Materialism and Consumer James A.

Muncy
Ethics: An Exploratory Study Jacqueline K. Eastman

ABSTRACT. As the issue of marketing’s social materialism has a negative overall effect on
responsibility grows in significance, the topic of quality of life. In addition, there are those who
materialism surfaces. While many marketing efforts feel that a never ending quest for more material
encourage materialism, the materialism that is possessions is harming the environment (e.g.,
encouraged may have negative societal effects. An Durning, 1992; Feldman, 1971).
understanding of the effects of materialism on
Certainly many marketers have an interest in
individuals, families, society, etc., is important in
evaluating whether or not it is socially irresponsible
perpetuating materialism (see, for example,
for marketers to encourage materialism. However, the Fawcett, 1994). Materialism is associated with a
adequate empirical work has not yet been done on greater drive to acquire the goods that marketers
the overall effects of materialism. The current paper provide for consumers. If consumers move away
asks and addresses one important empirical question from their focus on material acquisitions and
in this area. Do consumers who are more material- towards non-material quality of life concerns,
istic have different ethical standards than those who then they will consume less from the economic
are not? Empirical evidence is presented which would system, leaving the marketers with fewer con-
indicate that materialism is negatively correlated with sumers and less demand for their goods. Though
people’s higher ethical standards as consumers. The this may be a boom to those marketers who
implications for this in understanding social respon- provide services that are purchased to increase the
sibility are discussed.
quality of life, it would certainly have a negative
impact on those firms that provide the goods
which feed a materialistic quest.
Recently, the concept of materialism has become So, many marketers may have a self-interest
of greater interest to those in marketing and in encouraging materialism. But if materialism
consumer research (see Belk, 1985; Richins and is not in the best interest of society, then such
Dawson, 1992; Rudmin and Richins, 1992). encouragement could be considered socially
Many of the topics that have been studied in irresponsible. In order to understand whether the
relationship to materialism have societal signifi- encouragement of materialism is socially irre-
cance (see Rudmin and Richins, 1992). On one sponsible, we need to understand the overall
hand materialism may increase a society’s effect of materialism on individuals, economic
economic wealth and material possessions. On systems, families, the environment, etc. Only
the other hand, there are those who argue that with such an understanding can one legitimately
answer the question as to whether encouraging
materialism is socially irresponsible.
James A. Muncy is an Associate Professor of Marketing at
An extended stream of research needs to
the College of Business Administration of the Valdosta develop to address all of these issues. The current
State University. paper represents an initial step in this direction.
Jacqueline Eastman is an Assistant Professor of Marketing It presents the results of a study which addresses
at the College of Business Administration of the Valdosta one aspect of materialism – the relationship of
State University. materialism to individuals’ ethical beliefs as

Journal of Business Ethics 17: 137–145, 1998.

© 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
138 James A. Muncy and Jacqueline K. Eastman

