Download Materialism - Department of Communication Studies

Materialism and social comparison among adolescents
Keywords: consumer socialization; group and interpersonal processes; cognitive development
Dr. Kara Chan*
Professor
Department of Communication Studies
Hong Kong Baptist University
Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
Fax: (852) 3411-7890
Telephone: (852) 3411-7836
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Gerard Prendergast
Associate Professor
Department of Marketing
Hong Kong Baptist University
Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
Fax: (852) 3411-5586
Telephone: (852) 3411-7570
E-mail: [email protected]
Chan, K. and Prendergast, G. (2007) Materialism and social comparison among adolescents,
Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 35(2), 213-228.
* corresponding author
Running head: Materialism
May 15, 2006
SBP Revised May 2006.doc
Acknowledgement: The work described in this paper was fully supported by a Faculty Research
Grant from the Hong Kong Baptist University (Project No. FRG/04-05/II-45)
1
Author descriptions
Kara Chan (PhD, CityU) is a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Hong
Kong Baptist University, where she teaches advertising. She has worked in the advertising
and public relations field and as a statistician for the Hong Kong government before she
joined academia. She is the author of over thirty articles on advertising and consumer
behavior in Hong Kong and China, and was a Fulbright Scholar at Bradley University, Illinois,
in 1999 and 2000. She and Professor James U. McNeal co-authored the book “Advertising to
Children in China” (Chinese University Press, 2004).
Gerard Prendergast (PhD, Massey) is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Hong Kong
Baptist University. He has previously held academic posts in the UK, Singapore, and New
Zealand. His research interest is in the area of marketing communication. His recent
publications have appeared in a range of international journals such as the Journal of
Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, International Journal of Advertising, and
Public Relations Review.
2
Materialism and social comparison among adolescents
Abstract
Materialism and social comparison are important issues, especially in a Chinese context, and
especially amongst adolescents. A theoretical model of the endorsement of materialistic values
and social comparison by adolescents was proposed and tested. Specifically, the objectives
were to ascertain whether adolescents in Hong Kong endorse materialistic values, to ascertain
whether materialism changes with age during adolescence, and to examine the influences of
interpersonal communication and media consumption on adolescents’ tendency to engage in
social comparison and endorse materialistic values. A survey of 281 secondary school students
aged 11 to 20 in Hong Kong revealed that these Chinese adolescents scored 3.1 on a 5-point
scale of materialism. Normative peer influence and peer communication were positive
predictors of social comparison with friends. In addition, motivation for advertisement viewing
was a positive predictor of social comparison with media figures. Social comparison with
friends and with media figures were both positive predictors of materialism. The implications
are discussed, with recommendations for further research.
3
INTRODUCTION
One concern about consumer socialization is the undesirable influence of advertising on
young people’s preference for material goods as a means of achieving success, happiness, and
self-fulfillment (John, 1999). The adoption of materialistic values by young people affects the
balance between the private and public choices that children make throughout life (Goldberg,
Gorn, Peracchis & Bomossy, 2003). Longitudinal studies of U.S. high school students from the
early 1970s to the 1980s indicate a dramatic increase in private materialism as a life goal and a
sharp decline in emphasis on personal self-fulfillment (Easterlin & Crimmins, 1991). In our
opinion, materialism is a negative value because it works against interpersonal relationships
and it is negatively associated with happiness and subjective well being (Kasser, 2002). High
levels of material values have been found to create tension between the individual orientation
toward material values and a collective orientation toward family and religious values
(Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002).
Despite the interest in understanding more about materialism, there has been a lack of
research examining the relationship between young people’s social – cognitive development
and consumption values (John, 1999). A central issue in studying materialism, especially
amongst adolescents, is that of social comparison with friends and media figures. Due to the
combination of rapid body growth and puberty, the early self-identity formed in childhood is
no longer appropriate, and teenagers enter a period of identity crisis (Erikson, 1980).
Adolescents need to formulate a new identity and to establish autonomy from their parents.
They become more independent in decision making. As a result, adolescents seek personal
relationships that give value to their perspectives and ensure that their feelings are understood.
Peer groups, with their shared experience, are an inevitable source of these relationships.
Consequently, adolescents prefer to identify with their peer groups. The frequent interaction
with peers, even more frequent than with parents, can lead to peers becoming the primary
4
basis for social comparison. A generalized social comparison theory states that individuals
compare their own material possessions with those owned by significant others to ascertain
their social status (Saunders, 2001).
Studying materialism and social comparison in a Chinese culture involves a context
quite different from Western culture. Many scholars argue that mass consumption in Chinese
society is different from that in Western societies because of the long-standing values
concerning families and human relations (Zhao, 1997). The Confucian characteristics of
Chinese culture cultivate strong habits of thrift, filial piety, group orientation, good manners,
face, and an emphasis on academic achievement (Chan & McNeal, 2003; Yau, 1988). As
hierarchy is legitimate and conformity to group norms is acceptable in Confucian tradition
(Wong & Ahuvia, 1998), social comparison of goods as a means to locate an individual’s
position in the social hierarchy is therefore encouraged. Hu (1944) analyzed the Chinese
concept of face into lien (or moral face) that represent one’s moral character, and mianzi (or
social face) that describes status and success. The value of mianzi (or social face) will
encourage the owning of symbolic goods to improve personal visibility within the social
hierarchy (Wong & Ahuvia, 1998). The collective characteristic of Chinese culture
encourages the use of material possessions to identify associates for establishing long-term
social relations. Both of these contribute to the establishment of a materialistic value
orientation.
