Science Review, 75(4), 880-900.

213 Inglehart, R. & Abramson, P. R. (1994). Economic security and value change. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 336-354. James, L. (1971). Youth, media and advertising. Austin: University of Texas Bureau of Business Research. James, W. L., & Kover, A. J. (1992). Observations: Do overall attitudes toward advertising affect involvement with specific advertisements? Journal of Advertising Research, 32(5), 78-83. John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183-213. John, D. R., & Lakshmi-Ratan, R. (1992). Age differences in children’s choice behavior: The impact of available alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(2), 216-226. John, D. R., & Sujan, M. (1990a). Age differences in product categorization. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 452-460. John, D. R., & Sujan, M. (1990b). Children’s use of perceptual cues in product categorization. Psychology and Marketing, 7, 277-294. Judd, B. B., & Alexander, M. W. (1983). On the reduced effectiveness of some sexually suggestive ads. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 11 (Winter-Spring), 156-168. Kaiser Family Foundation. (1999). Kids and media at the new millennium: A comprehensive national analysis of children’s media use. Retrieved September 25 th, 2003, from http://www.kff.org/content/1999/1535/ChartPack.pdf Kasser, T. (2002), The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

214 Kasser, T., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2002). Materialistic values and well-being in business students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 137-146. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-422. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 22, 280-287. 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: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 115-129). Goettingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M., Zax, M., & Sameroff, A. J. (1995). The relations of maternal and social environments to late adolescents’ materialistic and prosocial values. Developmental Psychology, 31, 907-914. Kasser, T., & Sharma, Y. (1999). Reproduction freedom, educational equality, and females’ preferences for resource acquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological Science, 10, 374-377. Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2000). Of wealth and death: Materialism, mortality salience, and consumption behavior. Psychological Science, 11, 352-355. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

215 Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Harcourt College Publishers. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Macmillan. Khanna, S., & Kasser, T. (2001). Materialism, objectification, and alienation from a cross cultural perspective. Unpublished manuscript under the review of Social Indicators Research. Kilsheimer, J. C. (1993). Status consumption: The development and status implications of a scale measuring the motivation to consume for status. Unpublished dissertation submitted to the department of marketing at Florida State University. Kim, J. S. (1998). Assessing the causal relationships among materialism, reference group and conspicuous consumption of Korean adolescents. Consumer Interests Annual, 44, 155. Kim, Y., Kasser, T., & Lee, H. (2003). Self-concept, aspirations, and well-being in South Korea and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(3), 277290. Kinnear, R., & Taylor, J. R. (1996). Marketing research: An applied approach. New York: McGraw Hill. King, M. M., & Multon, K. D. (1996). The effects of television role models on the career aspirations of African American junior high school students. Journal of Career Development, 23(2), 111-125. Kirkpatrick, J. (1986). A philosophical defense of advertising. Journal of

216 Advertising, 15(2), 42-48. Kisielius, J. (1982). The role of memory in understanding advertising media effectiveness: The effect of imagery on consumer decision making. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 72-74. Kosmin, B.A., Mayer, E. & Keysar A. (2001). American religious identification survey. Retrieved October 8, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/prod/ 2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf Klees, D. M., Olson, J., & Wilson, R. D. (1988). An analysis of the content and organization of children’s knowledge structures. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 153-157. Kuchinskas, S. (1999). Research: Online ads aid new brands most. Media Week, 9(44), 44. Kwak, H., Zinkhan, G. M., & Crask, M. R. (2003). Diagnostic screener for compulsive buying: Applications to the USA and South Korea. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37(1), 161-169. Kwak, H., Zinkhan, G. M., & DeLorme, D. E. (2002). Effects of compulsivebuying tendencies on attitudes toward advertising: The moderating role of exposure to television commercials and television shows. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 24(2), 17-32. Kwak, H., Zinkhan, G. M., Dominick, J. R. (2002). The moderating role of gender and compulsive-buying tendencies in the cultivation effects of TV show and TV advertising: A cross cultural study between the United States and South Korea. Media Psychology, 4(1), 77-101.

217 Kwan, Y. K., Ho, Y. N. & Cragin, J.P. (1983). Contemporary advertising attitudes and practices among executives in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of the Market Research Society, 25(1), 59-71. LaChance, C. C., & Lubitz, A. (1977). The decorative female model: Sexual stimuli and the recognition of advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 6(4), 11-14. La Ferle, C., & Lee, W. (2002). Attitudes toward advertising: A comparative study of consumers in China, Taiwan, South Korea and the United States. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 15(2), 5-23. Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intents when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research, 44(2), 109-116. Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E. & Newell, S. J. (2002). The dual credibility model: The influence of corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intents. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 10(3), 1-11. Larkin, E. F. (1977). A factor analysis of college students’ attitudes toward advertising. Journal of Advertising, 6(2), 42-46. Lee, A., & Sternthal, B. (1999). The effects of positive mood on memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(2), 115-127. Leong, S. M., & Ang, S. H. (1996). Increasing brand name recall in print advertising among Asian consumers. Journal of Advertising, 25(2), 65-81. Levine, M. P., & Smolak, L. (1996). Media as a context for the development of disordered eating. In L. Smolak, M. P. Levine, & R. Striegel-Moore (Eds.), The developmental psychopathology of eating disorders: Implications for research,

