Seeking Certainty via Brands: An Examination of

Materialism and Brand Resonance

ARIC RINDFLEISCH
NANCY WONG
JAMES E. BURROUGHS











2

































Aric Rindfleisch is associate professor of marketing at University of Wisconsin-Madison, School
of Business, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 and visiting professor of marketing at Tilburg
University, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands (aric@bus.wisc.edu). Nancy Wong is assistant
professor of marketing at Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Management, Atlanta,
Georgia 30332 (nancy.wong@mgt.gatech.edu). James E. Burroughs is assistant professor of
commerce at University of Virginia, McIntire School of Commerce, Charlottesville, Virginia
22904 (burroughs@virginia.edu). The authors thank Zeynep Arsel, Susan Broniarczyk, Ed
Fischer, Steve Krause, Trey Maxham, Tracy Melin, David Mick, Christine Moorman, George
Moschis, John Tan, and seminar participants at Tilburg University and the 2004 Maastricht
University Marketing Camp for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. This
research was funded by CIBER grants from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Georgia
Institute of Technology and benefited from a grant from the Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research awarded to the first author.




3



ABSTRACT


Consumers across many parts of the globe place considerable value on the acquisition of material
objects. Over the past two decades, researchers have sought to establish how materialism is
formed and how this value influences individual and collective well-being. Although these
studies have made substantial contributions to our understanding of materialism, they shed little
light on this values influences on brand consumption. Our research seeks to address this gap by
examining the relationship between materialism and brand resonance. Drawing insights from
research on material values, cognitive needs, and branding, we suggest that individuals with high
levels of materialism will exhibit strong ties to the brands they consume as a means of coping
with uncertainty. We test this premise by conducting an initial study among 363 Americans, as
well as a replication and extension-focused study among 300 Singaporeans. Our results provide
strong support for our conceptualization and suggest that materialism encourages consumers to
form strong connections with their brands. These results present a new perspective of
materialism by suggesting that highly materialistic individuals are not just selfish status seekers
but also communal meaning seekers.




4
Nearly 50 years ago, the noted economist John Kenneth Galbraith suggested that
affluence creates a number of unintended consequences (Galbraith 1958). One particular
consequence that has attracted a substantial amount of scholarly attention is the rise of
materialism (i.e., the importance that an individual places on the acquisition of material objects)
as a social value. In particular, this attention has focused on the nature (e.g., Belk 1985; Richins
and Dawson 1992), antecedents (e.g., Kasser et al. 1995; Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Denton
1997), and consequences (e.g., Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Kasser and Ryan 1993) of
material values. While this research has provided a number of important insights, it sheds little
light on how materialism relates to specific consumption beliefs or behaviors (for exceptions, see
Kasser and Sheldon 2000 and Richins 1994a, 1994b). In recent years, several prominent
consumer researchers (e.g., Holt 1997; Thompson and Troester 2002) have expressed concern
about the manner and degree to which values such as materialism influence consumption
activity. Thus, the dearth of research on how materialism impacts consumer beliefs and
behaviors is a notable gap.
Our research addresses this gap by examining materialisms influence on the relations
that consumers form with their brands. Specifically, we assess the manner and degree to which
materialism is associated with brand resonance. Following Keller (2003), we view brand
resonance as the extent to which a consumer develops strong behavioral, psychological, and
social bonds with the brands s/he consumes. Drawing from prior research in material values,
cognitive needs, and branding, we offer a conceptual framework of how materialism relates to
these varied aspects of brand resonance. Our key proposition is that materialistic individuals
have a high need for certainty, and that they often seek to fulfill this need by establishing a
strong relationship with the brands they consume. This proposition presents a rather novel




5
perspective, as the extant materialism literature broadly implies that materialistic individuals are
largely dissatisfied with the objects they own and are constantly searching for newer, better, and
more expensive possessions.
Over the past decade, the notion that materialism can serve as a values-based means of
coping with uncertainty has emerged as a solid empirical generalization (see Kasser 2002 for a
review). Our research aims to enrich and extend this premise by assessing how need for certainty
influences the degree to which materialistic individuals establish resonance with their brands. As
a result we hope to show that materialism is a value that deserves greater recognition from
consumer researchers, as it may influence not only how consumers feel about themselves, but
also how they actually consume.
The notion that brands serve as a mechanism for coping with uncertainty is a recurrent
theme in the consumer behavior literature, and there have been a number of investigations of the
role brands play in bolstering ones self-concept (e.g., Belk 1988; Escalas and Bettman 2003;
Fournier 1998; Mick and Buhl 1992). We seek to contribute to this body of research by
suggesting that, for individuals in affluent economies, the linkage between uncertainty and brand
connection may flow through their material values. In essence, our research seeks to uncover a
link between cognitive needs, consumption values, and brand relationships that has thus far
eluded the attention of most consumer researchers.
In order to test our premise about the relationship between materialism and brand
resonance, we conducted two studies. The first was a survey among 363 Americans designed to
establish the basic relationship between materialism and brand resonance. The second was a
survey among 300 Singaporeans, designed to replicate the results from the first study and
examine need for certainty as the underlying root behind materialisms linkage with brand




6
resonance. In aggregate, these two studies support our thesis and suggest that materialism has a
strong influence on how consumers relate (at both a psychological and a social level) to their
brands. Thus, our findings enrich the existing notion that materialists are selfish status seekers,
by showing that they also appear to be communal meaning seekers.

LITERATURE REVIEW
As noted earlier, understanding the consequences of material values is a focal area of
interest in the materialism literature. The majority of these studies investigate the influence of
materialism on indicants of individual well-being such as happiness or life satisfaction (e.g.,
Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Kasser and Ryan 1993, 1996; Mick 1996; Richins and Dawson
1992). In essence, these studies focus on the implications of materialism for broader life-related
consequences rather than on materialisms influences upon specific consumption-related beliefs
or behaviors. However, there are a few exceptions to this norm. Most notably, in a set of two
related studies, Richins (1994a, 1994b) finds that highly materialistic individuals prefer
possessions that are publicly visible and high in prestige, and that they are strongly influenced by
the perceptions of others when selecting products. Likewise, Wong and Ahuvia (1998) find that
materialism is positively related to preference for luxury goods that symbolize social status.
Similar findings are also reported by both Holt (1998) and Prendergast and Wong (2003). The
use of possessions as visible status badges is also congruent with populist notions of materialism,
such as Veblens (1899) historic depiction of conspicuous consumption. As summarized by
Tatzel (2002, p. 111), the product preferences of individuals high in materialism appear to be
highly responsive to externals (appearance and prestige).
According to Richins (1994a), a focus on acquiring possessions that serve as external
symbols of status and prestige is often driven by internal insecurities. This proposition has been




7
supported by a number of studies which reveal that highly materialistic individuals display low
self-esteem, high self-monitoring, and considerable social anxiety (Achenreiner 1997; Chatterjee
and Hunt 1996; Schroeder and Dugal 1995). Thus, these individuals appear to be seeking a
means to satisfy their internal cognitive needs via external displays of consumption prowess (i.e.,
acquiring and displaying expensive products and brands). Our conceptualization leverages and
extends this idea by suggesting that internal insecurity in the form of a need for certainty may
also influence not only the products that materialistic individuals acquire but also the degree to
which they display strong levels of resonance with the brands they own.
The idea that materialism engenders brand resonance can be gleaned in a few select
materialism-related studies (e.g., Micken and Roberts 1999; Richins 1994a, 1994b). However,
for the most part, this idea runs counter to the widespread notion that materialists are generally
dissatisfied with their current stock of material possessions and are constantly looking for newer
and better products to satisfy their acquisitive urges (Belk 1985; Galbraith 1958; Kohn 1999;
Richins and Dawson 1992). Cushman (1990, p. 600) portrays these materialistic urges as a
ceaseless yearning to acquire and consume. This yearning is clearly reflected in popular
conceptualizations and measures of materialism, such as Richins and Dawsons Material Values
Scale (see Appendix A). While we acknowledge that materialists characteristically display high
levels of acquisitiveness, the effect of materialism on satisfaction, loyalty, or other brand-related
measures remains an open question, as we were unable to locate any empirical studies of these
relationships. Our research goal is to address this knowledge gap.










8
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
In order to understand the relationship between materialism and brand resonance, we first
examine the cognitive needs of materialistic individuals and then discuss how these needs
influence the manner in which they relate to the brands they buy and use.
The Cognitive Drivers of Materialism
In recent years, the issue of materialism has garnered a substantial amount of attention
from social commentators (e.g., Kohn 1999; Rosenblatt 1999; Rowley 2005; Schor 1998;
Seligman 2002). With a few notable exceptions, this coverage has been largely negative, as most
commentators cast materialism in a decidedly pejorative tone. For example, Schor (1998) depicts
materialistic individuals as trapped in a never ending cycle of work and spend that comes at the
expense of family and other important life pursuits. This unfavorable opinion appears to be
shared by the broader public, as Fournier and Richins (1991) found that 82% of the adults they
interviewed described materialists as excessively status conscious, insensitive, insecure, and
detached. Likewise, a recent poll among a representative sample of American adults reveals that
88% of those polled believe that our society is too materialistic (New Dream 2004).
In short, being a materialist is not a desirable trait. Moreover, there is substantial
evidence indicating that materialism is maladaptive, as materialistic individuals often display low
levels of happiness and satisfaction and high levels of neuroticism and depression (see
Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002 for a review). Nevertheless, research suggests that materialistic
values have risen dramatically in recent decades, both domestically (Astin et al. 2002) and
internationally (Ger and Belk 1999). This raises a perplexing question: Why are so many people
materialistic despite the fact that this value is both socially undesirable and psychologically
detrimental?