The specific objectives of this study were to ascertain to what extent adolescents in
Hong Kong endorse materialistic values, to ascertain whether materialism changes with age
during adolescence, and to examine the influences of interpersonal communication and media
exposure on adolescents’ engagement in social comparison and their endorsement of
materialistic values.
5
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION
Materialism
Materialism is a complicated construct (Chaplin and John, 2005). It has been conceptualized
as a personality trait encompassing possessiveness, envy and lack of generosity (Belk, 1985).
Some scholars consider materialism as a system of personal values that stresses the importance of
owning material possessions (Richins, 1991). Others see materialism as a chronic focus on lower
needs for material comfort and physical safety over higher order needs (Inglehart, 1993). In this
study, materialism was defined as a set of attitudes regarding possessions as symbols of success,
where possessions occupy a central part of life, and holding the belief that more possessions lead
to more happiness.
A model to predict materialism was constructed based on John’s (1999) model of the
consumer socialization of children, Kasser, Ryan, Couchman and Sheldon’s (2004) model of
materialistic value orientation, and the concept of social comparison. According to Kasser et al.’s
model, consumers (including adolescents) develop materialistic value orientation through
experiences that induce feelings of insecurity, and from exposure to materialistic models and
values. When the psychological needs of individuals are not met, they tend to move toward
materialism as a type of compensatory strategy to lessen the distressing effects of insecurity.
Individuals also learn to adopt materialistic values through social learning from family members,
peers, and the materialistic messages that are frequently found in television programs and their
commercial messages (Kasser et al., 2004). Kasser et al.’s (2004) model focuses on the
individual’s internal status. This study attempted to replace the insecurity and exposure to
materialism in that model with variables related to social comparison. This is because social
comparison is a communication variable that measures the active mental processing of incoming
messages about materialistic values. Figure 1 shows the proposed theoretical framework.
[FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]
6
Integrating Piaget’s (1970) theory of cognitive development and Selman’s (1980) theory of
social development, John (1999) proposed a model in which consumer socialization is viewed as
a developmental process that proceeds through different stages as children mature into adult
consumers. During the perceptual stage (ages 3 to 7), children are characterized as orientated
toward the immediate and readily observable features of the marketplace. The value of
possessions is based on superficial attributes such as their quantity. During their analytical stage
(ages 7 to 11), children master some consumer knowledge and skills. Concepts such as product
category or price are evaluated in terms of functional or other underlying dimensions. Children
begin to value possessions based on their social meaning and significance. As children enter the
reflective stage (ages 11 to 16), they fully understand concepts such as branding and pricing. They
to a large extent value possessions based on social meaning, significance, and scarcity.
Chan (2003), however, examined 246 Chinese children aged six to thirteen in Hong Kong and
found that even the youngest children, aged six to seven, demonstrated an understanding of the
value of possessions based on social significance. John’s (1999) model specifies qualitative
differences between different age groups in their understanding of the value of possessions, but
does not specify whether materialism increases with age. A recent study failed to find an
association between materialism and age in a sample of American adolescents (Kasser, 2005). In
this study, therefore, we hypothesized that:
H1: Age has no effect on materialism during adolescence.
Family Communication
Studies have shown that the family environment affects the endorsement of materialistic
values. Parental styles and practices that do not fully meet children’s needs are associated with
materialism (Kasser, Ryan, Zax & Sameroff, 1995; Williams, Cox, Hedberg & Deci, 2000).
Children in families that use socially-oriented communication patterns, which stress harmony
among family members and the avoidance of conflict demonstrate higher levels of materialism
7
(Moschis & Moore, 1979). Children in families that use concept-oriented communication
patterns, which encourage independent thinking, demonstrate lower levels of materialism
(Moore & Moschis, 1981). Adolescents who communicate less frequently with their parents
about consumption have been found to be more materialistic (Moore & Moschis, 1981). Those
who communicate frequently with their peers (Moschis & Churchill, 1978) and those who are
more susceptible to peer influence are also known to be more materialistic (Achenreiner,
1997). It should be stressed, however, that socially-oriented and concept-oriented
communication patterns are not mutually exclusive. For example, a survey found that Chinese
families exhibited high levels of socially-oriented as well as concept-oriented family
communication (Chan & McNeal, 2003).
Social Comparison
According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), people have a drive to evaluate
themselves by comparison with others when objective means are not available. Festinger’s
original hypotheses were concerned with the evaluation of abilities and opinions, but
subsequent studies have extended his findings to the evaluation of personality traits (Wood,
1989). Festinger’s social comparison theory hypothesized that comparison occurs within groups
and in other face-to-face situations. Other scholars have hypothesized that comparison is with
respect to social groups that people do not belong to (Merton, 1957). Richins (1991) suggests
that social comparison occurs with models in advertisements. Individuals can decide to
compare themselves with others who are worse off (downward comparison) to bolster their
self-esteem, with others who are better off (upward comparison), or with idealized media
images (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2004). People who engage in social comparison with remote
referents such as idealized media images create inflated and unrealistically high expectations of
their models’ standards of living. As a result, the larger gap between the ideal and their actual
standard of living triggers the desire for materialistic possessions (Sirgy, 1998).