consumers. The research question studied was as lies in their ability to both confer status and to
follows: Do consumers who are more material- project a desired self image.
istic have different ethical standards than those Materialism has been shown to relate to
who are not? certain demographic and behavioral variables
(Crispell, 1993). For example, Belk (1985) found
that blue collar respondents had the highest
Recent research on materialism scores on his materialism scale, while those
respondents from a religious institute had the
Materialism involves the importance one attaches lowest scores. Also, those who score higher on
to their worldly possessions (Belk, 1985; Richins the materialism scale reported to be less happy in
and Dawson, 1992). For a materialist, possessions life. Richins and Dawson (1992) found that those
are central to his or her life in that he or she feels who scored higher on their materialism scale
that increased consumption increases his or her were less willing to share what they have in terms
satisfaction with life (Fournier and Richins, of both money and possessions. This unwilling-
1991). Materialism may become a problem in ness went beyond just contributions to charitable
situations where the physical goal of consump- and ecological organizations to also include help
tion overshadows all other goals of self and to family and friends. Finally, Fournier and
interactive development (Belk, 1985; Richins and Richins (1991) found that most people describe
Dawson, 1992). This does not imply that all materialistic people in negative and socially-
material desires are bad. In fact, the acquisition undesirable terms.
of material possessions is a natural, healthy part
of one’s life. However, beyond a certain point,
the quest for material possessions may begin to Materialism and ethics
interfere with other important aspects of life. At
that point, materialism is likely to become Some have argued that materialism is question-
harmful to the person or to society. able from an ethical perspective (see Rudmin and
Two multi-dimensional scales to measure Richins, 1992). Others have associated certain
materialism have recently been developed in types of unethical behavior with greater amounts
consumer research. Belk’s (1985; see also Ellis, of materialism (Barrett, 1992). Others have
1991) three-dimensional scale operationalized related greater materialism to an inevitable loss
materialism in terms of envy (ill will at the of a sense of community which might in turn
success of another person), possessiveness (the make people less sensitive to those behaviors
tendency to control one’s own possessions), and which might negatively effect others (Belk,
nongenerosity (an unwillingness to share). 1988).
Richins and Dawson (1992) conceptualized Richins and Dawson (1992) suggest that
materialism as a consumer value with three possessions can be the focus of one’s life,
components: centrality (acquisition centrality), becoming more important than religion, friends,
happiness (acquisition as the pursuit of happi- and other achievements. In making possessions
ness), and success (possession-defined success). the majority component for achieving happiness,
Acquisition centrality suggests that those people the more materialistic consumers might be
who score higher on this component of the scale, willing to bend ethical rules to gain possessions.
make possessions the focus of their lives. This reasoning is consistent with Ferrell and
Acquisition as the pursuit of happiness factor Gresham (1985) who argue that managers who
suggests that possessions are vital for a material- feel pressure to be successful (i.e. make a profit)
istic consumer’s well-being and satisfaction in life. will be more likely to exhibit unethical behavior.
Possession-defined success relates to the role that For materialistic consumers, they probably feel
possessions play as evidence of success. Thus, in greater pressure to have possessions to be happy
the Richins and Dawson conceptualization, the than do less materialistic consumers. Thus, there
value of possessions for the materialistic person could be a greater possibility for them to engage
 Materialism and Consumer Ethics 139

in unethical behavior to obtain these much practices, includes situations in the buying process
desired possessions. where the buyer is deceiving the seller (e.g.
Despite all of this postulating and theorizing, returning merchandise to a store claiming that it
there is little empirical evidence that answers the was a gift when it was not). The final dimen-
following question: do people who are more sion seems to reflect situations where the
materialistic have different ethical standards than consumer may not perceive a direct, attributable,
those who are less materialistic. After an exten- micro-level harm. Though such harm actually
sive review of the literature, no empirical study does occur, consumers may not look deep
could be found which specifically addressed this enough to see it. It is called no harm, no foul and
question. Thus, the purpose of the current refers to situations such as recording an album
research was to study this specific question. instead of buying it.
Since materialism is specifically a consumption Richins and Dawson’s (1992) materialism scale
phenomenon, it seems reasonable that a rela- and Muncy and Vitell’s (1992) consumer ethics
tionship between ethical standards and materi- scales were used to measure the underlying
alism would be most likely to manifest itself in constructs of interest in the current study. Each
the realm of consumer ethics. So, the current scale was administered in the same way it was
study focussed on consumers materialism and administered in the original study by the
its relationship to their ethical standards as researchers who developed the scales. Thus, the
consumers. eighteen items in the Richins and Dawson scale
were measured on a five point Likert scale format
with categories from strongly agree to strongly
Methodology disagree and the Muncy and Vitell scale was
measured on a five point Likert scale format with
Measurement instrument anchor points being “strongly believe that it is
wrong” to “strongly believe that it is not wrong”.
As stated earlier, Richins and Dawson (1992) The appropriate items were reversed scored and
developed a value-oriented materialism scale summed within each dimension to come up with
with three components: acquisition centrality one single numeric value for each dimension of
(labeled “centrality”), acquisition as the pursuit the two scales.
of happiness (labeled “happiness”), and posses-
sion-defined success (labeled “success”). These
components are measured using a seven-item, a Sample
five-item, and a six-item scale, respectively.
Muncy and Vitell (Muncy and Vitell, 1992; The subjects in this study were students enrolled
Vitell et al., 1991; Vitell and Muncy, 1992) in various introductory marketing classes at two
developed a twenty item consumer ethics scale. large publicly supported universities in the
This scale categorized items as representing four United States. The subjects filled out the surveys
basic consumer ethical dimensions. The first two in class and were given extra credit for doing so.
dimensions related to ethical situations where the There were 122 subjects from one university and
buyer benefited at the expense of the seller. The 92 from the other for a total n of 214. There was
two dimensions differed from each other based no statistically significant difference (p = 0.05)
on the extent to which the consumer actively between the means of the two student groups
sought out the benefit or was simply a passive on any of the seven key variables of interest to
beneficiary of the benefits. These are labeled the current study. There was only one variable
proactively benefiting (e.g. drinking a can of soda (the success dimension of the materialism scale)
in a supermarket without paying for it) and where there was a statistically significant differ-
passively benefiting (e.g. not saying anything when ence in the variance. Thus, the two samples seem
the waitress miscalculates the bill in your favor). to be reasonably similar and so the data was
The next dimension, referred to as deceptive combined into one sample for analysis.
140 James A. Muncy and Jacqueline K. Eastman