9
Existing research reveals many potential drivers of materialism, including family
socialization (Kasser et al. 1995; Rindfleisch et al. 1997), mass-media influences (Churchill and
Moschis 1979; Shrum, Burroughs, and Rindfleisch 2005), and existential anxiety (Arndt et al.
2004; Kasser and Sheldon 2000). One common thread through many of these theoretical drivers
is the notion that materialism is a value that is motivated by a high need for certainty.
The idea that material goods function as a stabilizing force is a core thesis of McCackens
(1988) seminal treatise on the relationship between culture and consumption, as he suggests that
material objects give intangible ideas such as culture (and ones place in it) a certain
concreteness (p. 131). The identity value of material objects has also been noted by
materialism scholars, as both Kasser et al. (1995) and Rindfleisch et al. (1997) observe that
individuals reared in turbulent family environments display high levels of materialism in later
life. Additionally, recent research on terror management reveals that the insecurity raised by
contemplating ones death often stimulates materialistic desires (Arndt et al. 2004; Kasser and
Sheldon 2000). This supposition is also bolstered by a number of studies that directly connect
materialism with a desire for certainty (e.g., Burroughs and Rindfleisch 1997; Chang and Arkin
2002; Micken and Roberts 1998). For example, Chang and Arkin (2002, p. 403), find evidence
of a causal link betweenfeelings of uncertainty and the materialistic value orientation. In
sum, materialism appears to be, in large part, driven by a cognitive need for certainty.
Brands as Certainty Providers
In seeking to satisfy their cognitive need for certainty, we suggest that materialistic
individuals may turn to branded products (and services) for such assurance. Because the
materialism literature has not focused on this linkage, we draw support for this proposition
largely from research in both the cognitive needs and branding literatures.




10
The need for certainty in the form of desire for structure, order, and/or predictability, has
received considerable attention from psychologists, who suggest that individuals who are
deficient in this need often seek out sources of certainty and security in various dimensions of
their lives such as work, family, or religion (e.g., Barrett et al. 2005; Blanchard-Fields et al.
2004; Elovainio and Kivimaki 1999). As an example, Webster and Kruglanskis (1994) research
on the need for cognitive closure reveals that college students who exhibit a high need for
certainty are more likely to select careers that are highly ordered and structured (i.e., accounting)
compared to individuals low in need for certainty. Similarly, Saroglou (2002) finds that
individuals high in need for cognitive closure often seek security in the form of fundamental
religious beliefs. In essence, individuals appear to channel their need for certainty into outlets
that provide a structured set of meanings (Baumeister 1991). This is congruent with Richins
(1994a) assertion that materialistic individuals often seek to acquire branded products as a form
of meaning appropriation.
The idea that brands serve as a source of meaning is a fundamental belief among
consumer researchers (Belk, Wallendorf, and Sherry 1989; Levy 1959; McCracken 1988).
According to this view, brands serve as vehicles capable of conferring cultural meanings to their
owners. This belief also seems to be widely shared by brand managers, as leading brands (e.g.,
Apple, Nike, Starbucks, etc) are often strategically positioned as conveyors of authentic cultural
meanings that are intended to resonate with their particular target markets (Holt 2002).
Although the idea that brands convey meaning is well established, the particular
consumer needs that these meanings are intended to assuage has received little explicit
recognition in the branding literature. However, a careful examination of recent research on both
self and communal brand relationships reveals that the need for certainty is a common, yet




11
under-recognized, theme. For instance, Fourniers (1998) influential work on consumer-brand
relationships suggests that these relationships often provide consumers with a sense of structure,
order, and predictability. As an example, consider her depiction of Karens (one of her key
informants) life:
Karen also finds herself torn between a desire for change and a longing for stabilityAt
times she finds herself desperate for the return to order and predictability that can help
assuage what she experiences as an out of control life (Fournier 1998, p. 353).

Fournier observes that one of the means by which Karen attempts to exert greater control
comes from her relationship to the brands she buys, as:
They [brands] help Karen cope with the current concerns that dominate her day. Karens
habits attain deep meaning by delivering on needs for structure, predictability, and
routines that only stable brand relationships can provide (Fournier 1998, p. 354).

The notion that relationships with brands can help consumers re-assert some sense of
certainty and order by establishing a set of predictable routines is also evident in Thompson
(1996), who finds that working mothers commonly rely on material objects to help them attain
feelings of control and structure. The search for certainty via ownership and consumption of
branded products appears to be a widely accepted strategy among many consumers living in
affluent market economies, as the consumption ethos that undergirds this economic structure
confers material objects with sacred qualities (Belk et al. 1989), promotes product ownership as a
means of meeting life goals (Mick and Buhl 1992), and cloaks brands with engaging
personalities (Aaker 1996).
In addition to these self-brand relationships, brands also appear capable of enhancing
certainty by helping consumers establish meaningful connections with fellow brand users. Thus
far, the emerging literature on brand communities has emphasized their celebratory and
communal qualities (e.g., Kozinets 2001; McAlexander, Schouten, and Koening 2002; Muiz




12
and OGuinn 2001; Muiz and Schau 2005). However, these communities also appear, at least in
part, to be motivated by a desire for structure and order (Kates 2002). Despite their libratory
nature, brand communities also exhibit a considerable amount of conservatory qualities. For
example, rituals and traditions play an important role in these communities (e.g., Saab
community members who flash their lights when encountering other Saabs on the road, Muiz
and OGuinn 2001, p. 422). Although the extant brand community literature largely views these
rituals and traditions as means of fostering collective identity, they can also serve as a means of
fulfilling an individuals desire for structure and order (Durkheim 1915). Muiz and OGuinns
(2001, p. 412) definition of brand communities as based on a structured set of social
relationships (italics added) provides support for this interpretation.
Along with rituals and traditions, brand communities also appear to exhibit religious-like
qualities (Kozinets 2001; Muiz and Schau 2005). Much like a religious congregation, members
of a brand community create a shared mythos about a brands origins and exchange stories about
its miraculous accomplishments. Brand community scholars typically interpret these religious
features as providing evidence that community members are trying to fulfill their need for sacred
and transformative experiences (e.g., Muiz and Schau 2005). We agree with this interpretation,
but also suggest that these religious features may also signal a need for structure and order,
which has been shown to be a common motive underlying the search for religious experiences
(Stark and Glock 1968). In sum, it appears that the establishment of both self and communal
brand connections may be a strategy for assuaging a need for certainty, order, and predictability.
To recap, our review of the materialism, cognitive needs, and branding literature resulted
in two key conceptual claims: (1) materialistic individuals have a high need for certainty, and (2)
the establishment of self and communal brand connections appears to be a strategy for fulfilling




13
this need. We test these conceptual claims via two survey studies among two different
populations. The first study, conducted in the United States, provides an exploratory examination
of our general thesis. The second study, conducted in Singapore, provides both a replication of
Study 1 as well as a more direct test of our specific claims.

STUDY 1

Participants and Procedures
We assessed the relationship between materialism and brand resonance via a nationwide
(U.S.) mail survey in order to obtain results that were as generalizable as possible. The names for
this survey were obtained from a commercial mailing list of 2,000 American adults. We mailed
each individual a survey, a cover letter explaining the importance and confidentiality of our
research, and a postage-paid reply envelope. As an incentive to participate, we also included a
sweepstakes entry form that respondents could return for a chance to win a $300 gift card for
Best Buy. Approximately three weeks after this initial mailing, non-respondents were sent a
reminder postcard, and three weeks later they were sent a second survey packet. As
recommended by Armstrong and Overton (1977), we tested for potential non-response bias via
an extrapolation method comparing early versus late respondents. There were no significant
differences in means or variances between early versus late respondents for our key measures.
Fifty-six surveys were returned as undeliverable, reducing our effective sampling frame to
1,944 potential respondents. We received responses from 382 individuals, for a 20% response
rate. This response rate is comparable to other recent mail surveys targeted to the general U.S.
population (e.g., Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Wong, Rindfleisch, and Burroughs 2003).
After eliminating 19 surveys due to severe missing data, we were left with a final sample of 363
respondents across 46 states. Of these 363 respondents, 51% were female, 82% were white, 6%




14
were African-American, 3% were Hispanic, and 2% were Asian. The mean age of our
respondents was 48 (range: 20 to 87), their average household income was $52,000, and 43%
had earned at least a bachelors degree. Other than education (which is higher than national
norms, as is common in most mail surveys), the demographic composition of our sample closely
mirrors that of the U.S. adult population (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).
Measures and Validation
Construction of our survey instrument began with a careful review of the extant literature
in order to locate relevant measures for our key constructs. We were able to find existing
measures that we could either directly apply or slightly adapt to fit our research goals. We
pretested our instrument among 45 American adults; this pretesting revealed that our measures
were generally sound.
Two product categories were the focus of this study. Respondents were asked to record
both the make of car they currently own (and primarily drive), as well as the brand of jeans they
last purchased for themselves. We selected autos and jeans because they: (1) exhibit a high
penetration rate among the US population, (2) represent two different types of product categories
(i.e., a commonly purchased item versus big ticket investment), and (3) are both publicly
consumed products, thus allowing us to relate our findings to prior materialism research which
focuses on these types of products (e.g., Richins 1994a, 1994b). In addition, our pretests
indicated that both product categories exhibited considerable variance in their degree of brand
resonance. Of our 363 respondents, 339 (93%) owned a car and 294 (81%) owned a pair of jeans.
The measures used to assess our key constructs are described next. Unless stated
otherwise, these measures were assessed using a seven-point Likert scale (7 = strongly agree).