8
This study assumed that interpersonal communications are related to social comparison,
because through communication adolescents learn what consumption values and products are
acceptable in the eyes of their significant others. This information serves as a base for social
norms about consumption values. Interpersonal communication about consumption will also
affect the motivation to compare with others. Parents who engage in socially-oriented
communication may encourage their children to evaluate their consumer behaviors on the basis
of the perceived effects on others, which results in social comparison with friends. In this study,
social comparison was modeled as composed of two dimensions: one reflects comparison with
peers; the other reflects comparison with idealized images from the mass media and from
advertising messages.
Because socially-oriented family communication stresses conformity to the expectations
of others, we offer the following hypothesis:
H2: Socially-oriented family communication is positively related to social comparison
with friends.
Because concept-oriented family communication stresses the development of one’s own
view of the world, we offer the following hypothesis:
H3: Concept-orientated family communication is negatively related to social comparison
with friends.
As families may adopt socially-oriented and concept-oriented communication to different
extents, we do not propose any hypothesis about the effect of family communication as a whole
on social comparison.
Peer communication reflects the level of interaction with friends. Adolescents who
communicate frequently with peers may be exhibiting a strong need for peer approval.
Therefore we offer the following hypothesis:
H4: Peer communication is positively related to social comparison with friends.
9
Susceptibility to peer influence reflects a willingness to comply with the wishes of others
(normative influence) and a willingness to accept and internalize information from others
(informative influence). It also reflects a person’s need to identify or enhance one’s image with
significant others through material possessions (Bearden, Netemeyer & Teel, 1989). As
susceptibility to peer influence reflects the need to enhance the image that significant others
hold of the individual, we expect that they will be positively related to social comparison with
friends. Therefore we offer H5 and H6:
H5: Susceptibility to informative peer influence is positively related to social comparison
with friends.
H6: Susceptibility to normative peer influence is positively related to social comparison
with friends.
Materialistic values are frequently found in popular culture, the media, and
advertisements. People who are exposed to materialistic models are more likely than those who
are not to take on materialistic values through modeling (Bandura, 1971) and internalization
(Ryan & Connell, 1989). According to the cultivation theory of Gerbner and his colleagues,
repeated television viewing shapes viewers’ attitudes to be more consistent with the world
presented in television programs (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorielli, 1986). As television
often portrays an idealized picture of celebrities and their lives, it will encourage viewers to
compare their lives with such idealized images. Empirical data shows that television exposure
is positively correlated with materialism among children and adolescents in Western societies
(Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2003; Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Kapferer, 1986; Moschis & Moore,
1982) and in Asian societies including those of China, Hong Kong, and South Korea (Chan,
2003; Cheung & Chan, 1996; Kwak, Zinkhan & DeLorme, 2002; Yang & Ganahl, 2004).
Hence, we hypothesize that:
10
H7: Adolescents who watch television more will be more likely to engage in social
comparison with media figures.
Another pervasive source of materialistic models is advertising messages.
Advertisements encourage consumption by using images of attractive and/or famous product
users, demonstrating social rewards through using products, and associating products with
wealthy lifestyles (Kasser et al., 2004). Empirical data demonstrates that young adult females
often compare their physical attractiveness with that of the models in fashion and cosmetic
advertisements (Richins, 1991). Empirical data also shows that advertising exposure has a
positive correlation with materialism (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2003). Moschis and Moore
(1982) conceptualized advertising exposure according to both the frequency of watching
advertisements and the motives for watching. The motives for advertisement viewing have two
dimensions: seeking information about products, and seeking images or talking points. A
longitudinal study of adolescents found that television advertising exposure had long run and
short run effects on the adoption of materialistic values (Moschis & Moore, 1982). We
therefore suggest the following hypothesis:
H8: Adolescents who are highly motivated to view advertisements will be more likely to
engage in social comparison with media figures.
People who engage in upward social comparison with others have inflated expectations
of their models’ standards of living. The large gap between the ideal and the actual standard of
living triggers the desire for material possessions (Sirgy, 1998). Hence, we offer the following
two hypotheses:
H9: Social comparison with friends will be positively related to materialism.
H10: Social comparison with media figures will be positively related to materialism.
11
METHODS
The Hong Kong Context
Hong Kong is an ideal place for the study of consumer socialization and, in particular,
materialism. This is because it is an affluent city with abundant advertisements. Per capita
advertising expenditure in Hong Kong in 2002 was US$511, the second highest in the world
(after US$535 in the United States) (Frith and Mueller, 2003). Wealth is highly visible, and
high-end luxurious brands are marketed aggressively. Shopping malls are in close proximity
to schools and residential areas. Because of good public transportation, young consumers can
easily go shopping alone or with peers. Materialistic values are prevalent in Hong Kong’s
mass media. The core themes of television dramas are often about striving for success and
status. Characters on television enjoy a living standard that is far more affluent than that of an
average member of the working class (Cheung and Chan, 1996). Hong Kong youth, in
particular, are keen to own things. A survey of over two thousand secondary school students
(Forms 4 to 7) revealed that two thirds of Hong Kong adolescents felt satisfied after their
purchase because they could now own things that they wanted. Thirteen percent reported an
increase in self-esteem after consumption. Twelve percent perceived that they could enhance
their personal image through consumption (Ming Pao, 2004). This setting could be of
theoretical interest because Hong Kong is a place where Western and Eastern values meet.
Adolescents in Hong Kong are subjected to a value structure that embraces Confucian,
capitalist, as well as feudalist values (Cheung and Kwok, 1999). Understanding how young
people perceive material possessions in Hong Kong promises to shed light on the complex
interaction between Confucian, capitalist and feudal values.
