Materialism and Life Satisfaction The Role of Religioin

1 23

��

��

��

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and allrights are held exclusively by Springer Science+Business Media New York. This e-offprint isfor personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wishto self-archive your article, please use theaccepted manuscript version for posting onyour own website. You may further depositthe accepted manuscript version in anyrepository, provided it is only made publiclyavailable 12 months after official publicationor later and provided acknowledgement isgiven to the original source of publicationand a link is inserted to the published articleon Springer's website. The link must beaccompanied by the following text: "The finalpublication is available at link.springer.com”.

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Materialism and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Religion

Varapa Rakrachakarn • George P. Moschis • Fon Sim Ong •

Randall Shannon

! Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract This study examines the role of religion and religiosity in the relationshipbetween materialism and life satisfaction. The findings suggests that religion may be a keyfactor in understanding differences in findings of previous studies regarding the inverserelationship found in the vast majority of previous studies. Based on a large-scale study inMalaysia—a country comprised of several religious subcultures (mainly Muslims, Bud-dhists, and Hindus), the findings suggest that the influence of religiosity on materialism andlife satisfaction is stronger among Malays than among Chinese and Indians, and lifesatisfaction partially mediates the relationship between religiosity and materialism. Thepaper discusses implications for theory development and further research.

Keywords Religiosity ! Materialism ! Life satisfaction

Introduction

Religion is a topic of interest to researchers, practitioners, and social scientists, as religionappears to influence an individual’s consumption habits, well-being, and life in general

V. RakrachakarnCollege of Management, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

G. P. MoschisCenter for Mature Consumer Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

F. S. OngNottingham University Business School, The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, JalanBroga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia

R. Shannon (&)Consumer Life-course Studies Group, College of Management, Mahidol University, 69 VipawadeeRangsit Road, Din Daeng, Bangkok 10400, Thailande-mail: [email protected]

123

J Relig HealthDOI 10.1007/s10943-013-9794-y

Author's personal copy

(e.g., Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Ebaugh 2002; Francis and Kaldor 2002; Polomaand Pendelton 1990; Woods et al. 1999). Consumer researchers have been particularlyinterested in understanding how religiosity affects a person’s desire for material posses-sions, since the desire and acquisition of material possessions have been linked to one’squality of life (Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; George 2010). Furthermore, little isknown about the effects of religiosity on consumers’ materialistic values in societies withsubcultures that have different religious beliefs.

The present article reports the results of a study conducted in Malaysia, a country that iscomprised of three main subcultures (Malays, Chinese, and Indians) that differ in terms oftheir religious beliefs. The study reported herein examines the strength of religious beliefsamong consumers of the three subcultures, and how such beliefs affect materialistic valuesand satisfaction with life.

Background and Hypotheses

Based on literature reviewed in this section, we develop a conceptual model that serves as ablue print for presenting our hypotheses based on current knowledge regarding the effectsof religiosity on materialism and life satisfaction (Fig. 1). The Figure shows that thestrength of one’s religious orientations is affected by the ethnic subculture to which theperson belongs (Malay, India, Chinese) and, therefore, his or her religion (Islam, Hindu,Buddhism). These religious orientations, in turn, affect materialistic values and satisfactionwith life, two concepts that have been found to be correlated differently in differentcultures, with such effects varying across religious groups.

Religion has been extensively investigated with respect to its role in several aspects ofan individual’s life. Religion is believed to play a major role in how people live and think(Armstrong 2001). For example, a study by Ellison and Coles (1982) indicates that religioninfluences how we live and experience life, affecting our goals, motivation, and satisfactionwith life. In consumer behavior, there is evidence indicating that religion may affectcertain aspects of consumers’ consumption behavior (e.g., Burroughs and Rindfleisch2002; Delener 1990, 1994; Hirschman 1981; McDaniel and Burnette 1990; Mokhlis 2006;Rindfleisch et al. 2004; Wilkes et al. 1986), although the reasons and processes that linkreligion to consumption are not well understood.

Previous studies have compared the effects of religiosity on consumer behavior ofpeople in different cultures or different countries, but the results of these studies areconfounded with those of country-specific factors, such as economic, cultural, environ-mental, and political factors, as well as the tendency for people from different countries torespond differently to research instruments (e.g., Diamantopoulos et al. 2006; Wong et al.2003). Therefore, by studying the effects of religiosity among subcultures within onecountry rather than across countries, we can better control country-related factors (e.g.,Kelley and Graaf 1997) as well as errors due to social desirability that may affect responses(Schwarz 2003; Wong et al. 2003).

Ethnic Background and Religiosity

Researchers have uncovered differences in levels of religious orientation among people indifferent cultures or countries. Studies that compare religiosity of people in differentcultures show that levels of religious orientations are different for people in differentcultures or countries (e.g., Sood and Nasu 1995; Wong et al. 2003). However, such

J Relig Health

123


differences might also reflect the effects of environmental factors, mediating processes, aswell as the ways people in different cultures respond to questions (e.g., Diamantopouloset al. 2006; Schwarz 2003; Wong et al. 2003). These studies thus suggested that subculturaland contextual factors may affect the strength of religious beliefs of people in variouscultures or countries.