218 prevention, and treatment (pp. 235–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lipke, D. J. (2000). Head trips: A new way to understand consumer psychology. American Demographics, 22(10), 38-40. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91-103. Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. In L. Alwitt & A. Mitchell (eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects: Theory, research and applications (pp. 4563), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lutz, R. J. (1991). The role of attitude theory in marketing. In Harold H. Kassarjian & Thomas S. Robertson (Eds.), Perspectives in consumer behavior (pp. 317-339), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lyi, D., Lee, S., & Kwak, H. (1997, Fall). Demographic trait and shopping attitude: Impulsive buying and compulsive buying. Korean Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 127-137. Lynch, J. G., & Srull, T. K. (1982). Memory and attentional factors in consumer choice: Concepts and research. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 18-37. Mackay, H. (ed.) (1997). Consumption and everyday life. London: Sage. Mackenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130-143.

219 Mackenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretest context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48-65. Maher, J. K., & Hu, M. (2003). The priming of material values on consumer information processing of print advertisements. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 25(2), 21-30. Mangleburg, T. F., Grewal, D., & Bristol, T. (1997). Socialization, gender, and adolescent’s self-reports of their generalized use of product labels. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(2), 255-279. Markman, E. M. (1980). The acquisition and hierarchical organization of categories by children. In R. Spiro et al. (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 371-406). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Markman, E. M., & Callahan, M. A. (1983). An analysis of hierarchical classification. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 325-365). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marsh, C. (1982). The survey method: The contribution of surveys to sociological exploration. London: George Allen & Unwin. Martin, C., & Bush, A. (2000). Do role models influence teenagers’ purchase intents and behavior? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 441-454. Martin, B. A. S., Lang, B., & Wong, S. (2003). Conclusion explicitness in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 57-62. Mason, R. (1998). The economics of conspicuous consumption: Theory and thought since 1700. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

220 Maxham, J. G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). Modeling customer perceptions of complaint handling over time: Effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent. Journal of Retailing, 78(4), 239-252. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-185. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(4), 323-332. McElroy, S. L., Kleck, P. E., Pope, H. G., Smith, J. M. R., & Strakowski, S. M. (1994). Compulsive buying: A report of 20 cases. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55, 242-248. McElroy, S. L., Pope, H. G., Hudson, J. I., Kleck, P. E., & White, K. L. (1991). Kleptomania: a report of twenty cases. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 652-657. McNeal, J. U. (1964). Children as consumers. Austin, Texas: Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas at Austin. McNeal, J. U. (1987), Children as consumers: Insights and implications. New York: Lexington Books. Mehta, A. (2000). Advertising attitudes and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(3), 67-72. Mehta, A., & Purvis, S. C. (1995). When attitude towards advertising in general influence advertising success. In C. S. Madden (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1995

221 American Academy of Advertising Conference (pp. 190-196). Annual conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Waco, TX. Mick, D. G. (1997). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 106-119. Miles, Steven (1998). Consumerism as a way of life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mittal, B. (1994). Public assessment of television advertising: Faint praise and harsh criticism. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(1), 35-53. Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Two decades of cultivation research: An appraisal and meta-analysis. In B. R. Burleson & A. W. Kunkel, (Eds.), Communication Yearbook 20 (pp. 1-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1990). Cultivation analysis: Conceptualization and methodology. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp.13-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Morrin, M., & Ratneshwar, S. (2003). Does it make sense to use scents to enhance brand memory? Journal of Marketing Research, 40(1), 10-25. Morwitz, V. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2004). The mere-measurement effect: Why does measuring intentions change actual behavior? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(½), 64-74. Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical

222 and empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(4), 599-609. Moschis, G. P., & Mitchell, L. G. (1986). Television advertising and interpersonal influences on teenagers’ participation in family consumer decisions. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 181-186. Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. L. (1979a). Family communication and consumer socialization. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 359-363. Moschis, G. P., & Moore R. L. (1979b). Decision making among the young: A socialization perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(2), 101-112. Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. L. (1982). A longitudinal study of television advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 279-286. Moschis, G. P., Moore, R. L., & Smith, R. B. (1984). The impact of family communication on adolescent consumer socialization. Advances in Consumer Research,11, 314-319. Moschis, G. P., & Mitchell, L. G. (1986). Television advertising and interpersonal influences on teenagers’ participation in family consumer decisions. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 181-186. Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (1972). Survey methods in social investigation. New York: Basic Books, Inc. MPAA. (2003a). 2002 U.S. movie attendance study. Retrieved December 26, 2003, from http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview MPAA. (2003b). MPA snap shot report: 2002 U.S. theatrical market. Retrieved December 26, 2003, from http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview Muehling, D. D. (1987). An investigation of factors underlying attitudes-toward-