Sample and procedure
Materialism and social comparison amongst adolescents were examined through a survey
conducted in Hong Kong in October 2004. The target population was secondary school
12
students in forms 1 to 7 (equivalent to grades 7 to 12 and undergraduate year 1 in the U.S.
education system). The sample was a quota design with equal numbers of students from each
grade. Forty-five university undergraduates were asked to distribute 315 closed-ended
structured questionnaires to their friends studying in secondary schools. The questionnaires
were self-administered by the respondents, and all together 281 completed questionnaires were
collected. The overall response rate was 89 percent. Fifty-two percent of the respondents were
male and forty-eight percent were female. All respondents were aged from 11 to 20 (mean
15.7). Fifty-five of the respondents claimed to live in households with a monthly household
income of HK$10,000 to HK$30,000 (equivalent to an annual household income of about
US$15,000 to US$45,000). The sample thus contained a lower proportion of well-off families
than the Hong Kong population. Twenty-four percent of adolescents in the sample had claimed
monthly household incomes above HK$30,000, while there are 29 percent of such households
in the population (Census and Statistics Department, 2005). Thirty-four percent of the
respondents claimed to receive less than HK$120 in allowance each week (equivalent to
US$15), one third received HK$121 to HK$250 (equivalent to US$16 to US$30) and the
remaining third said that they received HK$251 to HK$1500 (equivalent to US$31 to US$188).
Measures
Nearly all of the constructs were measured by multiple items, with the exception of
respondents’ reported social comparison with media figures. That construct was measured by
responses to the item “How often do you pay attention to your favorite actors and singers to see
what they buy?” on a five-point scale. Generally, the respondents were asked to indicate on a
five-point scale the extent to which they agreed with the statements (1 = disagree very much, 5
= agree very much) or how frequently they engaged in a specific form of behavior (1 = never, 5
= nearly every time). Demographics and other variables such as their number of hours of
13
television viewing on weekdays and at weekends, and their weekly allowance were also
collected.
Materialism was measured using Richins and Dawson’s (1992) material values scale. A
shortened six-item version suggested by Richins (2004) was used. The inter-item reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.76. This was lower than the Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.81 that was
reported by Richins (2004) in cross-validation of a six-item scale, but higher than that obtained
with Richins’ (1987) abridged scale used in Hong Kong with adults (Prendergast and Wong,
2003). The mean formed the measure of materialism, with higher scores indicating stronger
endorsement of materialistic values. Factor analysis of the six items generated a one-factor
solution that accounted for 46 percent of the variance in materialism. A forced three-factor
solution accounted for 75 percent of the variance. The rotated component matrix confirmed the
utility of the three sub-scales.
Socially-oriented family communication about consumption was measured using five
items from Moschis, Moore and Smith’s (1984) scale: “My parents want to know what I do
with my money”, “My parents tell me I can’t buy certain things”, “My parents tell me what
products and brands I should buy”, “My parents complain when they don’t like the things I
bought for myself”, and “My parents tell me not to buy certain things”. Concept-oriented
family communication about consumption was measured using another five items from
Moschis, Moore and Smith’s (1984) scale: “My parents say that buying things I like is
important even if others do not like them”, “My parents let me decide how I should spend my
money”, “My parents ask me what I think about the things I buy for myself”, “My parents think
that I can decide which things I should or shouldn’t buy”, and “My parents ask me for advice
when buying things for the family.” The inter-item reliability scores for socially-oriented and
concept-oriented family communication were 0.69 and 0.60 respectively.
14
Communication with parents/peers about consumption was measured by asking the
respondents to rate three items: “I always discuss with my parents/friends about
advertisements”, “I always ask my parents/friends for purchase advice”, and “I always go
shopping with my parents/friends” on 5-point scales. These items were adapted from Moschis
and Moore’s (1982) study. The inter-item reliability scores for family and peer communication
were 0.74 and 0.65 respectively.
Informative peer influence was measured by asking respondents to rate three items: “If I
don’t have a lot of experience with a product, I often ask my friends about it”, “I usually ask my
friends to help me choose the best product”, and “I look at what my friends are buying and
using before I buy.” Normative peer influence was measured by asking respondents to rate
three items: “It is important that my friends like the products and brands I buy”, “I only buy
those products and brands that my friends will approve of”, and “I like to know what products
and brands make a good impression on my friends”. These items were from a study by
Mangleburg and Bristol (1998). The inter-item reliability scores for informative and normative
peer influence were 0.67 and 0.73 respectively.
Motivation for viewing advertisements was measured by asking respondents to rate seven
statements such as “I watch advertisements to know what brand has the product features I
need” on 5-point scales. Other motives included “…to know what I can buy to impress others”,
“…to help me decide what things to buy”, “…to find out where I can buy some things I want”,
“…to learn about the in-things”, “…to have something to talk about with others”, and “…to see
people in ads who are examples of the way I wish I were”. These statements were selected from
the Moschis and Moore (1982) study. The inter-item reliability was 0.75. Factor analysis
generated a one-factor solution that accounted for 40 percent of the total variance in
advertisement viewing.
15
Social comparison with friends was measured by asking respondents to rate two
statements: “I pay attention to what my close friends buy” and “I pay attention to friends who
are richer than me, and see what they buy”. These two items were developed from the
statement “I tend to pay attention to what others are wearing” in Lennox and Wolfe’s (1984)
scale of attention to social comparison information. The inter-item reliability was 0.62.
Television viewing was measured by calculating the average number of hours spent watching
television per week.