15
Item wording and specific measurement properties are provided in the Appendix and key
measure summary statistics are listed in Table 1.
Brand Resonance. In congruence with the views of several leading branding scholars (e.g.,
Aaker 1996; Keller 2003), we recognize that brand resonance encompasses a range of brand-
related activities and orientations from simple repeat purchase to deep emotional ties. Thus, we
assessed three different manifestations of brand resonance, brand loyalty, self-brand connection
and brand community. We define brand loyalty as intent to repurchase a preferred brand in the
future (Oliver 1999), brand connection as a personal and special attachment to a brand (Escalas
and Bettman 2003), and brand community as identification and connection with others who use
the same brand (Keller 2003). We measured brand loyalty using a four-item scale developed by
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). This scale contains items that tap both behavioral intent and
attitudinal loyalty. We measured brand connection using Escalas and Bettmans (2003) five-item
measure of self-brand connection. This measure assesses the degree to which a consumer has
integrated a brand into his or her self-concept. Finally, we assessed brand community using
Kellers (2003) four-item measure of brand community. All measures displayed strong reliability
(loyalty: CR
autos
= .95, CR
jeans
= .87; connection: CR
autos
= .98, CR
jeans
= .98; community: CR
autos

= .94, CR
jeans
= .94).
Although loyalty, connection, and community represent different aspects of the broader
construct of brand resonance (Keller 2003), it is possible that consumers can repeatedly purchase
a brand without forming a strong attachment to it. Conversely, consumers can form strong
attachments to products that they seldom (or ever) purchase. However, the branding literature
suggests that as consumers repeatedly purchase and use a brand over time, emotional attachment
often emerges (Keller 2003). As a result, loyalty, connection, and community naturally covary.




16
Thus, these facets of brand attachments offer related but distinct looks at the broader construct of
brand resonance, and are positively correlated (r
autos
= .45 to .75; r
jeans
= .52 to .81).
Materialism. We assessed materialism using the updated (Richins 2004) 15-item Material
Values Scale (MVS). Over the past decade, the MVS has been successfully applied in dozens of
studies and regularly displays good psychometric properties in domestic settings. This scale
displayed strong internal consistency (CR = .77).
A median split of our sample into high versus low materialists (median = 3.60) reveals that
the top four selected brands of both automobiles and jeans were quite similar between these two
groups. The top automobile brands for high materialists were: Ford (18%), Chevrolet (15%),
Honda (8%), and Toyota (8%), while the top brands for low materialists were: Ford (17%),
Chevrolet (15%), Toyota (14%), and Honda (8%). The top jeans brands for high materialists
were: Levis (34%), Wrangler (13%), Old Navy (5%), and Lee (5%), while the top brands for
low materialists were: Levis (24%), Lee (18%), Wrangler (12%), and Faded Glory (4%). This
suggests that, at least for these two product categories, materialism appears to have a modest
influence on brand selection.
Hedonism and Power. As noted by values scholars (Rokeach 1973; Schwartz 1992),
individuals possess multiple values and these values share an intricate relationship. Thus, they
caution against research that focuses on individual values in isolation. In order to address this
concern, and also provide an assessment of materialisms unique influence on brand resonance,
our survey also measured the closely related values of hedonism and power. As recently
demonstrated by Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002), these two general values are strongly
correlated with materialism. We assessed these two values using items (two-items for each)
drawn from Schwartzs (1992) Values Scale. Both measures displayed solid reliability




17
(CR
hedonism
= .78; CR
power
= .81). As expected, both of these two values are positively related to
materialism (r
hedonism
= .40; r
power
= .53).
Religiosity. In order to round out our value profile, our survey also included a measure of
religious values using Putney and Middletons (1961) six-item Religious Importance Scale
(RIS). Prior research suggests that religiosity is positively related to both need for certainty
(Saroglou 2002) and brand loyalty (Djupe 2000). Thus, in theory, religiosity could serve as an
alternative route by which consumers channel their need for certainty into brand resonance.
Consequently, this value provides a means by which we can assess the distinctiveness of
materialisms influence upon brand resonance. This scale displayed good reliability (CR = .94).
Control Variables. In addition to these key measures, we also collected data on a number of
control variables. Specifically, we used self-reported single item measures to assess respondents
age, gender, education, and income because prior research has shown that these variables may be
related to materialism (Belk 1985; Richins 2004). In addition, to avoid the dangers of social
desirability response (SDR) bias (Mick 1996), we assessed SDR using 15 items from Paulhuss
(1992) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) scale (CR = .68).
To account for alternative (i.e., brand-based) influences on brand resonance, we also
assessed respondents level of satisfaction with their brand using five items from the
Consumption Satisfaction Scale developed by Oliver (1997). This scale displayed strong
reliability (CR
autos
= .96, CR
jeans
= .96).
Measure Validation. We validated our multi-item measures via confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) by dividing these measures into two broad categories: (1) brand-related
measures, and (2) values-related measures. As noted by Campbell and Fiske (1959) this grouping
of similar constructs provides a stringent test of construct validity. Our brand-related CFAs (one




18
for autos and one for jeans) included brand loyalty, self-brand connection, brand community, and
product satisfaction. The fit for both models was acceptable [autos:
2
(69) = 182, CFI = .98,
NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .071; jeans:
2
(69) = 257, CFI = .96, NNFI = .94, RMSEA = .098], and
all items displayed strong loadings (average loading = .74) on their latent constructs. Our values-
related CFA included materialism, power, hedonism, and religiosity. The fit for this model was
solid [
2
(286) = 603, CFI = .93, NNFI = .92, RMSEA = .057], and all items displayed strong
loadings (average loading = .79) on their latent constructs.
We tested the discriminant validity of these measures by employing Fornell and Larckers
(1981) test of shared variance between pairs of latent constructs. The results of this test reveal
that the squared correlations between these pairs of constructs do not exceed the average
variance extracted for any single latent construct (p < .001). Thus, our measures display adequate
discriminant validity.
Finally, because cross-sectional, self-report surveys are susceptible to common method
variance (CMV) bias, we assessed the potential for this bias by conducting Harmons one factor
test as recommended by Podsakoff and Organ (1986). This test involves entering all of the items
for our latent variables into a single factor using CFA procedures. The fit statistics for this model
were quite poor [Autos:
2
(860) = 8182, CFI = .32, NNFI = .28, RMSEA = .23; Jeans:
2
(860)
= 6777, CFI = .34, NNFI = .31, RMSEA = .22], indicating that there is no general factor that
accounts for the majority of covariance in these variables, and providing evidence against the
presence of CMV bias in this sample.
Results and Discussion
We tested the relationship between material values and brand resonance through a series of
multiple regression analyses using our three brand resonance measures (i.e., loyalty, connection,




19
and community) as dependent variables and material values as the key predictor variable. In
order to control for the effects of socially desirable responding (SDR), alternative brand-based
influences and demographic factors, we also included measures of SDR, product satisfaction,
age, gender, income, and education as control variables. The results of these regressions are
listed at the top of Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, materialism exerts a negligible influence on brand loyalty for both
automobiles ( = -.01, ns) and jeans ( = .04, ns). In contrast, materialism has a significant effect
on both self-brand connection (SBC) and brand community (BC), for both automobiles (SBC:
= .19, p < .01; BC: = .26, p < .01) and jeans (SBC: = .22, p < .01, BC: = .23, p < .01). In
sum, materialism exhibits a positive influence on two out of the three measures of brand
resonance for both product categories, providing general support for our claim that materialists
attempt to manage uncertainty by establishing strong individual and communal relationships
with the brands they own. It is noteworthy that materialism is unrelated to the lowest (i.e.,
behavioral) level of brand resonance, but strongly related to the higher and more meaning-laden
levels of brand resonance. Moreover, these results are significant even after controlling for the
effects of product satisfaction, SDR, and other demographic variables.
In order to isolate the role of materialism on brand resonance (and help rule out alternative
explanations), we conducted two additional sets of regressions. The first set of regressions added
hedonism and power as additional predictors, while the second set of regressions added
religiosity as a predictor. Both sets of regressions also included materialism as well as all of the
control variables used in our first set of regressions. The results of these additional analyses are
provided in the middle and bottom portions of Table 2.