223 ad-in-general. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 32-40. Mukerji, C. (1983). From graven images: Patterns of modern materialism. New York: Columbia University Press. Myers, E. (1985). Phenomenological analysis of the importance of special possessions: An exploratory study. Advances in Consumer Research, 12(1), 560-565. Myers, P. N., & Biocca, F. A. (1992). The elastic body image: The effect of television advertising and programming on body image distortions in young women. Journal of Communication, 42(3), 108-133. Nan, X. (2003). Beliefs toward advertising: Antecedents and impact on media consumption. In Les Carlson (Ed.), The proceedings of the 2003 conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 64-70). Annual Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Denver-Broomfield, CO. Newman, L. B., & Dodd, D. K. (1995). Self-esteem and magazine reading among college students. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 81(1), 161-162. Newell, S. J., & Wu, B. (2003). Evaluating the significance of placement on recall of advertisements during the Super Bowl. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 25(2), 57-67. Nicholls, J. A. F., & Roslow, S. (1999). Brand recall and brand preference at sponsored golf and tennis tournaments. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), 365-386. Nielsen Galaxy (2002). Cable Television Advertising Bureau analysis of Nielsen Galaxy data. Retrieved September 30, 2003, from

224 http://www.cabletelevisionadbureau.com/02PressReleases/020912.htm. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Nock, S. L. (1995). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 16(1), 53-76. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill. O’Guinn, T. C., & Faber, R. J. (1989). Compulsive buying: a phenomenological exploration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 147-157. O’Guinn, T. C., & Shrum L. J. (1997). The role of television in the construction of consumer reality. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 278-294. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39-52. Packard, V. (1959). The status seeker. New York: Simon & Schuster. Parente, D. (1999). Advertising campaign strategy: A guide to marketing communication plans. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press. Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1977). Students and housewives: Differences in susceptibility to reference group influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(2), 102-109. Patzer, G. L. (1991). Multiple dimensions of performance for 30-second and 15second commercials. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(4), 18-25. Pechmann, C., & Shih, C. (1999). Smoking scenes in movies and antismoking advertisements before movies: Effects on youth. Journal of Marketing, 63(3),

225 1-13. Perse, E. M., & Dunn, D. G. (1998). The utility of home computers and media use: Implications of multimedia and connectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(4), 435-456. Petroshius, S. M. (1986). An assessment of business students’ attitudes toward advertising. In T. A. Shimp et al. (Eds.), 1986 AMA educators’ proceedings (pp. 127-131). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Petty, R. E., Unnava, R. H., & Strathman, A. J. (1991). Theories of attitude change. In T. S. Robertson & H. H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 241-280). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pew Research Center (2004). News audiences increasingly politicized. Retrieved January 8, 2005,from http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3? ReportID=215 Piaget, J. (1953). The origin of intelligence in the child. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Pileggi, M. S., Grabe, M. E., Holderman, L. B., & de Montigny, M. (2000). Business as usual: the American dream in Hollywood business films. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2/3), 207-228. Pinto, M. B., Parente, D. H., & Palmer, T. S. (2000). Materialism and credit card use by college students. Psychological Reports, 86(2), 643-652. Pollay, R. W. (1986). The distorted mirror: Reflections on the unintended

226 consequences of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 18-36. Pollay, R. W., & Mittal, B. (1993). Here’s the beef: Factors, determinants, and segments in consumer criticism of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 99-114. Pollay, R. W., Tse, D. K., & Wang, Z. (1990). Advertising, propaganda, and value change in economic development: The new cultural revolution in China and attitudes toward advertising. Journal of Business Research, 20, 83-95. Potter, W. J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30(2), 159-174. Potter, W. J. (1991). Examining cultivation from a psychological perspective. Communication Research, 18(1), 92-113. Potter, W. J., Cooper, R., & Dupagne, M. (1993). The three paradigms of mass media research in mainstream communication journals. Communication Theory, 3, 317-355. Powers, S., Rothman, D. J., & Rothman, S. (1996). Hollywood’s America: Social and political themes in motion pictures. Boulder, CO: Westview. Prawd, L. (1995). The negative effects of television on children. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22(3), 255-262. Putrevu, S. (2004). Communicating with the sexes. Journal of Advertising, 33(3), 51-62. Ramaprasad, J. (2001). South Asian students’ beliefs about and attitude toward advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 23(1), 55-70. Randell, E. J., Stone, R. W., & Good, D. J. (2002). The impacts of computer use on

227 marketing operations. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 10(2), 38-45. Reid, L. N., & Soley, L. C. (1982). Generalized and personalized attitudes toward advertising’s social and economic effects. Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 3-7. Reimer, B., & Rosengren, K. E. (1990). Cultivated viewers and readers: A life-style perspective. In Nancy Signorelli & Michael Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 181-206). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Richins, M. L. (1987). Media, materialism, and human happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 14(1), 352-356. Richins, M. L. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 71-83. Richins, M. L. (1993). Materialism and the idealized images of advertising. AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings, 4, 53. Richins, M. L. (1994a). Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 504-521. Richins, M. L. (1994b). Special possessions and the expression of material values. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 522-531. Richins, M. L. (1995). Social comparison, advertising, and consumer discontent. American Behavioral Scientist, 38(4), 593-607. Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1990). Measuring material values: A preliminary report of scale development. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 169-175. Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of