Using these scales, a draft questionnaire was prepared. One of the authors translated the
questionnaire from English to Chinese and it was back-translated by a research assistant to
check for translation accuracy. The questionnaire was pre-tested and revised for clarity and
accuracy by personally interviewing six adolescents.
RESULTS
Descriptive analysis
On average, the respondents watched television for 2.5 hours each weekday and 3.5
hours per day on weekends. The mean hours of television viewing were 19.5 hours per week.
Television viewing did not differ by age group. On average, the respondents received
allowances of HK$224 (equivalent to US$28) a week. Respondents aged 17 to 20 received an
average of HK$329 a week, which was significantly higher than that received by respondents
aged 11 to 13 (HK$127 a week) and respondents aged 14 to 16 (HK$168 a week). Descriptive
statistics on the measured variables are summarized in Table 1. Paired t-tests indicated that the
level of concept-oriented family communication reported by the respondents was higher than
that of socially-oriented communication (t = 6.8, df = 280, p < 0.001). The respondents more
frequently communicated with their peers about consumption than with their parents (t = 10.7,
df = 280, p < 0.001). They also reported higher levels of informative peer influence than
normative peer influence (t = 9.8, df = 280, p < 0.001). Social comparison with friends was
16
higher than social comparison with media figures (t = 10.6, df = 280, p < 0.001). In other words,
the respondents were more like to pay attention to what their favorite friends were buying than
what media figures were advertising.
The respondents’ mean score on the materialistic values scale was 3.2 and the standard
deviation was 0.7.
[TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]
Testing the theoretical model
Table 2 shows the correlation matrix of all variables involved in the regression analysis.
Path analysis was used to test the theoretical model shown in Figure 1. There were four
regression models. In the first model, socially-oriented and concept-oriented family
communication patterns, level of family and peer communication about consumption, and
informative and normative peer influence were used to predict social comparison with friends.
In the second model, television viewing and motivation for viewing advertisements were used
to predict social comparison with media figures. In the third model, social comparison with
friends and social comparison with media figures were used to predict the materialism scores of
the respondents. In the fourth model, age was added to the third model to predict the
materialism scores. Table 3 shows the results of the multiple regression analysis and Figure 2
shows the resulting path diagram.
[TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]
[TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]
In the first regression model, the six variables accounted for 43 percent of the variance in
social comparison with friends. Socially-oriented family communication, concept-oriented
family communication, and family communication were not significant predictors. To assess
the degree of multicollinearity of the predictors in model 1, the tolerance values and the
variance inflation factors (VIF) of the predicting values were compiled (Hair, Anderson,
17
Tatham & Black, 1995). All tolerance values were above 0.6 and were greater than the
threshold of 0.1. All VIF values were between 1.2 and 1.7. Therefore, the degree of
multicollinearity was not high. A stepwise regression was also performed with model 1. The
three variables that entered the model were peer communication, normative peer influence, and
socially-oriented family communication (in this order). The standardized beta values for these
three predictors were 0.45 (significant at the 0.001 level), 0.35 (significant at 0.001) and 0.10
(significant at 0.05) respectively. Comparing the stepwise regression model and model 1, the
standardized betas were of the same sign and order of magnitude. The two models had the same
R2 of 0.44. This suggests that the partial regression coefficients were not affected by the
correlation between the predictors. According to the partial regression coefficients, family
communication patterns were not related to social comparison with friends. As a result, H2 and
H3 were rejected. Peer communication was positively related to social comparison with friends.
Those respondents who frequently engaged in communication about consumption with friends
were more likely to compare possessions with their friends. As a result, H4 was not rejected.
Informative peer influence was not significant, but normative peer influence had a positive and
significant beta value. Respondents who reported higher levels of normative peer influence
were more likely to engage in social comparison with friends. As a result, H5 was rejected and
H6 was not rejected.
In the second regression model, the two variables together accounted for 17 percent of the
variance in social comparison with media figures. Motivation for viewing advertisements had a
positive and significant beta value, whereas television viewing was not significant. The results
indicate that respondents who had higher motivation for viewing advertisements were more
likely to engage in social comparison with media figures. As a result, H8 was not rejected.
Television viewing was not related to social comparison with media figures. As a result, H7
was rejected.
18
In the third regression model, the two social comparison variables accounted for 14
percent of the variance in materialism. Both social comparison with friends and social
comparison with media figures had significant beta values. Respondents who frequently
compared possessions with friends and media figures were more materialistic. As a result, H9
and H10 were not rejected.
In the fourth regression model, the addition of age accounted for one more percent of the
variance in materialism. The additional R2 was not significant at the 0.05 level. Age did not
show significant predictive power for materialism. As a result, H1 was not rejected.
As the R2 s of all four models were significant at the 0.05 level, the model shown in
Figure 1 was not rejected. The total effect of a particular path can be compiled by multiplying
the corresponding standardized beta coefficients. According to the total effects compiled, the
effect of peer communication via social comparison with friends had the highest total effect
(0.12), followed by the effect of normative peer influence via social comparison with friends
(0.10). The materialism scores were higher for those who frequently engaged in peer
communication about consumption and social comparison with friends, and those who reported
higher levels of normative peer influence and social comparison with friends.
[FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE]
DISCUSSION
This study attempted to examine the influence of interpersonal communication and
media consumption on social comparison and the endorsement of materialistic values.