Table I presents the simple statistics on the Results

materialism scores received in the current study
in comparison to those received in the three Table II presents the results of the tests for
studies reported by Richins and Dawson (RD). univariate normality of the variables in the
As can be seen, the subjects were slightly below current study. D’Agostino et al. (1990) encourage
the Richins and Dawson means on the centrality the use of normality tests based on skewness and
component and above their means on happiness kurtosis rather than the less powerful
and success components and also above the Kolmogorov and Chi-Square normality tests.
Richins and Dawson means on the overall scale. The estimated skewness and kurtosis coefficients
This is what one would expect given that our are the basis for the three normality tests sug-
subjects were business students. They are cur- gested by D’Agostino et al. (1990). These three
rently making material sacrifices in order to tests are presented in Table II. The first normality
obtain future material prosperity. Thus, material test is a Z-test that checks whether the skewness
goods are less centrally related to their lives now, of the data is compatible with the normality
but they are striving for them so they likely see assumption. The second is a Z-test that checks
them as being more strongly related to happi- whether the kurtosis of the data is compatible
ness and success. Thus, on the average, we see with the assumption of normality. The third test
the bias we would expect, given this sample. combines the first two Z tests into an “omnibus-
K2” Z-test of normality. As can be seen from the
results of this analysis, most of the variables used
TABLE I in the current study do not deviate substantially
Materialism simple statistics compared: from normality. In fact, of the seven variables
Richins and Dawson (RD) three reported studies studied, only two deviate in a statistically signif-
and the current study icant manner from normality. Both of the
problems were primarily with skewness. Thus,
Scale Mean SD
though there was some deviation from normality,
Centrality component the problem did not appear to be pervasive.
RD survey 2 19.8 04.2 To test the overall relationship between the
RD survey 3 19.3 04.0 three dimensions of the materialism scale and the
RD survey 4 19.3 04.0 four dimensions of the consumer ethics scale,
Current study 18.6 03.8 canonical correlational analysis was conducted.
Happiness component This allowed us to look at the relationship of
RD survey 2 13.3 04.2 materialism as a whole with consumer ethics as
RD survey 3 13.1 03.5 a whole. Table III presents the results of this
RD survey 4 12.8 04.1 analysis. As can be seen, there is a strong overall
Current study 15.1 03.6 relationship between materialism and consumer
ethics. The first dimension is highly significant
Success component
RD survey 2 14.7 03.9 with a canonical correlation coefficient of over
RD survey 3 14.3 03.7 0.3. It indicates a shared variance of 9%. The
RD survey 4 13.8 04.1 second dimension, though not significant, has a
Current study 18.9 04.1 positive adjusted canonical correlation coefficient
and accounts for an additional 3% of the shared
Overall scale
variance. The total shared variance in the overall
RD survey 2 47.9 10.2
RD survey 3 46.7 08.3 model was over 12%. All of the standard test
RD survey 4 45.9 09.8 statistics are also highly significant. Thus, the
Current study 52.6 09.5 canonical correlational analysis provided strong
evidence of an overall relationship between the
n for School 1 = 122, n for School 2 = 92, Total n materialism scores and the consumer ethics
= 214. scores.
 Materialism and Consumer Ethics 141