Although it is widely acknowledged that people of different countries differ in theirreligious beliefs, little is known about the strength of religious orientations of consumers incountries comprised of different religious subcultures, and how these subcultural differ-ences affect their consumption habits and well-being in general. For example, Westerncountries differ from Eastern countries in religious orientations, but little is known aboutthe effects of types and strength of religious orientations of consumers in cultures andsubcultures of Asian countries. Do Asian people in different ethnic subcultures have dif-ferent levels of religious commitment as well? As we know that the majority of the Malaysare Muslims, and Muslims are profoundly affected by their religion (De Run and Butt2010), it is possible that consumers in this ethnic group have stronger religious orientationswhen compared to their Chinese and Indian counterparts. Thus, in order to validate resultsof previous studies that infer different religious values of consumers who live in differentcountries, we attempt to control country-related factors that may account for the observeddifferences and suggest the following exploratory hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: The religiosity levels of the Malays are higher than those of (a) theChinese and (b) the Indians.

Religiosity and Materialism

Religious values are frequently used to explain the differences in consumption habits ofpeople in different regions of the world. Religious people are viewed as dogmatic due totheir stronger commitment to their religion (Delener 1994; Mokhlis 2006; Rindfleisch et al.2004; Stark and Glock 1968), and the strength and nature of one’s religious beliefs canaffect the person’s consumption behaviors (Fournier 1998; Mokhlis 2006). There is evi-dence suggesting that religion may influence one’s well-being and life in general, (e.g.,Ebaugh 2002; Francis and Kaldor 2002; Poloma and Pendelton 1990; Woods et al. 1999)as well as certain aspects of a person’s consumption (e.g., Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002;

Religiosity

Ethnic sub-culture

Life satisfaction

Materialism

H3aH3b

H1

H4

H5

H2a H2b

Fig. 1 Conceptual framework and hypothesized relationships

J Relig Health

123


Delener 1990, 1994; Hirschman 1981; McDaniel and Burnette 1990; Mokhlis 2006;Rindfleisch et al. 2004; Wilkes et al. 1986). For example, Burroughs and Rindfleisch(2002) report evidence which suggests that religious people are less materialistic.

Although some researchers suggest that differences in materialism are the results ofdifferences in religious beliefs and commitment (e.g., Wong et al. 2003; Wuthnow 1994,1995), there is limited evidence attributing differences in materialistic values of consumersin different subcultures to different religious beliefs. The limited evidence found in studiesconducted in the United States suggests a negative relationship between religiosity andmaterialism (e.g., Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Elkins et al. 1988; LaBarbera andGurhan 1997), with the explanation commonly offered that material objects are viewed asobstacles to spiritual transcendence (Kavanaough 1991; Smith 1991; Zimmer 1993). Thesefindings beg the question: Do different religiosity levels of Asian religious subculturesaffect materialistic values?

Because not all religions have the same doctrines that shape people’s perceptions of theimportance of material possessions, with some religions even condemning excessiveconsumption, we argue that the strength of the relationship between religious beliefs andmaterialistic values is also likely to differ across consumers holding different religiousbeliefs. Specifically, we theorize that religiosity has the strongest inverse relationship withmaterialism in those religious subgroups whose religious doctrines condemn the acquisi-tion and ownership of material goods, compared with those religious subcultures wheresuch teachings and convictions are not present. Our research points to the religion of Islamas having the greatest influence on consumption (e.g., Ateeq-ur-Rehman and Shabbir2010). Specifically, Islam is a religion believed to have very strong influences on Muslimsociety (Kavoossi 2000; Lawrence 1998), and the implementation of religious rules andregulations in the legal frameworks of many Islamic countries has direct and profoundeffects on Muslims’ lifestyles and consumption habits (De Run and Butt 2010). A study inIndonesia, for example, revealed that the Islamic cultural values affect Muslims’ evalua-tion selection criteria for many services, such as restaurants, hotels, and airlines (Gayatriet al. 1989).

While Buddha’s teachings emphasized on being sufficient and avoid being greedy (e.g.,Badiner 2002; Kaza 2005), it has also been observed that Muslims’ consumption behaviorsare framed by the teachings and ground rules of Islam (e.g., Ateeq-ur-Rehman and Shabbir2010; Sandikci and Rice 2011). According to the Islam Holy Book, Quran, Islamic religionforbids extravagance, over-spending, and waste. As mentioned in the Book, God said ‘‘eatand drink, but waste not by extravagance’’ [(Al A’araf (Norms) 31] (Ali 2002). Thisteaching was emphasized also by the Prophet Muhammad, as he once said that Goddislikes those who gossip, waste money, and ask for too much. In addition to theseteachings, materialism and secularism are perceived by Muslims as Western evils (Kuran2004). These evils are considered to be despicable, especially when combined with theperspectives of anti-Westernism or anti-Americanism that are common in the Islamicworld. A study in Indonesia, for example, revealed that the Islamic cultural values affectMuslims’ evaluation selection criteria for many services, such as restaurants, hotels, andairlines (Gayatri et al. 1989). Therefore, since the Malays are expected to be more religiouswhen compared to their Chinese and Indian counterparts (Ong and Moschis 2006), thenegative effects of religiosity on materialism are expected to be stronger for the formerethnic group than the two latter groups.