Contrary to what had been hypothesized, the level of family communication and the
patterns of family communication about consumption were not related to social comparison
with friends. There may be three possible reasons. First, previous studies on the influence of
family communication patterns indicate that concept-oriented family communication had a
positive correlation with children’s consumer knowledge and competence (Moore and
19
Moschis, 1981) as well as knowledge about prices (Moore and Stephens, 1975). This may
suggest that family communication about consumption is more concerned with consumer
education than the social consequences of consumption. Parents may not put emphasis on
adolescents’ evaluation of the consumption of others. Second, the data show that respondents
sometimes shopped with parents, but they rarely seek purchase advice or discuss
advertisements with parents. This may indicate that parents are not interested or competent in
recommending the products and services that adolescents are purchasing. Third, the null
correlation can be explained by the fact that respondents who frequently engage in social
comparison with friends do not communicate frequently with parents about consumption.
Adolescents may be expected to be thoroughly aware of the differences in consumption values
between friends and parents.
Apart from these issues, there are contextual factors involved. For instance, in many
Hong Kong families both parents work. As a result, the level of family communication about
consumption may be low. As Hong Kong parents seldom undertake socially-oriented
communication about consumption (mean value = 2.6), so they do not play an important role
in consumer socialization. As a result, the adolescents surveyed were more likely to be
influenced by their peers.
As hypothesized, peer communication was positively correlated with social comparison
with friends. The level of peer communication reflects the frequency of peer interaction.
Adolescents who frequently communicate about consumption with friends are more likely to
engage in social comparison with friends. This may be because much of their communication
is about possessions and brands. A qualitative study of 64 adolescents in Hong Kong found
that they often communicate about the features of branded electronic goods such as mobile
phones. One interviewee mentioned that, “We usually talk about the ownership of famous
20
fashion brands. When several of my friends own that brand, I feel that I should have one too
so that I can become part of the group.” (Chan, 2005).
The findings indicate that normative peer influence was related to social comparison
with friends while informative peer influence was not. This shows that adolescents engage in
peer communication to ensure that they comply with the wishes of others. Adolescents who
gathered consumer information from friends, however, may or may not have then engaged in
social comparison.
Contrary to what was hypothesized, television exposure had no correlation with social
comparison with media figures. The media figures in the study were confined to movie stars
and popular singers. We think this finding can be explained by the fact that movie actors and
popular singers do not appear just in television programs. A survey of 1,208 young person aged
12-24 in Hong Kong indicated that 70 percent of their idols were pop singers and actors. Young
people with idols devoted more time to media activities such as reading entertainment
magazines, watching television, listening to pop music, watching movies and reading comic
books (Commission on Youth, 1998). So, television may not be the main source of image
information about media celebrities. Also, social comparison with media figures was measured
by only one item. In future studies, the measurement of this predictor should include
comparison of media figures in television programs and in advertisements.
Motivation for viewing ads had a positive correlation with social comparison with media
figures. Advertisements in Hong Kong often use movie stars and popular singers as celebrity
endorsers. Young people admire the image and trendy look of these celebrities (Chan, 2005).
This indicates that advertisements are used by adolescents for information about desirable
images. This result is consistent with that of Richins’ (1991) study showing that young females
often compared their physical attractiveness with models in advertisements.
21
As hypothesized, social comparison with friends and with media figures had a positive
correlation with materialism. Adolescents who compare their own possessions with the
possessions of friends and media celebrities come to believe that possessions are related to
success and happiness, and that possessions occupy a central position in life. It can also be
interpreted as showing that those who place a high importance on material possessions are keen
to engage in social comparison with others. The measurement of social comparison with
friends in this study did not include downward comparison. But the findings support the idea
that upward social comparison encourages materialistic aspirations.
Social comparison with friends was a better predictor of materialism than social
comparison with media figures. This may be because friends are more accessible and their
consumption patterns are more concrete and easy to observe. In Hong Kong, fashion and
cosmetic brands often line up particular media figures as endorsers for an extended period of
time. In Chan’s (2005) study, some interviewees reported that they did not compare
possessions with media celebrities because, “they are sponsored to use certain brands and
therefore the brands may not reflect their own styles.”
In this study, age was not a significant predictor of materialism. This result is consistent
with Kasser’s (2005) finding that adolescents’ materialism did not increase with age.
According to Kasser et al. (2004), as adolescents grow into adulthood and experience life
changes such as leaving school and entering the job market, their anxiety about these changes
will create a sense of insecurity, and will encourage them to move toward materialism as a
compensatory strategy. As all the respondents in this study were students, we were not able to
test whether working adolescents would be more materialistic than adolescents who are still
studying.
22
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
It is important to note that the sample used in this study was not a probability sample, so
the findings cannot be generalized to an entire target population. Second, socially desirable
responding and its possible relationship with materialism were not measured. Nonetheless, it is
possible to draw significant conclusions from the study. Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong do
endorse materialistic values. Further research is needed to compare materialism among
adolescents and adults to examine whether there is a significant change with important life
events, such as entering the work force or forming a new family.
Social comparison with friends and media figures has been shown to be prevalent
among adolescents. Further research is needed to explore the details of social comparison,
including whether same-sex or opposite-sex models are being used for comparison. Finally, the
types of goods being compared and the motivation of social comparison should be explored
qualitatively.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study show the extent to which Hong Kong adolescents endorse
materialistic values, and provide empirical support for the proposed theoretical influence model.