20
As seen in this table, hedonism has no significant effect on any of the three measures of
brand resonance for either automobiles or jeans, while power is positively related to brand
loyalty ( = .11, p < .05) and self-brand connection ( = .15, p < .01) for only automobiles. Thus,
the influence of these two general values upon brand resonance is considerably weaker than that
of materialism. Moreover, the inclusion of these additional value-based predictors has little
influence on the effect of materialism on self-brand connection (Autos: = .12, p < .05; Jeans:
= .17, p < .01), or brand community (Autos: = .24, p < .01; Jeans: = .20, p < .01). Likewise,
religiosity displays a significant effect on self-brand connections for jeans ( = .13, p < .01) and
brand community for both automobiles ( = .10, p < .05) and jeans ( = .15, p < .01). However,
the inclusion of this predictor has little influence on the effect of materialism on self-brand
connection (Autos: = .19, p < .01; Jeans: = .22, p < .01), or brand community (Autos: =
.26, p < .01; Jeans: = .23, p < .01). Thus, materialisms role upon brand resonance appears to
be unique from, and stronger than, the influence of hedonism, power-seeking, or religiosity.
In sum, our results suggest that materialism appears to engender strong levels of brand
resonance in the form of self and communal brand connections. However, the results of this
initial study are limited by both its scope and sample. Specifically, this study only investigated
two product categories and our sample consisted primarily of middle-class Americans.
Consequently, the robustness of these findings across other product categories and other cultural
groups remains to be seen. Furthermore, while the results of this initial study clearly point to a
relationship between materialism and brand resonance, they do not provide direct insight into the
potential cognitive needs that may underlie this relationship.






21

STUDY 2
Objective
The findings from Study 1 suggest that materialism is positively associated with brand
resonance in the form of self and communal brand connections rather than behavioral attachment
such as brand loyalty. In this second study, we seek to clarify and enrich these findings in three
ways. First, we examine the degree to which the effects of materialism are replicable across other
cultural settings (i.e., Asian and collectivist). Second, we test the robustness of these effects
using two new product categories (i.e. watches and cell phones). Third, we seek to uncover the
specific cognitive needs that may underlie these effects.
Participants and Procedures
We selected Singapore as a context for this second study because prior research suggests
that the meaning and implications of materialism in East Asian cultures differs from that of
Western cultures (Wong and Ahuvia 1998). Thus, an East Asian setting provides a strong test of
the robustness of our conceptualization about the relationship between materialism and brand
resonance.
Because mail surveys are rare in Singapore, we decided to conduct a mall intercept survey
(cf. Wong et al. 2003). We hired a leading Singaporean research firm to conduct this study and
obtain results from 300 respondents. In order to avoid translation difficulties, this survey was
written in English, Chinese, and Malay. Interviewers were situated at centrally-located shopping
malls, where they approached a total of 1170 individuals, of whom 300 agreed to participate
(26% response rate). Fifty-one percent of the respondents were female, their median age was 37
(range: 18 to 67), their median household income was $23,000, and 26% had earned at least a
bachelors degree. In terms of ethnicity, 66% were Chinese, 30% were Malay, and 3% were




22
Indian. In general, the demographic composition of this sample closely matches Singapores
population statistics (Statistics Singapore 2000).
Measures and Validation
Our survey instrument contained many of the same measures used in Study 1, along with a
set of new measures designed to directly assess our respondents cognitive needs. As before, we
included two sets of brand resonance measures; the first set asked respondents to focus on the
brand of cell phone they currently own, while the second set asked respondents to focus on the
brand of wristwatch that they last purchased for themselves. All 300 respondents owned both a
wristwatch and a cell phone.
Brand Resonance. For comparability purposes, we employed the same three measures of
brand resonance used in Study 1 (i.e., brand loyalty, self-brand connection, and brand
community). All three measures displayed strong reliability (loyalty: CR
watch
= .94, CR
phone
=
.96; connection: CR
watch
= .97, CR
phone
= .98; community: CR
watch
= .96, CR
phone
= .94). As
before, these three measures are positively correlated (r
watches
= .56 - .74; r
cell phones
= .62 - 84), as
they represent related dimensions of the broader construct of brand resonance.
Materialism. Prior applications of the Material Values Scale suggest that its psychometric
properties suffer when applied in East Asian settings due to its use of several reverse-worded
items (Wong et al. 2003). To avoid this complication, we assessed materialism among our
Singaporean respondents using the interrogative format of the MVS recently developed by Wong
et al. (2003). Essentially, this format replaces the directional items used in the original MVS with
a set of interrogative questions. This scale is composed of nine items and displayed good
reliability (CR = .71).




23
A median split of our sample into high versus low materialists (median = 4.22) reveals that
the top four selected brands of both watches and cell phones were nearly identical between these
two groups. The top watch brands for high materialists were: Swatch (15%), Seiko (12%), Rolex
(9%) and Casio (8%) while the top brands for low materialists were: Seiko (15%), Casio (11%),
Swatch (8%), and 25 Hours (8%). The top cell phone brands for high materialists were: Nokia
(80%), Sony-Ericsson (5%), Motorola (4%), and Siemens (4%) while the top brands for low
materialists were: Nokia (69%), Motorola (10%), and Siemens (7%), and Samsung (6%). As
seen in Study 1, these results suggest that materialism has only a modest influence on brand
choice for these two product categories.
Cognitive Needs. Our conceptual framework argues that materialism is positively related to
brand resonance because materialists have a high need for certainty and they look to brands to
fulfill this need. To assess the influence of this cognitive need, our survey included two specific
measures from the need for cognitive closure (NFCC) scale (Webster and Kruglanski 1994).
Conceptually, NFCC is defined as, the desire for a definite answer on some topicas opposed
to confusion and ambiguity (Kruglanski 1989, p. 14). In other words, NFCC represents a strong
desire for certainty. Individuals high in NFCC try to attain certainty by urgently seizing
incoming information when faced with a new decision problem and then permanently freezing
this information once a decision is reached (Kruglanski and Webster 1996). Over the past
decade, NFCC has received considerable attention among cognitive psychologists, who have
found it to be a strong predictor of information processing and decision-making styles (e.g.,
Kruglanski et al. 1997; Kruglanski et al. 1993; Neuberg et al. 1997).
The usefulness of NFCC for understanding customer behavior has recently captured the
interest of consumer researchers (e.g., Houghton and Grewal 2000; Kardes 1996; Vermeir et al.




24
2002). For example, Vermeir et al. (2002) show that individuals high in NFCC have greater
confidence in their brand choice decisions compared to individuals low in NFCC. Moreover,
NFCC has been shown to be conceptually and empirically valid across multiple cultures
(Kossowska et al. 2002). Thus, NFCC appears to be a generalizable concept that may be useful
for understanding the cognitive needs underlying materialisms link to brand resonance.
The NFCC scale was originally intended to assess five separate cognitive motives (i.e.,
need for order, need for predictability, closed-mindedness, intolerance of ambiguity, and
decisiveness) that were combined into an overall indicant of need for closure. However,
subsequent research has shown that these five dimensions do not load on a single construct, and
there has been considerable debate as to how to most appropriately employ this measure (e.g.,
Neuberg et al. 1997). It is now widely recommended that each dimension be analyzed as a
separate indicant of NFCC, with the choice of dimensions being guided by the research
objectives. Because brand resonance is fundamentally about stability and certainty (Chaudhuri
and Holbrook 2001; Cunningham 1956), we focused on need for order and need for
predictability as our key dimensions. Due to psychometric problems with the original scale, we
used a refined version developed by Houghton and Grewal (2000). These two dimensions (four
items each) displayed good reliability (CR
Order
= .96, CR
Predictability
= .97) and, as would be
expected, are positively correlated (r = .66).
Control Variables. As control measures, we assessed respondents age, education, gender,
income, SDR (CR = .62), and product satisfaction (CR
watch
= .98, CR
phone
= .97) using the same
measure as in Study 1. In addition, because watches and cell phones are often purchased as gift
items, we included a question that asked subjects if they purchased their watch (phone)
themselves, or received it as a gift.




25
Measure Validation. Following Study 1, our confirmatory factor analyses focused on two
sets of measures (i.e., brand-related and value/need-related). Our brand-related CFA included
brand loyalty, self-brand connection, brand community, and product satisfaction. As before, we
specified two separate models for our two product categories. Both models displayed good fit
statistics [watches:
2
(69) = 178, CFI = .96, NNFI = .95, RMSEA = .075; cell phones:
2
(69) =
181, CFI = .97, NNFI = .96, RMSEA = .074], and all items had strong loadings and good
composite reliabilities (see Appendix A). Our second CFA included material values, need for
structure and need for predictability. This model had good fit statistics [
2
(114) = 282, CFI =
.93, NNFI = .91, RMSEA = .072], and strong factor loadings and composite reliabilities (see
Appendix A).
As before, we tested the discriminant validity of our measures by applying Fornell and
Larckers (1981) test of shared variance between each pair of latent constructs. The results of this
test reveal that the squared correlations between each pair of constructs do not exceed the
average variance extracted for each single latent construct (p < .001). Thus, we concluded that
our measures display adequate discriminant validity.
Finally, we assessed the potential for common method variance bias in our sample by
conducting a Harmons one factor test in which we entered all of the items for our latent
variables into a single factor using CFA. The fit statistics for this model were quite poor
[Watches:
2
(527) = 4027, CFI = .46, NNFI = .42, RMSEA = .19; Cellphones:
2
(527) = 4291,
CFI = .49, NNFI = .46, RMSEA = .23], indicating that there is no general factor that accounts for
the majority of covariance in these variables, and providing evidence against the presence of
CMV bias in this sample.