Hypothesis 2: Religiosity has a stronger negative influence on the materialism of theMalays than on (a) Chinese and (b) Indians.

J Relig Health

123


Religiosity and Life Satisfaction

The results of previous studies reveal that religiosity is positively related to one’s emo-tional state of mind, because religious beliefs can help people reduce stress and lead to ahappier life (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). For Eastern cultures in particular, Gould (1999)has indicated that religiosity has stronger impact on consumers when compared to Westerncultures.

For the Muslims, laws of God, or so-called the Quran and Suna are considered supremeand play a major role in all aspects of Muslims’ lives as individuals (Luqmani et al. 1987;Terpstra and Sarathy 1994). Thus, engaging in forbidden acts is against the will of God andhis Prophet Muhammad (Al-Bukhari 1976). Therefore, for religious Muslims, being lessthan strict in following the laws of God can possibly lead to uneasy feelings in general (DeRun and Butt 2010). Is this an indication that religiosity levels among Muslims affectsatisfaction with life? It might be that in the ethnic subculture that is expected to be mostreligious—i.e., the Malays, religiosity plays a stronger role in predicting life satisfaction,compared with the subcultures that are less religious.

Hypothesis 3: Religiosity has a stronger positive influence on the life satisfaction ofMalays than on (a) Chinese and (b) Indians.

Life Satisfaction and Materialism

Previous studies on the relationship between materialism and life satisfaction haveuncovered significant relationships between these two concepts. However, the nature andstrength of these relationships differ across studies, especially in different cultural settings(Kasser 2002). Material possessions are highly related to social identification and socialclass which in turn reflecting personal identity (Dittmar 1992). Burroughs and Rindfleisch(2002) report the results of 20 studies that support a negative relationship betweenmaterialism and well-being. However, studies by Dawson and Bamossy (1991) and Gerand Belk (1996) do not find this negative relationship between materialism and life sat-isfaction. Could the inconsistencies in the findings of previous studies be attributed todifferences in cultural values, such as religious beliefs?

Despite the inconsistency of findings of previous studies, nearly all of those conductedin the United States show that materialism has a negative relationship with life satisfaction,suggesting that people who express desire for the acquisition of material goods tend to berelatively unhappy (e.g., Belk 1988; Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Pavia and Mason2004; Richins and Dawsons 1992). It has been speculated that the acquisition of materialpossessions may provide a greater sense of control in one’s life, as possessions can helppeople present to others a more complete ‘‘self’’ (Belk 1988). Empirical findings presentedby Belk appear to be in line with this reasoning, pointing to the possibility that those withlower levels of self-worth (hence satisfaction with life) tend to value material possessionsmore than their counterparts with higher levels of self-worth. Based on this premise, it isreasonable to assume that, to the extent people are not happy with their lives, they seematerial goods as vehicles to happiness.

As stated earlier, religiosity is expected to have a positive impact on life satisfaction.Therefore, it is possible that religious people are less materialistic because they are happierand more satisfied with their lives, since it is highly likely that religion serves as a majorsource of well-being. Thus, in empirical terms, life satisfaction may be a mediator of therelationship between religiosity and materialism; and life satisfaction should have a weaker

J Relig Health

123


negative association with materialism among the most religious Malaysian consumers ingeneral and the most religious ethnic subculture (i.e., Muslims) in particular.

Hypothesis 4: Regardless of ethnic background, life satisfaction mediates the rela-tionship between religiosity and materialism so that the most religious Malaysians are alsomost satisfied with their lives.

Hypothesis 5: There is a weaker negative association between life satisfaction andmaterialism among the Malay subculture than among the subcultures of (a) Chinese and(b) Indians.

Research Methodology

Sample

The data for the present study were collected as a part of a large-scale government-fundedsurvey that involved face-to-face interviews. The questionnaire was translated into Man-darin and the Malay language using back-to-back translation method so that the respon-dents could choose to answer in their preferred language (Zickmund 2003). Interviewsessions were conducted house-to-house by trained interviewers. The sample consisted ofMalaysian consumers who lived in five major cities/towns. Non-probability quota samplingwas employed to ensure equal representation of the three ethnic groups, Malays, Chinese,and Indians.

A total of 1,025 interviews were completed. All of respondents were aged 20 or older,the average age of the sample was 48.08 years old, with a standard deviation of 16.6 years.The percentages of female and male respondents were almost equal: 51.4 % were femaleand 48.6 % were male. The respondents’ ethnic backgrounds were 52.9 % Malay, 29.4 %Chinese, 15.6 % Indian, and 2.1 % were of other ethnic backgrounds. All Malays inMalaysia are Muslims and 86.5 % of the Chinese are Buddhists while close to 85 % ofIndians are Hindus (Department of Statistics Malaysia 2005). With respect to the educationlevels, 43.8 % the respondents had lower than high school education, 37.6 % were highschool graduates, 7.2 % had some college education, and 11.4 % were college graduates.About 47.2 % were employed full-time, 9.6 % were employed part-time, and 42.5 % wereunemployed or retired. Personal annual income was divided into six brackets with 49.2 %earning less than RM15,000, 32.9 % between RM15,000 and RM29,999, 12.8 % betweenRM30,000 and RM44,999, 3 % between RM45,000 and RM59,999, 2.2 % earnedRM60,000 or more (RM3 = *$1).