The results show that peer communication, normative peer influence, motivation to view
advertisements, social comparison with friends and social comparison with media figures all
promote materialism. If materialism is considered to be a negative value, the results suggest
that to discourage materialism among adolescents, possible strategies include discouraging peer
communication and yielding to peer influence, and discouraging upward social comparison.
23
REFERENCES
Achenreiner, G. B. (1997). Materialism values and susceptibility to influence in children. In M.
Brucks & MacInnis, G (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (vol. 24, pp. 82-88), Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Morristown. NJ: General Learning Press.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G. & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence scale. In M. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Advances in Consumer
Research (vol. 17, pp. 770-776), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12 (December), 265-280.
Buijzen, M. & Valkenburg, P. M. (2003). The unintended effects of television advertising: A
parent-child survey. Communication Research, 30 (5), 483-503.
Burroughs, J. E. & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values
perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (3), 348-370.
Census and Statistics Department. (2005). Main tables of the 2001 population census.
Download from www.info.gov.hk/censtat/eng/hkstat/index1.html
Chan, K. (2005). Consumption of prestigious brands and source of influence among young
people in Hong Kong. Media Digest. September: 14-15. [In Chinese]
Chan, K. (2003). Materialism among Chinese children in Hong Kong. International Journal of
Advertising and Marketing to Children, 4 (4), 47-61.
Chan, K. & McNeal, J. (2003) Parent-child communications about consumption and
advertising in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20 (4), 317-332.
Chaplin, L. N. & John, D. R. (2005). Materialism in children and adolescents: The role of the
developing self-concept. Advances in Consumer Research (vol. 32, pp. 219-220).
Cheung, C. K. & Chan, C. F. (1996). Television viewing and mean world value in Hong
Kong’s adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 24 (4), 351-364.
Cheung, C. K. & Kowk, S. T. (1999). Redefining the value structure of college students in
Hong Kong and the mainland of China. Social Behavior and Personality, 27 (2), pp. 195-204.
Churchill, G. A. & Moschis, G. P. (1979). Television and interpersonal influences on
adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (June), 23-35.
Commission on Youth (1998). Executive summary of the study on the influence of media on
youth. Download from www.info.gov.hk/coy/eng/report/media.htm
Easterlin, R. & Crimmins, E. (1991). Private materialism, personal self-fulfillment, family life,
and public interest: The nature, effects, and causes of recent changes in the values of American
youth. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55 (Winter), 499-533.
24
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7 (May), 117140.
Frith, K. T. & Mueller, B. (2003). Advertising and societies: global issues. New York: Peter
Lang.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M. & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The
dynamics of the cultivation analysis process. In J. Bryant K. D. Zilmann (Eds). Perspectives on
media effects (pp. 17-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, G. J., Peracchio, L. A. & Bomossy, G. (2003). Materialism among
youth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 278-288.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis
with readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of face. American Anthropologist, 46, 45-64.
Inglehart, R. (1993). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five
years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (December), 183-213.
Kapferer, J.N. (1986). A comparison of TV advertising and mothers’ influence on children’s
attitudes and values. In S. Ward, T. Robertson & R. Brown (Eds.), Television and European
Children. Hants, England: Gower Publishing Company Limited.
Kasser, T. (2005). Frugality, generosity, and materialism in children and adolescents. In K.A.
Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.) What do children need to flourish?: Conceptualizing and
measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 357-373). New York: Springer Science.
Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Kasser, T., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E. & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Materialistic values: Their
causes and consequences. In T. Kasser & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Psychology and Consumer
Culture. Washington, D.C.: American Psychology Association.
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.
Kwak, H., Zinkhan, G. M. & DeLorme, D. E. (2002). Effects of compulsive buying tendencies
on attitudes toward advertising: The moderating role of exposure to TV commercials and TV
shows. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 24 (2), 17-32.
Lennox, R. D. & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349-1364.
25
Mangleburg, T. F. & Bristol, T. (1998). Socialization and adolescents’ skepticism toward
advertising. Journal of Advertising, 27 (3), 11-21.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Ming Pao (2004). Forty percent of students perceived themselves as consumers of education
services. December 24, A12.
Moore, R. L. & Moschis, G. P. (1981). The role of family communication in consumer
learning. Journal of Communications, 31 (Autumn), 42-51.
Moore, R. L. & Stephens, L. F. (1975). Some communication and demographic determinants
of adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (September), 80-92.
Moschis, G. P. & Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and
empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November), 599-609.
Moschis, G. P. & Moore, R. L. (1979). Family communication and consumer socialization. In
L. William & A. William (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (vol. 6, pp. 359-363). MI:
Association for Consumer Research.
Moschis, G. P. & Moore, R. L. (1982). A longitudinal study of television advertising effects.
Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 279-286.
Moschis, G. P., Moore, R. L. & Smith, R. B. (1984). The impact of family communication on
adolescent consumer socialization. In T. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (vol.
11, pp. 314-319). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Piaget, J. (1970). The stages of the intellectual development of the child. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Readings in Child Development and Psychology. New York: Harper and Row.
Prendergast, G. & Wong, C. (2003). Parental influence on the purchase of luxury brands of
infant apparel: An exploratory study in Hong Kong. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20 (2),
157-169.
Richins, M. L. & Dawson, D. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19
(December), 303-316.
Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scales: Measurement properties and development
of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 209-219.
Richins, M. L. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising. Journal of
Consumer Research, 18 (June), 71-83.
Richins, M. L. (1987). Media, materialism, and human happiness. In M. Wallendorf & P.