TABLE II
Tests for normality of data

Scale Skewness z-score p-value Kurtosis z-score p-value Omnibus-K2 p-value

Ethics scales
Actively benefiting –0.66 –3.72 0.00* 4.01 –2.43 0.02* 19.76 0.00*
Passively benefiting –0.13 –0.80 0.42* 2.54 –1.61 0.19* –3.23 0.20*
Deceptive practices –0.03 –0.17 0.864 2.72 –0.75 0.45* –0.60 0.74*
No harm/no foul –0.47 –2.79 0.01* 2.98 –0.18 0.85* –7.84 0.02*
Materialism scales
Success –0.13 –0.78 0.43* 2.62 –1.21 0.23* –2.04 0.36*
Centrality –0.32 –1.96 0.05* 3.24 –0.92 0.36* –4.67 0.10*
Happiness –0.09 –0.58 0.56* 2.7* –0.84 0.43* –1.04 0.60*

* p < 0.05.

TABLE III
Canonical correlation analysis

Canonical correlation coefficients

Dimension Canonical correlation Adjusted canonical correlation Squared canonical correlation

1* 0.31 0.26 0.09

2 0.17 0.13 0.03
3 0.06 0.03 0.00

Test statistics
Statistic Value F Num DF Den DF Pr > F

Wilks’ lambda 0.88 2.27 12 545.3 0.0082

Pillai’s trace 0.12 2.24 12 624 0.0090
Roy’s greatest root 0.10 5.34 –4 208 0.0004
Hotelling-Lawley trace 0.13 2.29 12 614 0.0075

* Significant at 0.01 level.

To look at the specific relationships between were highly significant (p-values less than 0.0001)
the three dimensions of the materialism scale and and all of the signs were negative implying that
the four dimensions of the consumer ethics scale, higher levels of materialism were associated with
simple bivariate correlational analysis was con- lower ethical standards.
ducted. Table IV presents the results of this In looking across the three dimensions of
analysis. As can be seen, there was a strong and materialism, the strength of each’s relationship
consistent relationship between all of the dimen- with ethics was about equal. The average corre-
sions of the materialism scale and all of the lations across all four consumer ethics dimensions
dimensions of the ethics scale. The average were –0.35, –0.36, and –0.37 for success, cen-
absolute correlation across all pairs was 0.36 with trality, and happiness, respectively. Thus, while
the highest absolute correlation being 0.48 and peoples’ overall materialistic orientation is related
the lowest being 0.25. All of the correlations to their ethical standards, there is no specific
142 James A. Muncy and Jacqueline K. Eastman

TABLE IV
Correlations between materialism scores and consumer ethics scores

Consumer ethic scale Materialism scale

Success Centrality Happiness Average correlation

Actively benefiting –0.36 –0.35 –0.33 –0.35

Passively benefiting –0.25 –0.26 –0.33 –0.28
Deceptive practices –0.35 –0.35 –0.35 –0.35
No harm – no foul –0.44 –0.48 –0.45 –0.46
Average correlation –0.35 –0.36 –0.37 –0.36

All significant at the 0.0001 level.