228 Consumer Research, 19(3), 303-316. Richmond, D., & Hartman, T. P. (1982). Sex appeals in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 22(5), 53-1. Riesman, D., Glazer, N., & Denney, R. (1950). The lonely crowd: A study of the changing American character. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Denton, F. (1997). Family structure, materialism, and compulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 312-325. Roberts, E. S. (1999). In defense of the survey method: An illustration from a study of user information satisfaction. Accounting & Finance, 39(1), 53-77. Roberts, J. A. (1997). The emerging consumer culture in Mexico: An exploratory investigation of compulsive buying in Mexican young adults. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 10(½), 7-31. Roberts, J. A. (1998). Compulsive buying among college students: An investigation of antecedents, consequences, and implications for public policy. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(2), 295-319. Roberts, J. A., & Jones, E. (2001). Money attitudes, credit card use and compulsive buying among American college students. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(2), 213-240. Roberts, J. A., Manolis, C., & Tanner, J. R. (2003). Family structure, materialism and compulsive buying: A reinquiry and extension. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 300-311. Roberts, J. A., & Martinez, C. R. (1997). The emerging consumer culture in

229 Mexico: An exploratory investigation of compulsive buying in Mexican young adults. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 10, 7-31. Roberts, J. A., & Sepulveda, C. J. (1999). Money attitudes and compulsive buying: An exploratory investigation of the emerging consumer culture in Mexico. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11(4), 53-74. Roberts, J. A., & Tanner, J. R. (2000). Compulsive buying and risky behavior among adolescents. Psychological Reports, 86(3), 763-770. Robertson, T. S., & Rossiter, J. R. (1974). Children and commercial persuasion: An attribution theory analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 13-20. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on compulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 305-313. Rosenberg, M. J. (1960). An analysis of affective-cognitive consistency. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change (pp. 1564). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition. New York: Academic Press. Rossiter, J. R., & Robertson, T. S. (1976). Canonical analysis of developmental, social, and experiential factors in children’s comprehension of television advertising. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 129, 317-327. Rotfeld, H. J. (2003). Convenient abusive research. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37(1), 191-194.

230 Russell, J. T., & Lane, W. R. (1989). Kleppner's advertising procedure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V. I., Little, T. D., Sheldon, K. M., Timoshina, E., & Deci, E. L. (1999). The American dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and wellbeing in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 15091524. Saegert, J., & Young, R. K. (1982). Comparison of effects of repetition and levels of processing in memory for advertisements. Advances in Consumer Research, 9, 431-434. Samuelson, P. A. (1947). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sandage, C. H., & Leckenby, J. D. (1980). Student attitudes toward advertising: Institution vs. instrument. Journal of Advertising, 9(2), 29-32. Sanders, S., & Munro, D. (2000). The construction and validation of a consumer orientation questionnaire (SCOI) designed to measure Fromm’s (1955) “marketing character” in Australia. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 219240. Sargent, J. D., Dalton, M. A., Beach, M. L., Mott, L. A., Tickle, J. J., Ahrens, M. B., & Heatherton, T. F. (2002). Viewing tobacco use in movies: Does it shape attitudes that mediate adolescent smoking? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(3), 37-145. Scherhorn, G., Reisch, L. A., & Raab, G. (1990). Addictive buying in West Germany: An empirical study. Journal of Consumer Policy, 13(4), 355-388.

231 Schlosser, S., Black, D. W., Repertinger, S., & Freet, D. (1994). Compulsive buying: Demography, phenomenology, and comorbidity in 46 subjects. General Hospital Psychiatry, 16, 205-212. Schmuck, P. (2001). Intrinsic and extrinsic life goals preferences as measured via inventories and via priming methodologies: Mean differences and relations with well-being. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and wellbeing: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 132 –147). Goettingen, Schor, J. B. (1998), Germany: TheHogrefe overspent & Huber. American. New York: Basic Books. Schor, J. B. (1999). What’s wrong with consumer society? Competitive spending and the “new consumerism.” In R. Rosenblatt (Ed.), Consuming desires: Consumption, culture, and the pursuit of happiness (pp. 37-50). Washington D.C.: Island Press. Schutz, H. G., & Casey M. (1981). Consumer perceptions of advertising as misleading. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 15(2), 340-357. Seabrook, J. (1978). What’s gone wrong? Why hasn’t having more made people happier? New York: Pantheon. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomore in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530. Semenik, R. J., Zhou, N., & Moore, W. L. (1986). Chinese managers’ attitudes toward advertising in China. Journal of Advertising, 15(4), 56-62. Sengupta, J., & Gorn, G. J. (2002). Absence makes the mind grow sharper: Effects of element omission on subsequent recall. Journal of Marketing Research,

232 39(2), 186-201. Shank, M. D., Darr, B. D. & Werner, T. C. (1990). Increasing mail survey response rates: investigating the perceived value of cash versus non-cash incentives. Applied Marketing Research, 30(3), 28-32. Shao, C. Y., Baker, J., & Wagner, J. A. (2004). The effects of appropriateness of service contact personnel dress on customer expectations of service quality and purchase intention: The moderating influences of involvement and gender. Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1164-1175. Shavitt, S., Lowery, P. , & Haefner, J. (1998). Public attitudes toward advertising: More favorable than you might think. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(4), 7-22. Shaw, J. (1995). Effects of fashion magazines on body dissatisfaction and eating psychopathology in adolescent and adult females. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 3(1), 15–23. Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). “Getting older, getting better”: Personal strivings and psychological maturity across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 37, 491-501. Sherman, E., & Newman, E. (1977-1978). The meaning of cherished personal possessions of the elderly. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 8(2), 181-192. Sherry, J., Greenberg, B., & Tokinoya, H. (1999). Orientations to television advertising among adolescents & children in the US & Japan. International Journal of Advertising, 18(2), 233-250.