Measures

The items in the questionnaires were designed to collect data on the variables related to thehypotheses of this study. Religiosity was measured by using the scale developed by Putneyand Middleton (1961). We included the six items of the scale as used by Burroughs andRindfleisch (2002) and Rindfleisch et al. (2006). We added two more items that measuredthe behavioral aspect of religious commitment, adopted from Wilkes et al. (1986).Together, these eight items measured mosque/church/temple attendance, importance ofreligious values, and self-perceived religiousness. Respondents were asked to indicate theiragreement with each of the eight items on a five-point scale ranging from ‘‘stronglydisagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5). Responses were summed across all the scale items

J Relig Health

123


and divided by eight. The average score for the religiosity scale was 3.88 (SD = 0.73) andthe Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability was 0.77.

We used the same five-item life satisfaction scale (Satisfaction with Life Scale–SWLS)developed by Diener and colleagues (Diener et al. 1985) that was used in the Burroughsand Rindfleisch’s (2002) study. This scale measures a person’s general well-being,including his or her psychological, physical and emotional well-being. Respondents wereasked to provide responses to the five items on a 5-point (1 = strongly disagree,5 = strongly agree) Likert scale. The mean of the summated scale was 3.52 (SD = 0.84),and its alpha reliability coefficient was 0.89.

The materialism scale used in this study was suggested by Wong et al. (2003) whofound it most appropriate for cross-cultural research. The scale consists of 15 items phrasedin an interrogative format. The reverse-worded items were recoded before analysis. Themean of the summated scale was 3.37 (SD = 0.58). Its alpha reliability coefficient was0.82.

Data Analysis

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1 posits that the religiosity level of the Malays is higher than the other ethnicgroups. Table 1 shows means and standard deviations of the religiosity for the three ethnicgroups (Malays, Chinese, and Indians). Results show that the Malays scored higher on thereligiosity scale than the two remaining ethnic groups; the Chinese had the lowest score.ANOVA was used to test Hypothesis 1, comparing the mean differences of religiositylevels among the three groups. As shown in Table 1, the mean differences of all three pairsare statistically significant (F = 137.494, df = 996). Further analysis indicated that theMalays have a significantly higher level of religiosity compared with the Chinese(F = 16.093, df = 835) and Indians (F = 8.445, df = 694). These results provide supportfor Hypothesis 1. Thus, religiosity levels are not equal; they are higher among Malays whoare Muslims than among the Malaysian subcultures of Chinese and Indians. These findingsare consistent with those reported by Ong and Moschis (2006), although caution is in orderwhen assuming that any religiosity scale could accurately measure religious orientations ofthe various religious subcultures.

Hypotheses 2 and 3 were developed based on the premise that, because the ethnicgroups differ in their religious orientations, the impact of religiosity on materialism and lifesatisfaction should also be different. To test these hypotheses, regression analysis was usedto examine the impact of religiosity on both life satisfaction and materialism among thethree ethnic groups. We also used the short form of the Marlowe-Crown social desirabilityscale (Strahan and Gerbasi 1972) to account for any subcultural differences in responsetendencies. This scale was added in the regression equations. The results are shown inTable 2.

The regression results in Table 2 show that for the Malays religiosity has a significantnegative impact on materialism (unstandardized regression coefficient = -.679,p \ 0.001), as hypothesized. Similarly for the Chinese, religiosity was found to impact onmaterialism, with regression analysis showing unstandardized regression coefficient of-.289 (p \ 0.01). For the Indians, religiosity produced no impact on materialism(unstandardized regression coefficient = -.255, ns). We used Chow’s F test to test fordifferences in the coefficients in the two sets of multiple regressions (Malays vs. Chine andMalays vs. Indians). The emerged results show that the influence of religiosity on

J Relig Health

123


materialism is stronger on the Malays than on the Chinese (F = 8.9670, p \ .001) andIndians (F = 3.4834, p \ .05). Thus, the results provided support for both hypotheses H2(a) and H2 (b) where religiosity is found to produce a stronger negative influence on thematerialism of the Malays than it does on the Chinese and Indians.