26
Results and Discussion
Replication of Study 1. We examined the relationship between materialism and brand
resonance using a series of multiple regression analyses. As before, our dependent measures
were brand loyalty, self-brand connection, and band community with materialism as the key
independent variable and age, education, gender, income, product satisfaction, SDR, and mode
of acquisition (self purchase or gift) entered as control variables.
The results of these analyses are reported in Table 3A. As shown in this table, materialism
is positively and significantly related to two indicants of brand resonance for both watches
(connection: = .18, p < .01; community: = .20, p < .01) and cell phones (connection: = .23,
p < .01; community: = .21, p < .01). As found in Study 1, materialism is unrelated to brand
loyalty for both product categories (watch: = .07, ns; cell phone: = .06, ns). Collectively,
these results largely replicate our findings from Study 1, and lend further support to the notion
that materialism is positively related to higher levels of brand resonance in the form of individual
and communal brand connections but unrelated to the lower level of behavioral loyalty.
Examining the Influence of Cognitive Needs. In order to probe more deeply into the nature
of the relationship between materialism and brand resonance, we investigated the cognitive
motives that may underlie this relationship, namely the need for order (NFO) and the need for
predictability (NFP) (Kruglanski et al. 1993). Because our tests of the effect of materialism on
brand resonance indicate that materialism has no influence on brand loyalty, this additional
analysis focuses on materialisms potential role as a mediator between NFO and/or NFP upon
self-brand connection and brand community. In order to assess this potential influence, we
conducted a series of mediated regression analyses (Baron and Kenny 1986). This technique
involves a series of three regressions: (1) the effect of NFO and NFP on materialism, (2) the




27
effect of NFO and NFP on brand resonance (run separately for self-brand connection and brand
community), and (3) the effect of NFO, NFP, and materialism on brand resonance (again, run
separately for each outcome). Each regression also included the control variables used in our
earlier regressions. A mediated effect is supported if the coefficients for NFO and/or NFP in the
first two regressions and the coefficient for materialism in the third regression are significant,
and if the effect of NFO and/or NFP is weaker in the third regression than in the second. A case
of full mediation is indicated if NFO and/or NFP have no significant effect when materialism is
included in the third regression. A case of partial mediation is indicated if NFO and/or NFP have
a significant, but weaker, effect in the third regression.
As detailed in Table 3B, among our two indicants of the need for certainty, only NFP is
significantly related to materialism ( = .38, p < .01). Thus, materialisms role as a potential
mediator of the link between need for certainty and brand resonance appears to be related to its
ability to provide a sense of predictability rather than a sense of order.
Our second set of regressions show that NFP is positively related to self-brand connection
(Watches: = .15, p < .05; Cell Phones: = .18, p < .01) and brand community (Watches: =
.14, p < .10; Cell Phones: = .13 p < .05) for both product categories, while NFO appears
unrelated to both self-brand connections (Watches: = .02, ns; Cell Phones: = -.01, ns) and
brand community (Watches: = -.01, ns; Cell Phones: = -.03, ns) for both categories.
Collectively, these results indicate that need for predictability influences brand resonance while
need for order does not.
Our final set of regressions indicate that materialism has a significant direct effect on both
self-brand connections (Watches: = .15, p < .01; Cell Phones: = .20, p < .01) and brand
community (Watches: = .17, p < .01; Cell Phones: = .20, p < .01) for both watches and cell




28
phones. Moreover, materialism fully mediates the effect of NFP on both self-brand connections
and brand community for both watches (SBC: = .09, ns, BC: = .07, ns) and cell phones
(SBC: = .11, ns, BC: = .06, ns), as the inclusion of this variable reduces the effect of NFP on
these outcomes to nonsignificance. In sum, our tests of mediation suggest that materialism acts
as a conduit by which consumers channel their aversion for uncertainty in the form of a need for
predictability by establishing strong individual and collective bonds to their brands.

GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our research set out to examine the relationship between materialism and brand
resonance. Drawing from the literature on materialism, cognitive needs, and branding, we
proposed that materialism is positively related to brand resonance because materialists utilize
brands in an attempt to fulfill their need for certainty. Our empirical work tested this proposition
via two studies encompassing over 650 respondents across two cultures and four different
product categories, and employing two different measures of materialism (across cultures) and
three different indicants of brand resonance (within cultures). Considering this diversity in
contexts and measures, our results are remarkably consistent, as both studies indicate that
materialism is positively related to brand resonance in the form of self and communal brand
connections but not brand loyalty. Moreover, Study 1 reveals that materialisms influence does
not diminish when other values are included as predictors, while Study 2 suggests that the
cognitive need driving the relationship between materialism and brand resonance is the search
for predictability. In this final section, we discuss the implications of these findings for both
materialism and brand resonance and offer some ideas for future investigation.






29
Implications for Materialism
Understanding how consumers relate to their brands is one of the most fertile topics in
contemporary consumer research. In order to understand this relationship, consumer researchers
draw from a wide variety of conceptual paradigms, including personality research (e.g., Aaker
1996), sociological research on communities and tribes (e.g., Muiz and OGuinn 2001), and
relationship theory (e.g., Fournier 1998), among others. Given this conceptual breadth, it is
rather remarkable that materialism theory has played a negligible role in the branding literature.
While this lack of attention may be partly attributable to the proclivities of branding scholars, it
may also be due to the fact that materialism scholars seem mainly interested in documenting how
materialism affects consumer well-being and less concerned about understanding how this value
influences consumption beliefs or behaviors. Our research suggests that materialism is an
important component of both self and communal brand relations and that its role upon these
relationships deserves further attention.
In order to give shape to the ephemeral constructs upon which we ply our trade, academic
researchers often employ cognitive archetypes (Lakoff and Johnson 1987). Thus far, the
dominant archetype among materialism researchers is an image of materialists as selfish status
seekers. For example, Belks (1985) seminal article portrays materialists as greedy, envious, and
possessive. This image appears to hold a considerable degree of verisimilitude, as materialism
has been shown to be negatively related to concerns for family, community, and religion
(Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002). However, our research suggests that this archetype may not
fully capture why materialists form strong connections to their brands. According to the
traditional view of materialists, these connections are used as substitutes for ties to friends or
family. While this explanation might work for our findings for self-brand connections, it seems




30
an unlikely motive for our findings for brand community, which by definition, entails intimate
and interpersonal activities (Muiz and OGuinn 2001). The notion that objects can serve as a
means to build interpersonal relationships is a common theme in consumer research. For
example, in their study of favorite object attachment, Wallendorf and Arnould (1988, p. 542)
suggest that these objects typically serve as symbols of, rather than replacements for, close
interpersonal ties. Moreover, both Boorstein (1973) and Reisman (1950) posit that consumption
is an important means by which individuals develop and maintain community relations.
Thus, in order to understand the relationship between materialists and branded objects, there
appears to be a need a new archetype. Based on our findings, one potential perspective would be
to cast materialists (at least in terms of their brand relationships) as communal meaning seekers
rather than selfish status seekers. This image appears to be quite congruent with prior findings
that materialism is a means to manage uncertainty (Kasser 2002), and may also stimulate new
insights regarding how and why materialists engage in consumption.
In addition to enriching understanding of the consequences of materialism, our findings
may also extend knowledge about its antecedents. As noted earlier, growing evidence points
toward a need for certainty as a motive for the formation of material values. However, the exact
nature of this need is rather ill-defined, as some studies view it as lack of self-worth (Chang and
Arkin 2002), others see it as socially-induced anxiety (Schroeder and Dugal 1995), and some
regard it as a self-defense mechanism to deflect existential fear (Arndt et al. 2004). Although our
research was not designed to address this issue, the findings from Study 2 may provide some
clarification. Our Singaporean study investigated both the need for predictability (NFP) and the
need for order (NFO) as predictors of material values. Although these two cognitive needs are
conceptually and empirically related, only NFP displayed a relation to materialism. An