Anderson (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (vol. 14, pp. 352-356).
26
Ryan, R.M. & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57, 749-761.
Saunders, S. (2001). Fromm’s marketing character and Rokeach values. Social Behavior and
Personality, 29 (2), 191-196.
Schiffman, L. G. & Kanuk, L. L. (2004). Consumer Behavior. NJ: Prentice-Hall
Selman, R. L. (1980). The Growth of Interpersonal Understanding. New York: Academic
Press.
Sirgy, M. J. (1998). Materialism and quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 43, 227-260.
Williams, G.C., Cox, E.M., Hedberg, V.A. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Extrinsic life goals and health
risk behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1756-1771.
Wong, N.Y. & Ahuvia, A.C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in
Confucian and Western societies. Psychology and Marketing, 15 (5), 423-441.
Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes.
Psychological Bulletin, 106 (September), 231-248.
Yang, H. & Ganahl, D.J. (2004). A cross-cultural study between American and Chinese
college students regarding television viewing, materialism, beliefs and attitude toward
advertising. Paper presented at the Association for Educators in Journalism and Mass
Communication 2004 Convention, Advertising Division, Toronto, Canada, August 4-7.
Yau, O. H. M. (1988). Chinese cultural values: Their dimensions and marketing implications.
European Journal of Marketing, 22 (5), 44-57.
Zhao, B. (1997). Consumerism, Confucianism, communism: Making sense of China today.
New Left Review, 222 (Mar-Apr), 43-59.
27
Figure 1
Theoretical framework
Concept-oriented
family
communication
Age
Socially-oriented
family
＋
－
communication
－
＋
Family
communication
Social
comparison
with friends
＋
Materialism
＋
Informative peer
influence
＋
Normative peer
influence
＋
＋
Peer
Communication
TV viewing
＋
Social comparison
with media figures
＋
Motivation for
viewing ads
“+” indicates positive correlation
“-” indicates negative correlation
28
Figure 2
Results of path analysis
Concept-oriented
Family
communication
Age
0.10
Socially-oriented
family
＋
communication
－
0.00
0.10
Family
communication
Social
comparison
with friends
0.02
Informative peer
influence
0.29***
0.05
0.33***
Normative peer
influence
0.43***
0.12*
Peer
Communication
TV viewing
Social comparison
with media figures
0.09
0.40***
Motivation for
viewing ads
29
Materialism
Table 1
Summary of descriptive statistics
Construct
Mean
Standard deviation
Skewness
Concept-oriented family communication
3.0
0.6
-0.2
Socially-oriented family communication
2.6
0.6
-0.0
Family communication
2.5
0.8
0.1
Informative peer influence
3.2
0.7
-0.2
Normative peer influence
2.8
0.8
-0.1
Peer communication
3.2
0.7
-0.4
19.6
11.2
0.7
Motivation for viewing ads
2.9
0.6
-0.0
Social comparison with friends
2.8
0.8
0.0
Social comparison with media figures
2.2
1.0
0.5
Materialism
3.1
0.7
0.3
224.3
180.6
1.3
Television viewing (hours per week)
Allowance per week (HK$)
Means of ratings on a 5-point scale except as noted.
30
Table 2
Pearson correlation of variables
1
Materialism (1)
Concept-oriented family
communication (2)
Socially-oriented family
communication (3)
Family communication
(4)
Informative peer
influence (5)
Normative peer
influence (6)
Peer communication (7)
TV viewing (8)
Motivation for viewing
ads (9)
Age group (10)
Social comparison with
friends (11)
Social comparison with
media figures (12)
2
0.02
3
-0.02
4
-0.08
5
0.29**
6
0.36**
7
0.33**
8
0.15*
9
0.36**
10
0.20**
11
0.37**
12
0.24**
0.08
0.35**
0.03
0.02
0.22**
-0.11
0.17**
0.11
0.12*
-0.02
0.42**
0.02
0.15*
0.06
0.19**
0.08
-0.16**
0.18**
0.12*
-0.13*
-0.00
0.06
0.08
0.06
-0.26**
0.08
0.08
0.48**
0.48**
0.02
0.39**
0.24**
0.43**
0.27**
0.30**
0.08
0.53**
0.13*
0.49**
0.39**
0.10
0.38**
0.09
0.22**
-0.03
0.54**
0.07
0.24**
0.13*
0.08
0.34**
0.40**
0.20**
0.11
0.40**
*Significant at the p < 0.05 ( ** p < 0.01) level
31
Table 3 Summary of the regression results for the variables predicting the materialism scores of
adolescents
Model/predictors
Standardized beta
t statistic for beta = 0
Model 1
Concept-oriented family communication
0.00
0.0
Socially-oriented family communication
0.10
1.9
Family communication
0.02
0.3
Informative peer influence
0.05
0.9
Normative peer influence
0.33
6.2***
Peer communication
0.43
7.9***
0.09
1.7
Motivation for viewing ads
0.40
7.4***
Model 3
Social comparison with friends
0.31
5.1***
0.12
2.0*
0.29
4.7***
Social comparison with media figures
0.12
2.0*
Age
0.10
1.8
Model 2
TV viewing
Social comparison with media figures
Model 4
Social comparison with friends
* Significant at the p < 0.05 (** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001) level
R2 = 0.44 for Model 1 (p < 0.001); R2 = 0.18 for Model 2 (p < 0.001);
R2 = 0.14 for Model 3 (p < 0.001); R2 = 0.15 for Model 4 (p < 0.001)