Hypothesis 3 posits that the influence of religiosity on life satisfaction is stronger for theMalays than the other two ethnic groups. The same approach that was used to test H2 wasemployed to test H3. Results show religiosity exerting a significant positive effect on lifesatisfaction (unstandardized regression coefficient = .265, p \ 0.001) for the Malays, andsimilarly for the Chinese and Indians with unstandardized regression coefficients of .082(p \ .05) and .126 (p \ .01), respectively. In applying Chow’s F test, the influence ofreligiosity on life satisfaction was found greater on the Malays than on the Chinese(F = 9.7557, p \ .001) but not on Indians (F = 1.6579, ns). Thus, hypotheses H3 (a) wassupported, as results show that religiosity has a stronger positive influence on the lifesatisfaction among Malays than among the Chinese. H3 (b) was not supported, as Chow’sF test was not significant after taking into account the influence of social desirability,suggesting that the effects of religiosity on life satisfaction do not differ between Malaysand Indians.

Table 1 ANOVA results for religiosity

Mean (SD) Comparing ethnic groups Mean difference F statistics (df)

Malays (N = 536) 4.18 (.581) Malays Chinese .75202* 137.494 (996)

Chinese (N = 301) 3.42 (.754) Malays Indians .44592*

Indians (N = 160) 3.73 (.603) Chinese Indians -.30610*

Total (N = 997) 3.62 (.764)

* Significant at 0.01 level

Table 2 Effects of religiosity on life satisfaction and materialism by ethnic group

Ethnic groups Dependent variable Independent variables Unstandardizedcoefficient

p value

Malays Materialism Religiosity -.679 .000***

Social desirability .070 ns

Life satisfaction Religiosity .265 .000***

Social desirability .281 .000***

Chinese Materialism Religiosity -.289 .001**

Social desirability .341 .004**

Life satisfaction Religiosity .082 .016*


Indians Materialism Religiosity -.255 ns


Life satisfaction Religiosity .126 .039*


* p value \ 0.05

** p value \ 0.01

*** p value \ 0.001

J Relig Health

123


The purpose of Hypothesis 4 was to test the mediating effect of life satisfaction on therelationship between religiosity and materialism. The method suggested by Baron andKenny (1986) was employed. First, a regression was used to analyze the relationshipbetween religiosity and life satisfaction in order to determine whether religiosity has asignificant effect on the mediator (life satisfaction). Next, the direct effect of religiosity onmaterialism was tested. Finally, the effects of both religiosity and life satisfaction onmaterialism were assessed in order to determine the extent to which life satisfactionmediates the relationship between religiosity and materialism. These results are shown inTable 3. As these results show, religiosity has a positive effect on life satisfaction(b = .298, p \ .001). In other words, the more religious people are, the happier they arewith their life compared with their less religious counterparts. The results from the secondregression suggests that religiosity also has a significant negative impact on materialism(b = -.252, p \ .001). Finally, materialism is significantly and negatively affected byboth religiosity (b = -.17, p \ .001) and life satisfaction (b = -.254, p \ .001). Theinfluence of religiosity on materialism decreased from .252 (in the second regression) to.172 (in the third regression) representing a drop of about 32 %. These results suggest thatlife satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between religiosity and materialism,providing support for H4.

Hypotheses 5a and 5b suggest that the negative influence of life satisfaction on mate-rialism is weaker for the Malays than for the Chinese and Indians, respectively. Regres-sions were used to test these Hypotheses. Social desirability was included in the multipleregressions to account for subcultural differences in response tendencies. The resultsobtained from the regressions are shown in Table 4; they reveal that the relationships arenegative and significant for the Malays (unstandardized regression coefficient = -.778,p \ 0.001) and the Chinese (unstandardized regression coefficient = -.507, p \ 0.01),but not significant for the Indians as indicated by unstandardized regression coefficient of-.241(ns). These results show that life satisfaction does not have similar effects onmaterialism for these three ethnic groups. Social desirability does not appear to exert asignificant influence on the Malays and Indians (unstandardized regression coeffi-cient = .074 and 221, ns, respectively), but it appears to have an impact on the Chinese(unstandardized regression coefficient = .392, p \ 0.01). Using Chow’s F test, resultsshow a stronger influence of life satisfaction on materialism for the Malays than for theIndians (F = 4.8297, p \ .01) as well as for the Chinese (F = 3.8414, p = .01). Thus,based on the regression analyses and Chow’s F tests, Hypotheses 5(a) and 5 (b) are notsupported. Contrary to our expectations, the significant negative effect of life satisfactionon materialism is stronger for the Malays when compared to the Chinese and Indianswhereas for the Indians, life satisfaction does not have any significant impact on materi-alism. For all three races, the direction of all relationships is the same (negative), althoughthe presumed effects vary in size.

Discussion and Directions for Further Research

The present study finds that religiosity levels are higher among Malays who are Muslimsthan among the Malaysian subcultures of Chinese and Indians. These findings are con-sistent with those reported by Ong and Moschis (2006). Furthermore, religiosity does nothave the same effects on materialism and life satisfaction. Religiosity has stronger negativeassociation with materialism among Malays who are Muslims than among consumers inthe smaller subcultures of Chinese and Indians. The study also finds life satisfaction to

J Relig Health

123


partially mediate the relationship between religiosity and materialism, and life satisfactionto significantly affect materialism. The emerged negative relationship between life satis-faction and materialism is stronger among Malays than among Chinese, while it is notsignificant among the Indians.