31
inspection of the items that underlie these two constructs (see Appendix A) reveals that NFO
entails a preference for structure, while NFP entails a preference for stability. A similar
distinction is offered by Neuberg et al. (1997). Thus, materialistic individuals appear to use
branded products as a means of obtaining a stable self image. Given that materialistic tendencies
are often formed during early life, our results suggest that materialism is more likely to be
attributed to the stability of an individuals childhood rather than the type of family structure in
which s/he was reared (Rindfleisch et al. 1997). This distinction between structure versus
stability is an intriguing, but delicate division, and could benefit from future research by
materialism scholars.
Implications for Brand Resonance
Our research examined three related but distinct indicants of brand resonance in the form
of brand loyalty, self-brand connection, and brand community. We believe that the results of our
two studies offer interesting implications for each of these indicants.
The branding literature posits that brand resonance represents a hierarchy of consumer-
brand connections that begins with repeat purchasing (i.e., behavioral loyalty) and ends with
deeper levels of brand commitment in the form of self and communal brand connections (Keller
2003). Thus, brand loyalty is viewed as providing a necessary foundation for the formation of
higher levels of brand resonance. To some extent, our (univariate) findings appear to provide
support for this thesis, as brand loyalty displays a high degree of correlation with both self-brand
connection across each of the four product categories we examined (see Table 1). However, our
(multivariate) findings can also be viewed as contrary to this dominant perspective, as they
reveal that materialism influences both self and communal brand connections despite having no
effect on brand loyalty. These findings are consistent across automobiles, jeans, watches, and




32
cell phones, and suggest that materialisms influence on self and communal brand connections
flows through an alternative route.
Brand loyalty is a foundational concept in consumer research (Cunningham 1956; Tucker
1964) and has few peers. However, in recent years, the concept of brand partner quality (BPQ)
has emerged as a potential challenger. This concept was introduced by Fournier (1998), who
conceptualized BPQ as a consumers evaluation of a brands performance as a relationship
partner. According to Fournier (1998, p. 367), BPQ represents an alternative to the construct of
brand loyalty and offers conceptual richness over extant loyalty notions.
As part of our Singaporean survey (Study 2), we included a new five-item measure of
BPQ. This scale included such items as this brand maintains good relations with its customers
and displayed good reliability (CR
watch
= .92; CR
phone
= .94). In order to test Fourniers assertion
that BPQ may be a superior alternative to standard measures of brand loyalty, we regressed BPQ
(for both watches and cell phones) on materialism (as well as the control variables employed in
Study 2). These regressions indicate that materialism is significantly related to BPQ for both
watches ( = .25, p < .01) and cell phones ( = .11, p < .05). Although exploratory, these
findings suggest that materialisms influence on self and communal brand connections is highly
dependent upon a consumers perception about a brands empathy, reliability, and dependability.
This supposition is congruent with our finding that materialists are searching for stability from
their brands. Moreover, it confirms the important role that brand managers play in fostering
strong consumer-brand relationships by acting as forthright relational partners (Fournier,
Dobscha, and Mick 1998; Holt 2002). The exact nature of the relationship between brand-partner
quality and other indicants of brand resonance is an intriguing issue for future research.




33
Early brand loyalty researchers sought to identify individual differences (e.g., age,
gender, education) that might be predictive of brand loyalty (e.g., Cunningham 1956; Frank
1967). This search turned out to be largely futile, as loyalty seemed unrelated to most of these
predictors. This early failure may have influenced subsequent studies of brand resonance, which
paid little attention to the role of individual difference predictors. However, Fournier (1998)
shows that consumers differ in terms of the number and richness of relationships that they form
with their brands. Our results suggest that material values is one potential influence behind this
difference in self-brand connections. Although other values may also play a role, our findings
suggest that materialism exerts a stronger and more consistent effect than other values such as
power, hedonism, and religiosity. Future research is needed to examine the potential mediating
role of other values between consumers need for predictability and their relationships with their
brands.
To date, literature on brand communities has focused on their celebratory, liberating, and
socializing function (e.g., Kozinets 2001; McAlexander et al. 2002; Muiz and OGuinn 2002).
Our research reveals that brand communities may also serve an important role by providing for
the cognitive needs of their members. Our review of this literature suggested that the routines
and traditions within these communities provide members with a sense of structure. However,
our empirical results imply that brand community-based rituals and traditions may actually serve
a stabilizing role by providing a means by which members can establish caring and sharing
relations with each other (Kozinets 2002). Although future research is needed to affirm this
hypothesis, it raises an intriguing possibility that materialism leads consumers to use brands to
connect with others, and in so doing, perhaps manage some of the problems of affluence.




34
APPENDIX A: MEASUREMENT ITEMS
United States Singapore
Automobiles Jeans Watches Cell Phones

Brand Loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001)
Loading

CR
.95
Loading

CR
.87
Loading

CR
.94
Loading

CR
.96
1. The next time I am in the market for a vehicle, I plan to buy the same brand
I currently own.
.92 .65 .86 .87
2. I intend to keep buying the same brand of vehicle for the foreseeable future. - .77 - .96
3. I am committed to my current brand of vehicle. .97 - .97 -
4. Next time I shop for a vehicle, I would be willing to pay more for my current
brand than other brands.
.76 .74 .69 .86
Self-Brand Connection (Escalas and Bettman 2003) .98 .98 .97 .98
1. This brand reflects who I am. .92 .91 .98 .91
2. I can identify with this brand. .97 .92 .96 .95
3. I feel a personal connection to this brand. - .96 - -
4. I (can) use this brand to communicate who I am to other people .92 .96 .87 .92
5. I consider this brand to be me. .92 - .83 .94
Brand Community (Keller 2003) .94 .94 .96 .94
1. I really identify with people who use this brand. - - .88 .99
2. I feel like I almost belong to a club with other users of this brand. .91 .95 .95 -
3. This brand is used by people like me. .86 .91 .77 .93
4. I feel a deep connection with others who use this brand. .87 .89 .91 .98

Product Satisfaction (Oliver 1997) .96 .96 .98 .97
1. This is one of the best vehicles I could have bought. .88 .86 .86 .86
2. This vehicle is exactly what I need. .68 .87 .98 .98
3. I am satisfied with my decision to buy this vehicle. .94 .83 .93 .90
4. I have truly enjoyed owning this vehicle. .97 - - -
5. Owning this vehicle has been a good experience. - .95 .99 .91











35

APPENDIX A: MEASUREMENT ITEMS
United States Singapore
Loading CR Loading CR
Religiosity (Putney and Middleton 1961) .94
1. My religion is one of the most important parts of my philosophy of life. -
2. Religion is a subject I am very interested in. .87
3. The importance of religion in my life has a big influence on my views in other areas. 1.00
4. My religion forms an important basis for the kind of person I want to be. .94
5. Were I to be less religious than I currently am, my whole life would be very different. .90
6. Because of the strength of my religious beliefs, I often think about religious matters. .94
Materialism (Richins 2004; Wong, Rindfleisch, and Burroughs 2003)* .77 .72
1. I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes. .73 -
2. I like to own things that impress people. -

.78
3. I try to keep my life simple as far as possessions are concerned. (r) .97 .69
4. My like would be better if I owned certain things I dont have. .85 .93
5. I would be happier if I could afford to buy more things. .63 .96
6. Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure. .83 .68
7. The things I own say a lot about how well I am doing in life. .43 .78
8. I wouldnt be any happier if I owned nicer things. (r) .53 .34
9. I like a lot of luxury in my life. .53 .34
10. I usually buy only the things I need. (r) .82
11. Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions. .91
12. I dont place much emphasis on the amount of material objects people own as a sign of success. (r) .88
13. I enjoy spending money on things that arent practical. .60
14. I have all the things I really need to enjoy life. (r) .62
15. The things I own arent all that important to me. (r) .85
Need for Order (Kruglanski, Webster, and Klem 1993) .96
1. I find that establishing a consistent routine enables me to enjoy life. -
2. I enjoy having a clear and structured mode of life. .91
3. I like a well ordered life with regular hours. .94
4. I like having a place for everything and everything in its place. .83
Need for Predictability (Kruglanski, Webster, and Klem 1993) .97
1. I like predictable situations. -
2. I dont like to be with people who are capable of unexpected actions. .89
3. I prefer to socialize with familiar friends because I know what to expect of them. .90
4. I like the certainty of going into a situation and knowing what will happen. .95

Note: CR = Composite reliability, r = reverse-worded item, *In the Singapore study, materialism was assessed using the interrogative format of the MVS (see
Wong et al. 2003).
36
REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, New York: Free Press.

Achenreiner, Gwen (1997), "Materialistic Values and Susceptibility to Influence in Children," in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
82-88.

Armstrong, Scott and Terry S. Overton (1977), "Estimating Non-response Bias in Mail Surveys,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (August), 396-402.

Arndt, Jamie, Sheldon Solomon, Tim Kasser, and Kennon M. Sheldon (2004), "The Urge to
Splurge: A Terror Management Theory Account of Materialism and Consumer Behavior,"
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 198-212.

Astin, Alexander W., Leticia Oseguera, Linda J. Sax, and William S. Korn (2002), The American
Freshman: 35 Year Trends. Los Angeles: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.

Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction
in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (December), 1173-82.

Barrett, David W., Julie A. Patock-Peckham, Geoffrey T. Hutchinson, and Craig T. Nagoshi
(2005), "Cognitive Motivation and Religious Orientation," Personality and Individual
Differences, 38 (2), 461-74.

Baumeister, Roy L. (1991), Meanings of Life, New York: Guilford.

Belk, Russell W. (1985), "Materialism: Traits Aspects of Living in the Material World," Journal
of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 265-80.