233 Sheth, J. N. (1970). Are there differences in dissonance reduction behavior between students and housewives? Journal of Marketing Research, 7(2), 243-245. Shim, S. (1996). Adolescent consumer decision-making styles: The consumer socialization perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 13(6), 547-569. Shimp, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of Advertising, 10(2), 9-15. Shoham, A., & Brencic, M. M. (2003). Compulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(2), 127-138 Shroeder, J. E., & Dugal, S. S. (1995). Psychological correlates of the materialism construct. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 243-253. Shrum, L. J. (1995). Assessing the social influence of television: A social cognition perspective on cultivation effects. Communication Research, 22, 402-429. Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 94-120. Shrum, L. J. (2002). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 69-95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shrum, L. J., Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2003). Does television promote materialism? Cultivating desire for the good life. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Mass Communication Division. San Diego, May 2003. Shrum, L. J., O’Guinn, T. C., Semenik, R. J., Faber, R. J. (1991). Process and effects in the construction of normative consumer beliefs: The role of

234 television. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 755-763. Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1998). The effects of television consumption on social perceptions: The use of priming procedures to investigate psychological processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 447-458. Shuptrine, F. K. (1975). On the validity of using students as subjects in consumer behavior investigations. Journal of Business, 48(3), 383-390. Signorielli, N., & Morgan, M. (1996). Cultivation analysis: Research and practice. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Silverstein, B., Perdue, L., Peterson, B., & Kelly, E. (1986). The role of the mass media in promoting a thin standard of bodily attractiveness for women. Sex Roles, 14(9/10), 519-532. Sirgy, M. J., Lee D., Kosenko, R., Meadow, H. L., Rahtz, D., Cicic, M., Guang, X., et al. (1998). Does television viewership play a role in the perception of quality of life? Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 125-142. Smith, C., & Denton, M. L. (2005). Soul searching :The religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Snyder, S. (1995). Movie portrayals of juvenile delinquency: Part II – sociology and psychology. Adolescence, 30, 325-37. Sokol, D. (2002). College crowd is nichey. Shopping Center World, 31(9), 16. Soldow, G. F., & Principe, V. (1981). Response to commercials as a function of

235 program context. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(2), 59-65. Steadman, M. (1969). How sexy illustrations affect brand recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 9(1), 15-19. Stevens, P. (2003, April 24). Luxury business newsletter reports: Worldwide luxury market rebounds in 2002. Business Wire. Stice, E., Schupak-Neuberg, E., Shaw, H. E., & Stein, R. I. (1994). Relation of media exposure to eating disorder symptomatology: An examination of mediating mechanisms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 836–840. Surlin, S. H. (1973). The attitudes of prejudiced individuals toward the institution of advertising. Journal of Advertising, 2(2), 35-40. Surlin, S. H., & Squire, L. A. (1987, May 21-25). Canadian cultural materialism: Personal values and television advertising. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Sweeting, P. (2003). The goods on consumers. Video Business, 22(46), 12. Tanner, J., & Roberts, J. (2000). Materialism cometh. Baylor Business Review, 18(2), 8-9. Tanner, L. R., Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., & Lund, L. K. (2003). Images of couples and families in Disney feature-length animated films. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(5), 355-373. Television Bureau of Advertising. (2003). Media trends track: trends in television. Retrieved September 14, 2003, from http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/index.html Thomsen, S. R. (1993, April 14-18). A worm in the apple: Hollywood’s influence

236 on the public’s perception of teachers. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the Southern States Communications Association and the Central States Communications Association. Lexington, KY. Thomsen, S. R., McCoy, J. K., Gustafson, R. L., & Williams, M. (2002). Motivations for reading beauty and fashion magazines and anorexic risk in college-age women. Media Psychology, 4(2), 113-135. Thomsen, S. R., Weber, M. M., & Brown, L. B. (2001).The relationship between health and fitness magazine reading and eating-disordered weight-loss methods among high school girls. American Journal of Health Education, 32(3), 133138. Tiggemann, M. (2003). Media exposure, body dissatisfaction and disordered eating: television and magazines are not the same! European Eating Disorders Review. 11(5), 418-430. Towers, W. M., & Hartung, B. W. (1985, August 3-6). Magazine readership and some uses and gratifications: A replicated approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Memphis, TN. Triff, M., Benningfield, D. B., & Murphy J. H. (1987). Advertising ethics: A study of public attitudes and perceptions. In F. Feasley (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising, 50-54. Trommsdorff, V. (1982). Predicting consumer choice probabilities by causal models of competition. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 601-606. Turner, S. L., & Hamilton, H. (1997). The influence of fashion magazines on the

237 body image satisfaction of college women: An exploratory analysis. Adolescence, 32(127), 603-614. Twitchell, J. B. (1999). Lead us into temptation: The triumph of American materialism. New York: Columbia University Press. Twitchell, J. B. (2002). Living it up: Our love affair with luxury. New York: Columbia University. Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 693-708. Unity Marketing. (2002). The cocoon cracks open. Brandweek, 44(17), 32-35. U.S. economy strong so far in 2000. (2000, May 25). Congress Daily, 11. U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). The statistical abstract of the United States. Retrieved June 11, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/ infocomm.pdf Valence, G., d’Astous, A., & Fortier, L. (1988). Compulsive buying: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Policy, 11(3), 419-433. Vaughan, K. K., & Fouts, G. T. (2003). Changes in television and magazine exposure and eating disorder symptomatology. Sex Roles, 49(7/8), 313-320. Veblen, T. (1912), The theory of the leisure class, New York: The Macmillan Co. Vinson, D. E., Scott, J. E., & Lamont, L. M. (1977). The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 44-50. von Dorn, J. G., & Akimova, I. (1998). Advertising in Ukraine: Cultural perspectives. International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 189-201.