Before discussing the findings of the present study, the reader should be informed ofseveral limitations inherent in the study and exercise caution in interpreting the results.First, as in any other cross-sectional study, the present study findings are subject tocommon method bias discussed in detail elsewhere (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Although thestudy of subcultures within a single country may have helped reduce errors in metricinvariance (Steenkamp and Baumgardner 1998), the study results may not be free of biasdue to other factors present in studies of consumers in other cultures (e.g., Diamantopouloset al. 2006; Schwarz 2003; Wong et al. 2003). The results may have been influenced byMalaysian cultural factors. For example, the measurement tools used were adopted fromresearch in Western countries and, therefore, answers to these instruments were subject topossible misinterpretation of the wordings, the sequence of the questions, and somesymbolic meanings of items asked. Although we had no bases for expecting differenceswithin the collectivistic religious subcultures of these Asian consumers in response styles,it is possible that some of the findings reflect subcultural differences in response styles ofthe three Asian subcultures. Furthermore, other factors such as timing and environmentalfactors may have influenced the results. As this study used a door-to-door interviewmethod, the environment of each interview was different and could not be controlled. Thetime of interview was also important as respondents’ willingness or ability to answer maybe affected by the time the interview was conducted. Even though the interviewers mayhad been well-trained and followed standard procedures, their personality and appearance,including interpersonal and communication skills, were hard to control.

These limitations notwithstanding, we subscribe to Popper’s (1959) view that the mainvalue of correlational data from cross-sectional studies such as ours stems from their ability

Table 3 Mediating effect of life satisfaction on the relationship between religiosity and materialism

Regression Dependent variable Independent variables Unstandardizedcoefficient

p value

1 Life satisfaction Religiosity .298 .000***

2 Materialism Religiosity -.252 .000***

3 Materialism Life satisfaction -.254 .000***

Religiosity -.172 .000***

*** p value \ 0.001

Table 4 Effects of life satisfaction on materialism for ethnic groups

Ethnic groups Dependent variable Independent variable Coefficient p value

Malays Materialism Life satisfaction -.778 .000***


Chinese Materialism Life satisfaction -.507 .001**


Indians Materialism Life satisfaction -.221 .211


J Relig Health

123


to falsify hypotheses, not confirm them in a positive sense. In this context, the study hasproduced interesting findings that contribute to our understanding of the possible influenceof religiosity on materialism and consumer well-being in different ethnic cultures andsubcultures. Because Malays are Muslims, most of the Chinese are Buddhists, and most ofthe Indians are Hindus, the effects of religious beliefs on people’s consumption orienta-tions in these different subcultures can be inferred from these cross-sectional data. TheMalays were found to be more religious than the other ethnic groups, perhaps becauseIslam as a religion has been shown to have a profound impact on cognitive processes andlife styles of its followers, as presented in literature review. This may explain why thedevout Muslims Malays recorded higher levels of life satisfaction and lower levels ofmaterialism than their Indian and Chinese counterparts.

The predominantly Buddhist Chinese appear to be the least affected by their religiousbeliefs, which may be due to their lower levels of religiosity. Moreover, one of the lessonsthat Buddha taught is not to believe just because you are told to believe. Instead, Buddhaplaced emphasis on proving notions through learning and practicing by oneself (Bhikkhu2004). Thus, although the Chinese are considered as one of the most interdependent culture(Kitayama and Markus 1994), the open-minded perspectives of this teaching may socializeBuddhists to becoming more independent in the way they live their lives, in comparison totheir Indian and Malay counterparts. Thus, whether or not Buddhists are satisfied with theirlives is less dependent on levels of religiosity when compared with their Muslimcounterparts.

As Hinduism is the oldest and most predominant religious tradition in South Asia, mostof the Indians are Hindus. Fuller (2004) described Hinduism as a religion that involved apantheon of gods and goddesses whose different forms possess a variety of divine powers.Since the Hindus believe that these deities have power over people and the world, manyrituals have been created to worship, or ‘‘puja,’’ the deities in different ways. Flood (2003)also identified the reason of worshiping as being a way of creating relationship between thedeity and the worshiper. It is critical for the Hindus to remain in good favor with the godsand goddesses, since displeasing the Gods can bring harm on the believers. This could bethe main reason why the Indians’ life satisfaction is highly tied to religiosity.

Another important aspect of Hinduism and Indian society is the strong belief in hier-archical values and institutionalized inequality (Fuller 2004). Indians are born into anunchangeable hierarchical structure of social levels. This structure may be similar to socialclasses in other countries in a way, yet the influence on the lives of Indians can be muchstronger. People born into different levels are treated unequally in all aspects of life. Sincethe Indians are bounded to the hierarchy, their behavior may be affected by this factor morethan the level of religiosity. This may explain why both religiosity and life satisfaction donot have a significant influence on materialism among the Indians. Their consumptionbehavior may be shaped by other cultural factors that are related to their societal structure.For Indians, although the degree of religiosity can differ across hierarchical levels, theiraccess to material possessions may be constrained by their hierarchical standing.