---- (1988), "Possessions and the Extended Self," Journal of Consumer Research, 15
(September), 139-68.

Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry (1989), "The Sacred and the Profane
in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey," Journal of Consumer Research, 16
(June), 1-38.

Blanchard-Fields, Fredda, Christopher Hertzog, and Renee Stein (2001), "Beyond a Stereotyped
View of Older Adults' Traditional Family Values," Psychology & Aging, 16 (3), 483-96.

Boorstein, Daniel (1973), The Americans: The Democratic Experience, New York: Random
House.


37
Burroughs, James E. and Aric Rindfleisch (1997), "Materialism as a Coping Mechanism: An
Inquiry into Family Disruption," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 89-97.

---- (2002), "Materialism and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective," Journal of
Consumer Research, 29 (December), 348-70.

Campbell, Donald T. and Donald W. Fiske (1959), "Convergent and Discriminant Validity by
the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix," Psychological Bulletin, 56 (March), 81-105.

Chang, Lin Chiat and Robert M. Arkin (2002), "Materialism as an Attempt to Cope with
Uncertainty," Psychology & Marketing, 19 (5), 389-406.

Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2001), "The Chain of Effects from Brand Affect to
Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty," Journal of Marketing, 65 (April), 81-93.

Chatterjee, Andindya and James M. Hunt (1996), "Self-Monitoring as a Personality Correlate of
Materialism: An Investigation of Related Cognitive Orientation," Psychological Reports, 79,
523-28.

Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. and George P. Moschis (1979), "Television and Interpersonal
Influences on Adolescent Consumer Learning," Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (June), 23-
35.

Cunningham, Ross M. (1956), "Brand Loyalty: What, Where, and How Much?" Harvard
Business Review, 34 (January/February), 116-28.

Cushman, Philip (1990), "Why the Self is Empty," American Psychologist, 45 (May), 599-611.

Djupe, Paul A. (2000), "Religious Brand Loyalties and Political Loyalties," Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 39 (1), 78-89.

Durkheim, Emile (1915, 2001), The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Translated by Caol
Cosman, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elovainio, Marko and Mika Kivimaki (1999), "Personal Need for Structure and Occupational
Strain: An Investigation of Structural Models and Interactions with Job Complexity,"
Personality and Individual Differences, 26 (2), 209-22.

Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), "You Are What They Eat: The Influence
of Reference Groups on Consumers' Connections to Brands," Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13 (3), 339-48.

Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobserved Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, 28
(February), 39-50.

38

Fournier, Susan (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343-73.

Fournier, Susan and Marsha L. Richins (1991), "Some Theoretical and Popular Notions
Concerning Materialism," Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 403-14.

Fournier, Susan, Susan Dobscha, and David Glen Mick (1998), "Preventing the Premature Death
of Relationship Marketing," Harvard Business Review, 76 (January-February), 42-51.

Frank, Ronald E. (1967), "Correlates of Buying Behavior for Grocery Products," Journal of
Marketing, 31 (2), 48-53.

Galbraith, John Kenneth (1958), The Affluent Society, New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Ger, Guliz and Russell W. Belk (1985), "Cross-Cultural Differences in Materialism," Journal of
Economic Psychology, 17 (1), 55-77.

Holt, Douglas B. (1997), "Poststructuralist Lifestyle Analysis: Conceptualizing the Social
Patterning of Consumption in Productivity," Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March),
326-50.

---- (1998), "Does Cultural Capital Structure American Consumption?" Journal of Consumer
Research, 25 (June), 1-25.

---- (2002), "Why Do Brands Cause Trouble?" Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 70-90.

Houghton, David C. and Rajdeep Grewal (2000), "Please, Let's Get an Answer - Any Answer:
Need for Consumer Cognitive Closure," Psychology and Marketing, 17 (November), 911-34.

Kardes, Frank R. (1996), "In Defense of Experimental Consumer Psychology," Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 5 (3), 279-96.

Kasser, Tim (2002), The High Price of Materialism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kasser, Tim and Richard M. Ryan (1993), "The Dark Side of the American Dream: Correlates of
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-22.

---- (1996), "Further Examining the American Dream: Differential Correlates of Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Goals," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280-87.

Kasser, Tim and Kennon Sheldon (2000), "On Wealth and Death: Materialism, Mortality
Salience, and Consumption Behavior," Psychological Science, 11, 348-51.


39
Kasser, Tim, Richard M. Ryan, M. Sax, and A. J. Sameroff (1995), "The Relations of Maternal
and Social Environments to Late Adolescents' Materialistic and Prosocial Values,"
Developmental Psychology, 31, 907-14.

Kates, Stephen M. (2002), "The Protean Quality of Subcultural Consumption: An Ethnographic
Account of Gay Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December), 383-99.

Keller, Kevin Lane (2003), Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kohn, Alfie (1999), "In Pursuit of Affluence at a High Price," New York Times, (February 2),
D7.

Kossowska, Malgorzata, Alain Van Hill, Woo Young Chun, and Arie W. Kruglanski (2002),
"The Need for Cognitive Closure Scale: Structure, Cross-Cultural Invariance, and
Comparison of Mean Ratings Between European-American, and East Asian Samples,"
Psychologica Belgica, 42 (4), 267-86.

Kozinets, Robert V. (2001), "Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of Start Trek's
Culture of Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 67-87.

----- (2002), "Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning
Man," Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 20-38.

Kruglanski, Arie W. (1989), Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge: Cognitive and Motivational
Bases, New York: Plenum.

Kruglanski, Arie W., Nadir Atash, Eraldo DeGrada, Lucia Mannetti, Antonio Pierro, and Donna
M. Webster (1997), "Psychological Theory Testing Versus Psychometric Nay-Saying:
Comment on Neuberg et al.'s," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (5), 1005-
16.

Kruglanski, Arie W. and Donna M. Webster (1996), "Motivated Closing of the Mind: 'Seizing'
and 'Freezing'," Psychological Review, 103 (April), 263-83.

Kruglanski, Arie W., Donna M. Webster, and Adena Klem (1993), "Motivated Resistance and
Openness to Persuasion in the Presence or Absence of Prior Information," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (5), 861-76.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Levy, Sidney J. (1959), "Symbols for Sale," Harvard Business Review, 37 (July-August), 117-
24.


40
McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig (2002), "Building Brand
Community," Journal of Marketing, 66 (January), 38-54.

McCracken, Grant (1988), Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic
Character of Consumer Goods and Activities, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Mick, David Glen (1996), "Are Studies of Dark Side Variables Confounded by Socially
Desirable Responding? The Case of Materialism," Journal of Consumer Research, 23
(September), 106-19.

Mick, David Glen and Claus Buhl (1992), "A Meaning-Based Model of Advertising
Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), 317-38.

Micken, Kathleen S. and Scott D. Roberts (1999), "Desperately Seeking Certainty: Narrowing
the Materialism Construct," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26, Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 513-18.

Muiz, Albert M., Jr. and Thomas C. O'Guinn (2001), "Brand Community," Journal of
Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412-32.

Muiz, Albert M., Jr. and Hope Jensen Schau (2005), "Religiosity in the Abandoned Apple
Newton Brand Community," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (March), 737-47.

Myers, David G. and Ed Diener (1995), "Who is Happy?" Psychological Science, 6 (January),
10-19.

Neuberg, Steven L., Judice T. Nicole, and Stephen G. West (1997), "What the Need for Closure
Scale Measures and What It Does Not: Toward Differentiating Among Related Epistemic
Motives," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (June), 1396-412.

New Dream (2004), "New American Dream Survey Report," Center for the New American
Dream, Takoma Park, Maryland 20912.

Oliver, Richard L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, New York:
McGraw-Hill.

---- (1999), "Whence Consumer Loyalty?" Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), 33-44.

Paulhus, Delroy L. (1992), "The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Reference
Manual, BDR Version 6." Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Podsakoff, Philip M. and Dennis W. Organ (1986), "Self-Reports in Organizational Research:
Problems and Prospects," Journal of Management, 12 (4), 531-44.


41
Prendergast, Gerard and Claire Wong (2003), "Parental Influence on the Purchase of Luxury
Brands of Infant Apparel: An Exploratory Study in Hong Kong," Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 20 (2), 157-69.

Putney, Snell and Russell Middleton (1961), "Dimensions and Correlates of Religious
Ideologies," Social Forces, 39 (2), 285-290.

Reisman, Daniel (1950), The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the American Changing Character, New
Haven: Yale University Press.

Richins, Marsha L. (2004), "The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and
Development of a Short Form," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (June), 209-19.

---- (1994a), "Special Possessions and the Expression of Material Values," Journal of Consumer
Research, 21 (December), 522-31.

---- (1994b), "Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meaning of Possessions," Journal of
Consumer Research, 21 (December), 504-21.

Richins, Marsha L. and Scott Dawson (1992), "A Consumer Values Orientation fro Materialism
and its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Consumer Research,
19 (December), 303-16.

Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Frank Denton (1997), "Family Structure,
Materialism, and Compulsive Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March),
312-25.

Rokeach, Milton A (1973), The Nature of Human Values, New York: Free Press.