238 Wachtel, P. L. (1991). The poverty of affluence: A psychological portrait of American way of life. Philadelphia, PA: New Society. Wallendorf, M., & Arnould, E. J. (1988). My favorite things: A cross cultural inquiry into object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 531-547. Wan Jusoh, W. J., Heaney, J. G., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). Self-ratings of materialism and status consumption in a Malaysian sample: Effects of answering during an assumed recession versus economic growth. Psychological Reports, 88(3), 1142-1144. Ward, S. (1972). Children’s reactions to commercials. Journal of Advertising Research, 12(2), 37-45. Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 114. Ward, S., & Wackman, D. B. (1971). Family and media influences on adolescent consumer learning. American Behavioral Scientist, 14(3), 415-427. Ward, S., & Wackman, D. B. (1973). Effects of television advertising on consumer socialization. Report to the Office of Child Development, Grant Number OCDCD-380. Ward, S., Wackman, D. B., & Wartella, E. (1977). How children learn to buy: The development of consumer information processing skills. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Wartella, E., & Ettema, J. S. (1974). A cognitive development study of children’s attention to television commercials. Communication Research, 1, 44-69.

239 Watson, J. J. (1998). Materialism and debt: A study of current attitudes and behaviors. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 203-207. Watson, J. J. (2003). The relationship of materialism to spending tendencies, saving, and debt. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(6), 723-739. Weaver, J., & Wakshlag, J. (1986). Perceived vulnerability to crime, criminal victimization experience, and television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 141-158. Webster, C., & Beatty, R. C. (1997). Nationality, Materialism, and Possession Importance. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 204-210. Wei, R., & Pan, Z. (1999). Mass media and consumerist values in the People's Republic of China. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11(1), 75-96. Weiland, J. H. (1955, Fall). The adolescent and the automobile. Chicago Review, 9, 61-64. Weimann, G. (1984). Images of life in America: The impact of American T.V. in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 185-197. Weller, R. B., Roberts, R. C., & Neuhaus, C. (1979). A longitudinal study of the effect of erotic content upon advertising brand recall. In J. Leigh & C. Martin, Jr., (eds.), Current issues and research in advertising (pp. 145-161). Ann Arbor, MI: Graduate School of Business. Wentz, L. (1993, October). Major global study finds consumers support ads. Advertising Age International, Supplement to Advertising Age, 1, 21. Whiteley, N. (1993). Design for society. London: Reaktion Books.

240 Whitney, P., & Kunen, S. (1983). Development of hierarchical conceptual relationships in children’s semantic memories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35(2), 278-293. Wilson, B. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Potter, J., Donnerstein, E., Smith, S. L. et al. (1997). The effects of exposure to media violence. In the University of California, Santa Barbara, Center for Communication and Social Policy (Ed.), National Television Violence Study (Vol. 1, pp. 8-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wingood, G. M., DiClemente, R. J., Harrington, K., Davies, S., Hook III, E. W., & Oh, M. K. (2001). Exposure to X-rated movies and adolescents’ sexual and contraceptive-related attitudes and behaviors. Pediatrics, 107(5), 1116-1119. Wong, N. Y. (1997). Suppose you own the world and no one knows? Conspicuous consumption, materialism and self. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 197203. Wuthnow, R. (1994). God and mammon in America. New York: The Free Press. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Yoon, K. (1995). Comparison of beliefs about advertising, attitude toward advertising, and materialism held by African Americans and Caucasians. Psychological Reports, 77, 455-466. Zanot, E. J. (1984). Public attitudes towards advertising: The American experience. International Journal of Advertising, 3, 3-15. Zemanek, J. E., & Claxton, R. P. (2000). Relationship of birth order and the

241 marketing-related variable of materialism. Psychological Reports, 86(2), 429434. Zhang, Y. (1996). Responses to humorous advertising: The moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 25(1), 15-32. Zhou, S., Xue, F., & Zhou, P. (2002). Self-esteem, life satisfaction and materialism: Effects of advertising images on Chinese college students. New Directions in International Advertising Research, 12, 243-261. Zinkhan, G. M. (1994). Advertising, materialism, and quality of life. Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 1-4. Zinkhan, G. M., & Balazs, A. L. (1998, Autumn). The institution of advertising: Predictors of cross-national differences in consumer confidence. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 535-547. Zoia, D. E. (2003). Luxury brands to drive sales growth. Ward's Auto World, 39(1), 19.