The results help clarify findings of previous studies that report an inverse relationshipbetween religiosity and materialism, as well as between life satisfaction and materialism.The study findings suggest that religious beliefs about the desirability of material pos-sessions may only partly explain the reason people in the very religious subcultures areopposed to materialism. Satisfaction with life may be a mechanism that links religiosity tomaterialism, because the results of this study show that life satisfaction partly mediates theeffects of religiosity, suggesting that the more religious people are also happier and maynot view possessions as vehicles to well-being. This might be particularly the case among

J Relig Health

123


countries or cultures where religion is a very important aspect of a person’s life, such asIslam, as it is shown by the stronger inverse relationship between satisfaction with life andmaterialism found among the Muslims, compared with other religious groups.

In conclusion, the study findings suggest that consumers in different Asian ethnicsubcultures are affected differently by their religions and religiosity. Religiosity mayconstitute one of the main factors that affect each subculture’s belief system regarding lifein general and consumption in particular. As shown in this study, religiosity significantlyand directly affects the life satisfaction of all three ethnic groups. However, in terms ofconsumption behavior, other factors may also influence each subculture differently. Spe-cifically, the study findings suggest that the materialistic values of the Indians cannot bepredicted by either religiosity or life satisfaction. When comparing the three ethnic sub-cultures, the Malays appear to be affected by religiosity the most, both in terms of lifesatisfaction and materialism. Although the Chinese are less religious than the Indians, theirlevels of religiosity have a greater effect on their life satisfaction and materialism. Thesefindings could be explained by other factors that relate to different social structures inwhich these subcultures are embedded.

The present study should be replicated in different regions or countries to cover a widerrange of consumers in diverse socioeconomic levels and degrees of industrialization. MoreAsian subcultures should also be included in the future studies, and the effects of religiosityshould be examined across different countries. For example, the role of religiosity could beinvestigated and compared among people of the same subculture living in differentlocations, such as Indians in India and in Malaysia. In addition, it would be interesting toinvestigate how religious beliefs affect the behavior of different subcultures with respect toa wider range of consumption dimensions and the role of any mediating variables thatcould shed light on the relationships between subcultures and consumption. For example,psychological variables, such as stress and self-esteem, may suggest the mechanisms thataccount for the observed differences in consumption and well-being across subcultures.

References

Al-Bukhari. (1976). Sahih Al-Bukhari (M. M. Khan, Trans). Chicago, IL.Ali, A. Y. (2002). Holy Qur’an: text, translation and commentary (4th U.S. ed.). New York: Tahrike Tarsile

Qur’an, Inc.Armstrong, K. (2001). Battle for God: A history of fundamentalism. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.Ateeq-ur-Rehman, & Shabbir, M. S. (2010). The relationship between religiosity and new product adoption.

Journal of Islamic Marketing, 1(1), 63–69.Badiner, A. H. (2002). Mindfulness in the marketplace: Compassionate responses to consumerism.

Berkeley, California: Parallax.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168.Bhikkhu, B. (2004). Heartwood of the Bodhi tree. (S. Bhikkhu, Ed., & D. Bhikkhu, Trans.) Chiangmai,

Thailand: O.S. Printing House.Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective.

Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 348–370.Dawson, S., & Bamossy, G. (1991). If we are what we have, what are we when we don’t have? Into have

possessions: A handbook of ownership and property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6),363–384.

De Run, E. C., & Butt, M. M. (2010). Attitudes towards offensive advertising: Malaysian Muslims’ views.Journal of Islamic Marketing, 1(1), 25–36.

J Relig Health

123


Delener, N. (1990). The effects of religious factors on perceived risk in durable goods purchase decisions.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7, 27–38.

Delener, N. (1994). Religious contrasts in consumer decision making patterns: Their dimensions andmarketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 28(5), 36–53.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2005). General report of the population and housing census 2000.Putrajaya: Malaysia.

Diamantopoulos, A., Reynolds, N. L., & Simitras, A. C. (2006). Impact of response styles on the stability ofcross-national comparisons. Journal of Business Research, 59, 925–935.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.

Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. Hertfordshire: HarvesterWheatsheaf.

Ebaugh, H. R. (2002). Return of the sacred: Reintegrating religion in the social sciences. Journal of theScientific Study of Religion, 41(3), 385–395.

Elkins, D. N., Hedstrom, J. L., Hughes, L. L., Leaf, J. A., & Saunders, C. (1988). Toward a humanistic-phenomenological spirituality: Definitions, descriptions, and measurement. Journal of HumanisticPsychology, 28, 5–18.

Ellison, C. W., & Cole, K. C. (1982). Religious commitment, television viewing, values and quality of life.Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 1, 21–32.

Flood, G. (2003). The introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing branding theory in consumer research. Journal

of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.Francis, L. J., & Kaldor, P. (2002). The relationship between psychological well-being and Christian faith

and practice in an Australia population sample. Journal of Religion, 41(1), 179–184.Fuller, C. J. (2004). The camphor flame: Popular Hinduism and society in India. Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press.Gayatri, G., Chan, C., Mort, G. S., & Hume, M. (1989). Understanding service quality from the Islamic

customer perspective. Australian and New Zealond Marketing Academy Conference (pp. 348–354).Perth: University of Western Australia.