A negative correlation implies that higher levels of materialism are associated with a lower propensity to see the
situations with ethical content as being wrong.

aspect or component of materialism that seems time (see Rudmin, 1992, for an interesting dis-
to be more important than the others in this cussion here). There is the drive to acquire more
relationship. and more things but there is only a limited time
Such was not the case with the ethics dimen- to do so. Taking shortcuts may mean ethical
sions. Actively benefiting and deceptive practices’ compromises. A materialistic person may be less
average correlations were close to the average likely to take the ethical high ground when doing
correlations across all variable. However, no harm so means sacrifice or even waiting to obtain the
– no foul seemed to have a stronger relationship material things he or she so deeply desires.
(–0.46) and passively benefiting seemed to have On the other hand, it could be argued that
a weaker relationship (–0.28). Again, however, people who are less ethical tend to be more
it is worth noting that even the weakest rela- materialistic. As one strives to meet their social
tionship was significant at the 0.00001 level. and/or spiritual needs, their focus oft times
moves from things to people. In contrast, when
one focuses on material possessions, such social
Discussion and/or spiritual needs begin to take a back seat
to acquiring possessions. Concern for others
The results of both the canonical correlational and/or spiritual convictions often, though cer-
analysis and the bivariate correlational analysis tainly not always, lead to higher ethical standards.
were consistent in that they both showed sub- As stated earlier, religiosity has been shown to be
stantial evidence of a relationship between negatively related to materialism while it seems
materialism and consumer ethics. This of course to be positively related to stricter ethical stan-
leads to many other interesting questions. The dards. Concern for others may also show the
most obvious ones relate to the reasons for such same relationships. The factors that may cause a
a relationship and the direction of the causality. person to be more materialistic may also cause
On one hand, materialism may lead to lower him or her to be less ethical.
ethical standards. As a person starts their mate- So, at this point the direction of causality is
rialistic quest, people, religion, values, etc., not known. In fact, it is likely that their may
appear to become less important as possessions actually be reciprocal causality. Unfortunately the
become the focus of his or her life. Thus, when study of materialism and ethics doesn’t easily lend
faced with an ethical choice, the acquisition of itself to tests of causality. The most convincing
the goods may begin to take primacy over ethical tests of causality are done within the context of
values. This is confounded with the constraint of an experimental design but neither materialism
 Materialism and Consumer Ethics 143