APPENDICES

246

Appendix A Cover Letter

247 Dear __________, Your opinion is greatly valued! You can save a few bucks with the enclosed coupon and a dollar bill, which is a token of appreciation. It will only take you 1015 minutes to fill out the survey and you can do it any time and anywhere you want. Your kindness and generosity will leave a lasting impression on an international student who will forever remember how nice and friendly are SIUC college students! Your kind help will enable him to finish his dissertation and get the Ph.D. degree from the School of Journalism at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Your answers really matter! You are randomly selected to represent more than 20,000 SIUC students. Without your completed questionnaire, the project will not be successful because it may significantly diminish the sample size and skew the random sample. The purpose of the enclosed survey is to gather information about college students’ media use, consumer values, consumption knowledge, purchase intent and demographics. All your responses will be kept anonymous and confidential. Only the people directly involved with this project will have access to the surveys. Your completion and return of this survey indicate your voluntary consent to participate in this study. Your questions about this study can be directed to me or to my supervising professors, Dr. Donald Jugenheimer or Dr. Dennis Lowry, School of Journalism, SIUC, Carbondale, IL 62901-6601, Phone (618) 536-3361, E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]. I would really appreciate you taking the time to assist me in this research. Enclosed please find the coupons of Domino’s and a dollar bill as a token of appreciation and a return envelope with postage paid. Sincerely, Hongwei Yang Doctoral Candidate School of Journalism Southern Illinois University Carbondale Tel: 347-615-4439 Email: [email protected]

This project has been reviewed and approved by the S IU C Human Sub jects Committee. Questions concerning your rights as a participant in this research may be addressed to the Committee Chairperson, O ffice of Research Development and Administration, S IU C , Carbondale, IL 629014709. Phone (618) 453-4533.

248

Appendix B Survey Questionnaire

249 Media Use, Values and Advertising Survey for College Students Directions: Please write down or circle the answers that best describe you. There are no right or wrong answers. Only your personal opinions matter. Your answers are anonymous and confidential. The survey will take you approximately 10 minutes. 1.

How (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

much t im e did you spend watching TV yesterday? 0 Less than 1 hour 1 hou r— 1 hour 59 minutes 2 hou rs — 2 hou rs 59 minutes 3 hou rs — 3 hou rs 59 minutes 4 hou rs — 4 hou rs 59 minutes 5 hou rs — 5 hou rs 59 minutes 6 hou rs — 6 hou rs 59 minutes 7 hou rs — 7 hou rs 59 minutes M ore than 8 hou rs

2.

How (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

much t im e did you spend watching TV last Saturday? 0 Less than 1 hour 1 hou r— 1 hour 59 minutes 2 hou rs — 2 hou rs 59 minutes 3 hou rs — 3 hou rs 59 minutes 4 hou rs — 4 hou rs 59 minutes 5 hou rs — 5 hou rs 59 minutes 6 hou rs — 6 hou rs 59 minutes 7 hou rs — 7 hou rs 59 minutes M ore than 8 hou rs

3.

How much t im e did you spend watching movies (including movies on V C R s and DV Ds) yesterday? (1) 0 (2) Less than 1 hour (3) 1 hou r— 1 hour 59 minutes (4) 2 hou rs — 2 hou rs 59 minutes. (5) 3 hou rs — 3 hou rs 59 minutes (6) 4 hou rs — 4 hou rs 59 minutes (7) 5 hou rs — 5 hou rs 59 minutes (8) 6 hou rs — 6 hou rs 59 minutes (9) 7 hou rs — 7 hou rs 59 minutes (10) M ore than 8 hou rs

4. How much t im e did you spend reading magazines yesterday? (1) 0 (2) Less than 1 hour (3) 1 hou r— 1 hour 59 minutes (4) 2 hou rs — 2 hou rs 59 minutes

250 (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

3 hou rs — 4 hou rs — 5 hou rs — 6 hou rs — 7 hou rs — M ore than

3 hou rs 4 hou rs 5 hou rs 6 hou rs 7 hou rs 8 hou rs

59 59 59 59 59

minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes

5.

How (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

many brand names of luxury car can you recall? 0 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 M ore than 30

8.

How (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

likely wo uld you be to purchase a luxury car in six mon ths? Very likely Lik ely Not sure Un likely Very unlik ely

9.

How (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

many brand names of designer clothes can you recall? 0 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 M ore than 30

10. How (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

likely wo uld you be to purchase designer clothes in six mon ths? Very likely Lik ely Not sure Un likely Very unlik ely

11. How (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

many brand names of jewelry (including watches) can you recall? 0 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 M ore than 30

251 12. How (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

likely wo uld you to purchase a piece of jewelry in six mon ths? Very likely Lik ely Not sure Un likely Very unlik ely

13. How (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

many brand names of p e rf um e can you recall? 0 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 M ore than 30

14. How likely wo uld you to purchase a bottle of p e rf um e for you or for your friend in six mon ths? (1) Very likely (2) Lik ely (3) Not sure (4) Un likely (5) Very unlik ely Given below are s om e statem ents about consumer values. The re are no right or wrong answers. On ly your personal opinions matter. Please mark your answ ers by circling one number on each line, wh ere the num bers have the following meaning. Legend: 1 = Stron gly Disagree 2 = Somew hat Disagree 3 = Feel Neutral 4 = Somew hat Agree 5 = Stron gly Agree

15

It sometimes bothe rs m e quite a bit that I can’t afford to buy all the things I’d like.

1

2

3

4

5

16

I am interested in new pro duc ts with status.

1

2

3

4

5

17

I like to o w n things that impress people.

1

2

3

4

5

18

Buying things gives m e a lot of pleasure.