George, L. K. (2010). Still happy after all these years: Research frontiers on subjective well-being in laterlife. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 65B(3), 331–339.

Ger, G., & Belk, R. W. (1996). Cross-cultural differences in materialism. Journal of Economic Psychology,17, 55–77.

Gould, S. J. (1999). A critique of Heckhausen and Schulz’s 1995 life span theory of control from a cross-cultural perspective. Psychological Review, 106(3), 597–604.

Hirschman, E. C. (1981). American Jewish ethnicity: Its relationships to some selected aspects of consumerbehavior. Journal of Marketing, 45, 102–110.

Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kavanaough, J. F. (1991). Following Christ in a consumer society: The spirituality of cultural resistance

(Revised Ed.). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.Kavoossi, M. (2000). Globalization of business and the Middle East: Opportunities and constraints.

Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Kaza, S. (2005). Hooked! Buddhist writings on greed, desire, and the urge to consume. Boston, Massa-

chusetts: Shambhala Publications.Kelley, J., & Graaf, N. D. (1997). National context, parental socialization, and religious beliefs: Results

from 15 nations. American Sociological Review, 62, 639–660.Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (1994). Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Kuran, T. (2004). Islam and Mammon : The economic predicaments of Islamism. Priceton, New Jersey:

Priceton University Press.LaBarbera, P. A., & Gurhan, Z. (1997). The Role of materialism, religiosity and demographics in subjective

well-being. Psychology and Marketing, 14(1), 71–97.Lawrence, B. B. (1998). Shattering the myth: Islam beyond violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.Luqmani, M., Yavas, U., & Quraeshi, Z. (1987). Advertising in Saudi Arabia: Content and regulation.

Journal of Advertising, 6(1), 59–71.McDaniel, S. W., & Burnette, J. J. (1990). Consumer religiosity and retail store evaluative criteria. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18, 101–112.

J Relig Health

123


Mokhlis, S. (2006). The effects of religiosity on shopping orientations: An exploratory study in Malaysia.Journal of the American Academic of Business, 9(1), 64–74.

Ong, F. S., & Moschis, G. P. (2006). Religiosity and consumer behaviour: A cross cultural study. Paperpresented at the BAI conference proceedings, Singapore, 12–14 July.

Pavia, T. M., & Mason, M. J. (2004). The reflexive relationship between consumer behavior and adaptivecoping. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 441–454.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases inbehavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Poloma, M. M., & Pendelton, B. F. (1990). Religious domains and general well-being. Social IndicatorsResearch, 22, 255–276.

Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.Putney, S., & Middleton, R. (1961). Dimensions and correlates of religious ideologies. Social Forces, 39(2),

285–290.Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement:

Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303–316.Rindfleisch, A., Burrough, J. E., & Wong, N. (2004). Religiosity and brand commitment. University of

Wisconsin-Madison: Unpublished Paper.Rindfleisch, A., Wong, N., & Burroughs, J. E. (2006). Materialism and brand resonance. In European

marketing academy conference, Athens, Greece, 23–26 May.Sandikci, O., & Rice, G. (2011). Handbook of Islamic marketing. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar

Publishing.Schwarz, N. (2003). Self-reports in consumer research: The challenge of comparing cohorts and cultures.

Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 588–594.Smith, H. (1991). The world’s religions. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.Sood, J., & Nasu, Y. (1995). Religiosity and nationality: An exploratory study of their effects on consumer

behavior in Japan and the United States. Journal of Business Research, 34, 1–9.Stark, R., & Glock, C. Y. (1968). American piety: The nature of religious commitment. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.Steenkamp, J., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer

research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-crowne social desir-

ability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.Terpstra, V., & Sarathy, R. (1994). International marketing. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College.Wilkes, R. E., Burnette, J. J., & Howell, R. D. (1986). On the meaning of measurement of religiosity in

consumer research. Journal of Academic of Marketing Science, 14, 47–56.Wong, N., Rindfleisch, A. A., & Burroughs, J. (2003). Do reverse-worded items confound measures in

cross-cultural consumer behavior? The case of material value scale. Journal of Consumer Research,30, 72–91.

Woods, T. E., Antoni, M. H., Ironson, G. H., & Kling, D. W. (1999). Religiosity is associated with affectiveand immune status in symptomatic HIV-infected gay men. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46,165–176.

Wuthnow, R. (1994). God and Mammon in America. New York, NY: The Free Press.Wuthnow, R. (1995). Rethinking materialism: Perspectives on the spiritual dimension of economic

behavior. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.Zickmund, W. G. (2003). Business research methods (7th ed.). USA: Thomson Learning, South Western.Zimmer, H. (1993). Buddahood. In R. Eastman (Ed.), The ways of religion (2nd ed., pp. 65–73). New York:

Oxford University Press.

J Relig Health

123


Materialism and Life Satisfaction The Role of Religioin

Documents

Transcript of Materialism and Life Satisfaction The Role of Religioin