nor ethics lend themselves to manipulation in a be concerned that encouraging such materialism
typical experiment. Sorting out the causes for may have negative side effects among which
this relationship will certainly require great might be a decline in morals. In fact, some
creativity in future research. people attribute much of the crime problems of
Even without knowing the exact reason for the former Eastern Bloc countries with the
this relationship, it does raise some interesting materialistic influences of the West (Barrett,
issues as it relates to the social responsibility of 1992). So greater materialism may cause greater
marketers. If encouraging materialism also economic prosperity but also can cause greater
encourages lower ethical standards, then it could societal problems.
certainly be argued that it is not in society’s best
interest to encourage such materialism. If mar-
keters do encourage materialism, knowing that it Limitations and future research
will result in the additional societal burdens
associated with lower ethical standards, then it There are two major limitations of the current
could also be argued that they are acting in a study. The first is that the data only lent itself to
socially irresponsible way. correlational analysis. Thus, as mentioned above,
Implications also exist even if the causation is one can infer that a relationship does exist but
in the other direction (i.e. being less ethical tends he or she can not infer that materialism causes
to make a person more materialistic). Though lower ethical standards, that lower ethical stan-
encouraging materialism here would not lead to dards causes materialism, or that some third
lower ethical standards, it would amount to variable(s) cause the relationship. Obviously there
appealing to those holding lower ethical stan- is the need for future research. Since, as also
dards. This could be construed by some as con- mentioned above, neither materialism nor ethics
doning or even encouraging such lower ethical lend themselves to experimental manipulation,
standards. In the days of relationship marketing, perhaps the only way that this can be addressed
one might also question the prudence of tar- is through some sort of causal modeling (e.g.
geting consumers which one knows have lower Lens modeling). However, it is unlikely that we
ethical standards as consumers. will be able to definitively differentiate the cause
Marketers can often package an item in many and effect in this relationship. But this is certainly
different ways. For example, BMW had a great an area for future research.
materialistic appeal in the 1980s but has recently The second limitation was also discussed
moved towards a quality emphasis (Goldman, above. It was the nature of the sample. The
1991, 1994; Henry, 1991; Plumb, 1992). This is sample was drawn from business students at two
in part due to a change in psychographics and major United States universities. The materialism
demographics of its target market, but it also does scores one would obtain from this group would
illustrate that the same product can be packaged probably not extrapolate to the rest of the United
either materialistically or based on other appeals. States population much less the general popula-
Given the choice between a materialistic and a tion. However, it should also be noted that the
nonmaterialistic appeal, firms concerned with purpose of the current study was not to make
some of the possible detrimental effects of mate- point estimations about the general levels of
rialism might choose the latter. materialism or consumer ethics but to rather look
The relationship between materialism and at the relationship between the two. Thus, it is
ethics may be significant in macromarketing the covariance that is of importance to the
as well. For example, as China is developing current study and not the absolute scores on
economically, it is apparently becoming more either variable. Though there would be reason to
materialistic (Forden, 1993). In fact, the gov- expect that the business students would differ
ernment may actually be encouraging such from the general population in terms of overall
materialism in hopes that it will provide greater materialism (as was found) there is no such
economic growth (McGregor, 1992). One might compelling reason to assume that the relationship
144 James A. Muncy and Jacqueline K. Eastman

between materialism and ethics would be dif- panies, at some point, to sell their products by
ferent for students than for the whole popula- encouraging materialism. It may also be short-
tion. Thus, though one might find some sighted for countries to encourage unbridled
differences in the magnitude of the relationship materialism in order to spur economic growth.
if one went to a general population, it is doubtful The current paper did not answer all of the
that the identified relationship would disappear. questions about materialism and consumer ethics.
This of course is a topic for future research. Indeed, it is just a starting place for studying this
The current research was not intended to be, issue. However, it appears to be the first to
nor do we even wish to suggest that it is, the final empirically document that a relationship does
definitive statement on the relationship between exist between people’s ethical standards and their
materialism and consumers’ ethical standards. ethical concerns. Further research is needed to
Our contribution is much more modest. We have develop a complete understanding of this
simply used some of the recent developments in relationship.
the measurement of materialism and consumer
ethics to study the question as to whether or not
such a relationship even exists. If we had found References
in our study that no such relationship exists, then
this would have implied that it might not be Barrett, A.: 1992, ‘Crime Waves Spread Very
Democratically In Czechoslovakia; Even Toilet
fruitful to further study this topic. However,
Paper Is Locked Away As New Breed Of Thief
given that we found strong and consistent rela- Hails Western Materialism’, The Wall Street Journal
tionships between the dimensions of materialism (Nov. 6), B7B.
and the dimensions of consumer ethics, then we Belk, R. W.: 1985, ‘Materialism: Trait Aspects of
can conclude the opposite – that there is indeed Living in the Material World’, Journal of Consumer
potential insight that can be gained by further Research 12(3), 265–280.
investigations into this topic. Belk, R. W.: 1988, ‘Third World Consumer Culture’,
Research in Marketing (Suppl. 4), 102–127.
Crispell, D.: 1993, ‘Materialism Among Minorities;
Summary and conclusion Blacks Are The Most Likely To Say “Flaunt It”,
Asians Are The Least’, American Demographics 15(8),
The current paper investigated the relationship 14–16.
D’Agostino, R. B., A. Belanger and R. B.
between materialism and consumer ethics. The
D’Agostino, Jr.: 1990, ‘A Suggestion for Using
results were strong and consistent. Consumers Powerful and Informative Tests of Normality’, The
who are more materialistic seem to show less American Statisticial 44(4), 316–321.
concern for ethical issues. Though this does not Durning, A. T.: 1992, ‘What Malls and Materialism
necessarily mean that all consumers who are are Doing to the Planet’, The Washington Post 115,
materialistic have low ethical standards. Indeed, C3.
it is possible and maybe even likely that many Ellis, S. R.: 1991, ‘A Factor Analytic Investigation of
materialistic consumer do have great concerns for Belk’s Structure of the Materialism Construct’,
ethical issues. However, on average, those being Advances in Consumer Research 19, 688–695.
more materialistic are also show less ethical Fawcett, A. W.: 1994, ‘“Sunday Best” Becoming
concerns as consumers. More of a Daily Ritual’, Advertising Age 65(7),
It is still unclear what causes this relationship. S-10.
Feldman, L. P.: 1971, ‘Societal Adaptation: A New
This is not the kind of question that is easy to
Challenge for Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 35,
answer. However, the possibility does exist that 54–60.
causing one to become more materialistic may Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, ‘A
also cause him or her to have lower ethical stan- Contingency Framework for Understanding
dards. If this is indeed the direction (or one of Ethical Decision Making in Marketing’, Journal of
the directions) of the causality, then it could be Marketing 49, 87–96.
argued that it is socially irresponsible for com- Forden, S. G.: 1993, ‘China Embraces New
 Materialism and Consumer Ethics 145