1

2

3

4

5

252 Legend: 1 = Stron gly Disagree 2 = Somew hat Disagree 3 = Feel Neutral 4 = Somew hat Agree 5 = Stron gly Agree

19

I like a lot of luxury in m y life.

1

2

3

4

5

20

I don’t place much em pha sis on the amount of material obje cts peo ple o w n as a sign of success.

1

2

3

4

5

21

The things I o w n day a lot about how we ll I’m doing in life.

1

2

3

4

5

22

I don’t pay much attention to the material obje cts other peo ple own.

1

2

3

4

5

23

I wo uld buy a product just because it has status.

1

2

3

4

5

24

I usu ally buy only the things I need.

1

2

3

4

5

25

I enjoy spending money on things that aren’t prac tical.

1

2

3

4

5

26

I try to keep m y life simple, as far as possessions are concerned.

1

2

3

4

5

27

The things I o w n aren’t all that important to me.

1

2

3

4

5

28

I feel I have to spend any money I have.

1

2

3

4

5

29

I wo uld pay mo re for a product if it has status.

1

2

3

4

5

30

In gen eral, advertising helps our nation’s e co n om y.

1

2

3

4

5

31

I adm ire peo ple who o w n expensive hom es, cars, and clothes.

1

2

3

4

5

32

Advertising is wasteful of our eco nom ic resources.

1

2

3

4

5

253 Legend: 1 = Stron gly Disagree 2 = Somew hat Disagree 3 = Feel Neutral 4 = Somew hat Agree 5 = Stron gly Agree

33

S o m e of the most important ach ieve me nts in life include acquiring material possessions.

1

2

3

4

5

34

In gen eral, advertising promotes competition which ben efits the consumer.

1

2

3

4

5

35

The status of a product is irrelevant to me.

1

2

3

4

5

36

Advertising is making us a ma terialistic socie ty – ove rly interested in buying and owning things.

1

2

3

4

5

37

I put less em pha sis on material things than most peo ple I know.

1

2

3

4

5

38

Advertising makes peo ple buy unafford able pro duc ts just to show off.

1

2

3

4

5

39

I am always asking m y pare nts or other peo ple for money.

1

2

3

4

5

40

Advertising tends to make peo ple live in a wo rld of fantasy.

1

2

3

4

5

41

A product is mo re valu able to m e if it has s om e snob app eal.

1

2

3

4

5

42

Because of advertising, peo ple buy a lot of things that they do not really need.

1

2

3

4

5

43

I have all the things I really need to enjoy life.

1

2

3

4

5

44

Advertising promotes und esirab le values in our socie ty.

1

2

3

4

5

45

I always buy something when I go shopping.

1

2

3

4

5

254 Legend: 1 = Stron gly Disagree 2 = Somew hat Disagree 3 = Feel Neutral 4 = Somew hat Agree 5 = Stron gly Agree

46

M ost advertising disto rts the values of our youth.

1

2

3

4

5

47

M y life wo uld be better if I owned certain things I don’t have.

1

2

3

4

5

48

Ov erall, I like advertising.

1

2

3

4

5

49

I buy things even though I cannot afford t he m .

1

2

3

4

5

50

M y general opinion about advertising is unfavorable.

1

2

3

4

5

51

I wo uld be happier if I owned nicer things.

1

2

3

4

5

52

Ov erall, I consider advertising a good thing.

1

2

3

4

5

53

Wh en I want something but have no money, I will try to borrow the thing.

1

2

3

4

5

54

I’d be happier if I cou ld afford to buy mo re things.

1

2

3

4

5

55

M y gender is ________. (1) M ale (2) Fem ale

56. M y (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

race or ethn icity is ______________. American Indian or Alaska Native Asian or Pac ific Islander Black or African American Caucasian His pan ic or Latino Ra cially mixed Other

57. I am (1) (2) (3)

a _____________________. Freshman Sop hom ore Junior

255 (4) (5)

Senior Gra dua te

58. I am a (an) __________________. (11) U.S. student (12) International student 59. I was born in the year of (wr ite year) __________________. 60. The (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

annual hou seho ld i nc o m e of m y fam ily is _______________. Less than $20,000 $20,001 – $40,000 $40,001 – $60,000 $60,001 – $80,000 $80,001 – $100,000 M ore than $100,000

61. M y mo nthly personal i nc o m e including m y fam ily allowance is ______________. (1) Less than $200 (2) $201 – $400 (3) $401 – $600 (4) $601 – $800 (5) $801 – $1000 (6) $1001 – $1200 (7) $1201 – $1400 (8) $1401 – $1600 (9) M ore than $1600 Thank you very much for your cooperation

256

Appendix C Human Subjects Committee Approval

257

258 VITA Southern Illinois University Graduate School [please see the required format] Hongwei Yang

Date of Birth:

80-71 88th Avenue, Woodhaven, New York 11421

[bachelor’s degree] [Master’s degree]

Dissertation Title: Lead Us into Temptation: a Survey of U.s. College Students’ Media Use, Materialism, Beliefs, and Attitudes Toward Advertising, Status Consumption Tendencies, Compulsive Buying Tendencies, Brand Recall, and Purchase Intent of Luxury Products Major Professors: Dr. Donald Jugenheimer and Dr. Dennis Lowry