Rosenblatt, Roger (1999), Consuming Desires: Consumption, Culture, and the Pursuit of
Happiness, Washington DC: Island Press.

Rowley, Laura (2005), Money and Happiness: A Guide to Living the Good Life, Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.

Saroglou, Vassilis (2002), "Beyond Dogmatism: The Need for Closure as Related to Religion,"
Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 5, 183-94.

Schor, Juliet B. (1998), The Overspent American: Upscaling, Downshifting, and the New
Consumer, New York: Basic Books.

Schroeder, Jonathan E. and Sanjiv S. Dugal (1995), "Psychological Correlates of the Materialism
Construct," Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10 (1), 243-53.



42
Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), "Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical
Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries," in Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, ed. M. Zanna, Volume 25. Orlando: Academic Press, 1-65.

---- (1996), "Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems," in
The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium, eds. Clive Seligman and James M.
Olson and Mark K Zanna, Volume 8. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1-24.

Seligman, Martin E. P. (2002), Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to
Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment, New York: Free Press.

Shrum, L. J., James E. Burroughs, and Aric Rindfleisch (2005), "Television's Cultivation of
Material Values," Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (December), forthcoming.

Stark, Rodney and Charles Y. Glock (1968), American Piety: The Nature of Religious
Commitment, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Tatzel, Miriam (2002), "Money Worlds and Well-Being: An Integration of Money Dispositions,
Materialism, and Price-Related Behaviors," Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 103-26.

Thompson, Craig J. (1996), "Caring Consumers: Gendered Consumption Meanings and the
Juggling Lifestyle," Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (March), 388-407.

Thompson, Craig J. and Maura Troester (2002), "Consumer Value Systems in the Age of
Postmodern Fragmentation: The Case of the Natural Health Microculture," Journal of
Consumer Research, 28 (March), 550-71.

Thompson, Craig J., William B. Locander, and Howard R. Pollio (1990), "The Lived Meaning of
Free Choice: An Existential-Phenemenological Description of Everyday Consumer
Experiences of Contemporary Married Women," Journal of Consumer Research, 17
(December), 346-61.

Tucker, W. T. (1964), "The Development of Brand Loyalty," Journal of Marketing Research, 1
(August), 32-35.

U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Profile of General Demographic Characteristics, Washington DC:
Department of Commerce.

Veblen, Thorstein (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class, New York: Macmillan.

Vermeir, Iris, Patrick Van Kenhove, and Hendrik Hendrickx (2002), "The Influence of Need for
Closure on Consumer's Choice Behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 703-27.

Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric J. Arnould (1988), "'My Favorite Things': A Cross-Cultural
Inquiry into Object Attachment, Possessiveness, and Social Linkage," Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (March), 531-47.

43

Webster, Donna M. and Arie W. Kruglanski (1994), "Individual Differences in Need for
Cognitive Closure," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (6), 1049-62.

Wong, Nancy and Aaron Ahuvia (1998), "Personal Taste and Family Face: Self-Concepts and
Luxury Consumption in Confucian and Western Societies," Psychology & Marketing, 15 (5),
423-41.

Wong, Nancy, Aric Rindfleisch, and James E. Burroughs (2003), "Do Reverse-Worded Items
Confound Measures in Cross-Cultural Consumer Research?" Journal of Consumer Research,
30 (June), 72-91.



44
TABLE 1

KEY MEASURE SUMMARY STATISTICS

A. Automobiles (Study 1)
Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Materialism (1) 3.53 .97
Brand Loyalty (2) 4.17 1.79 -.03
Self-Brand Connection (3) 3.43 1.81 .17 .59
Brand Community (4) 2.71 1.62 .22 .45 .75
Hedonism (5) 4.15 1.39 .40 -.04 .06 .04
Power (6) 2.08 1.39 .53 .04 .17 .13 .49
Religiosity (7) 4.45 1.84 -.07 .01 .02 .10 -.01 .08

B. Jeans (Study 1)
Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Materialism (1) 3.53 .97
Brand Loyalty (2) 4.29 1.70 .06
Self-Brand Connection (3) 2.91 1.72 .23 .60
Brand Community (4) 2.38 1.56 .20 .52 .81
Hedonism (5) 4.15 1.39 .40 .08 .17 .11
Power (6) 2.08 1.39 .53 .01 .16 .15 .49
Religiosity (7) 4.45 1.84 -.07 .12 .18 .19 .08 -.01

C. Watches (Study 2)
Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Materialism (1) 4.28 1.08
Brand Loyalty (2) 4.06 1.57 .18
Self-Brand Connection (3) 3.84 1.53 .39 .29
Brand Community (4) 3.41 1.54 .38 .28 .84
Need for Order (5) 4.88 1.28 .12 .23 .28 .23
Need for Predictability (6) 4.68 1.22 .27 .26 .31 .25 .66

D. Cell Phones (Study 2)
Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Materialism (1) 4.28 1.08
Brand Loyalty (2) 4.66 1.49 .31
Self-Brand Connection (3) 4.06 1.59 .39 .70
Brand Community (4) 3.95 1.54 .38 .62 .84
Need for Order (5) 4.88 1.28 .12 .24 .28 .23
Need for Predictability (6) 4.68 1.22 .27 .18 .31 .25 .66
Note:

Correlations +/- .12 are significant at p < .05, correlations +/- .15 are significant at p < .01

45
TABLE 2

REGRESSION ANALYSES OF THE EFFECTS OF MATERIALISM ON
BRAND RESONANCE (STUDY 1, UNITED STATES)

A. Materialism Brand Resonance

Loyalty
Autos
Connection
Autos
Community
Autos
Loyalty
Jeans
Connection
Jeans
Community
Jeans
Materialism -.01 .19** .26** .04 .22** .23**
Prod. Satisfaction .66** .45** .27** .69** .46** .33**
Age .10* .10 .13* -.03 -.05 .01
Education -.01 -.03 -.10 -.06 -.07 -.12*
Gender -.03 .04 .01 -.09* -.03 -.05
Income -.04 -.05 -.06 -.09* -.11* -.05
SDR -.05 -.06 .03 .05 .01 .08
R
2
.45 .24 .16 .51 .31 .20


B. Materialism, Hedonism, and Power Brand Resonance

Loyalty
Autos
Connection
Autos
Community
Autos
Loyalty
Jeans
Connection
Jeans
Community
Jeans
Materialism -.05 .12* .24** .05 .17** .20**
Hedonism -.05 -.04 -.03 -.07 .01 -.04
Power .11* .15** .05 .03 .08 .09
Prod. Satisfaction .67** .45** .27** .70** .46** .34
Age .10* .08 .12 -.04 -.04 .01
Education .01 -.02 -.09 -.05 -.07 -.11
Gender -.01 .07 .02 -.08 -.02 -.04
Income -.06 -.06 -.07 -.10* -.12* -.06
SDR -.04 -.05 .03 .05 .01 .09
R
2
.46 .25 .16 .51 .31 .20


C. Materialism and Religiosity Brand Resonance

Loyalty
Autos
Connection
Autos
Community
Autos
Loyalty
Jeans
Connection
Jeans
Community
Jeans
Materialism -.01 .19** .26** .04 .22** .23**
Religiosity .01 .02 .10* .01 .13** .15**
Prod. Satisfaction .66** .45** .28** .69** .44** .31**
Age .10* .08 .12* -.03 -.06 .01
Education -.01 -.03 -.10 -.06 -.08 -.13*
Gender -.03 .04 .01 -.09* -.03 -.05
Income -.04 -.04 -.05 -.09* -.10 -.05
SDR -.04 -.06 .02 .05 -.01 .07
R
2
.45 .24 .17 .51 .32 .22
Note: *p .05, **p .01.

46
TABLE 3

REGRESSION ANALYSES OF THE EFFECTS OF MATERIALISM ON
BRAND RESONANCE (STUDY 2, SINGAPORE)

A. Materialism Brand Resonance

Loyalty
Watches
Connection
Watches
Community
Watches
Loyalty
Phones
Connection
Phones
Community
Phones
Materialism .07 .18** .20** .06 .23** .21**
Prod. Satisfaction .58** .52** .33** .67** .48** .49**
Self Purchased .06 .03 .03 -.04 -.01 .04
Age .08 .09 .12* -.12** .01 .04
Education -.06 -.10 -.10 -.05 -.10* .04
Gender .01 .03 .03 -.05 -.08 -.01
Income .06 .04 -.02 .02 -.03 -.06
SDR -.01 -.05 -.07 -.05 -.03 -.07
R
2
.38 .36 .20 .50 .40 .38


B. Need for Certainty Materialism Brand Resonance

Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Beta
Coefficient
First Regression:
Need for Order Materialism -.12
Need for Predictability Materialism .38**

Second Regression Series:
Need for Predictability Connection Watches .15**
Need for Predictability Community Watches .14*
Need for Predictability Connection Phones .18**
Need for Predictability Community Phones .13*

Third Regression Series:
Need for Predictability Connection Watches .09
Materialism .15**
Need for Predictability Community Watches .07
Materialism .17**
Need for Predictability Connection Phones .11
Materialism .20**
Need for Predictability Community Phones .06
Materialism .20**
Note: *p .05, **p .01.