Revolution: Designer Fashion’, WWD 165(98), Values Orientation for Materialism and its
1–3. Measurement: Scale Development and Validation’,
Fournier, S. and M. L. Richins: 1991, ‘Some Journal of Consumer Research 19(3), 303–316.
Theoretical and Popular Notions Concerning Rudmin, F.: 1992, ‘Materialism and Militarism: De
Materialism’, Journal of Social Behavior and Tocqueville on America’s Hopeless Hurry to
Personality 6(6), 403–413. Happiness’, in F. Rudmin and M. Richins (eds.),
Goldman, D.: 1991, ‘In More Austere Era, BMW Meaning, Measure, and Morality of Materialism
Tries to Shake Image as Yuppie Vehicle’, Adweek (Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT),
Eastern Edition 32(10), 4. pp. 110–112.
Goldman, K.: 1994, ‘BMW Pins Hopes on Image Rudmin, F. and M. Richins: 1992, Meaning, Measure,
of Affordability and Safety’, Wall Street Journal and Morality of Materialism (Association for
( January 17). Consumer Research, Provo, UT).
Henry, J.: 1991, ‘BMW Positions New 3 Series as Vitell, S. J., J. R. Lumpkin and M. Y. A. Rawwas:
Guilt-Free Car for 90’s: Seeks Image of Social and 1991, ‘Consumer Ethics: An Investigation of the
Environmental Responsibility for 1992 325i Ethical Beliefs of Elderly Consumers’, Journal of
Model’, Automotive News 5393. Business Ethics 10, 365–375.
McGregor, J.: 1992, ‘China’s Cadres Bank on Vitell, S. J. and J. Muncy: 1992, ‘Consumer Ethics:
Consumerism; to Save the Party, Materialism is An Empirical Investigation of Factors Influencing
Added to List of Ideals’, The Wall Street Journal, A6. Ethical Judgements of the Final Consumer’, Journal
Muncy, J. A. and S. J. Vitell: 1992, ‘Consumer Ethics: of Business Ethics 11, 585–598.
An Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of the Final
Consumer’, Journal of Business Research 24,
297–311. College of Business Administration,
Plumb, S. E.: 1992, ‘“Yuppie-Mobile” Days are Over, Valdosta State University,
Says BMW’, Ward’s Auto World 28(12), 61. Valdosta, GA 31698,
Richins, M. L. and S. Dawson: 1992, ‘A Consumer U.S.A.