Growing up in a Material World: Age Differences in Materialism in Children and Adolescents

Abstract

We examine age differences in materialism with children and adolescents 8-18 years old. In study 1, we find materialism increases from middle childhood to early adolescence and declines from early to late adolescence. Further, we find that age differences are mediated by changes in self-esteem occurring from middle childhood through adolescence. In study 2, we prime self-esteem to obtain further evidence of a causal link between self-esteem and materialism. As expected, we find that inducing high self-esteem decreases expressions of materialism. Inducing high self-esteem reduces materialism among adolescents so dramatically that age differences in materialism disappear. (c) 2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Full text

000
䉷2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ●Vol. 34 ●December 2007
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2007/3404-0005$10.00
Growing up in a Material World: Age
Differences in Materialism in Children
and Adolescents
LAN NGUYEN CHAPLIN
DEBORAH ROEDDER JOHN*
We examine age differences in materialism with children and adolescents 8–18
years old. In study 1, we find materialism increases from middle childhood to early
adolescence and declines from early to late adolescence. Further, we find that
age differences are mediated by changes in self-esteem occurring from middle
childhood through adolescence. In study 2, we prime self-esteem to obtain further
evidence of a causal link between self-esteem and materialism. As expected, we
find that inducing high self-esteem decreases expressions of materialism.Inducing
high self-esteem reduces materialism among adolescents so dramaticallythat age
differences in materialism disappear.
Contemporary American tweens and teens
have emerged as the most brand-oriented, con-
sumer-involved, and materialistic generation in
history. And they top the list globally. . . .
More children here than anywhere else believe
that their clothes and brands describe who they
are and define their social status. (Schor 2004,
13)
Concerns over the rising level of materialism in children
and adolescents are increasing among parents, edu-
cators, and social scientists. In a recent national survey, 95%
of adults say that children are too focused on buying and
consuming things, and almost 80% agree that limits should
*Lan Nguyen Chaplin is assistant professor of marketing, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, School of Business Administration, 1206
S. Sixth St., 140B Wohlers Hall, Champaign, IL 61820 (nguyenl@
cba.uiuc.edu). Deborah Roedder John is Curtis L. Carlson Chair and pro-
fessor of marketing, Carlson School of Management, University of Min-
nesota, 321 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (djohn@
csom.umn.edu). Correspondence: Lan Nguyen Chaplin. The authors ac-
knowledge guidance provided by first author’s dissertation committee (Mi-
chael Houston, Mark Ritson, Marti Gonzales) as well as by the JCR editor,
associate editor, and reviewers. The authors thank the staff, parents, and
students of the St. Paul and Urbana-Champaign area recreation centers for
their participation. Special thanks go to our nieces, nephews, and neighbors
who served as pretest participants. This research was funded by an ACR
Sheth Dissertation Proposal Award received by the first author and research
support from the University of Illinois and the Carlson School of Man-
agement at the University of Minnesota.
John Deighton served as editor and Laura Peracchio served as associate
editor for this article.
Electronically published June 12, 2007
be placed on advertising to children (Center for a New
American Dream 2004). In response, parents are joining
organizations such as Commercial Alert and Center for a
New American Dream, which advocate reducing the com-
mercialization of American culture. Educators have re-
sponded by banning corporate donations of school materials
and equipment that feature brand advertising (Seyfer 1999).
Social scientists have responded with a burst of recent books
that decry materialism among young consumers and criticize
marketing’s role in the development of materialistic values
(Kasser 2002; Linn 2004; Schor 2004).
Despite these concerns, we know relatively little about
how materialistic values develop in childhood and adoles-
cence. Materialism has long been of interest to consumer
researchers, but research has centered on adult consumers,
not on children or teens. A small flurry of research appeared
in the 1970s that found materialism in adolescents to be
correlated with factors such as ineffective family commu-
nication patterns, greater peer communication, and higher
levels of television viewing (Churchill and Moschis 1979;
Moore and Moschis 1981; Moschis and Churchill 1978;
Moschis and Moore 1979). Since then, only a handful of
consumer behavior articles on the topic have appeared, find-
ing higher levels of materialism in young consumers with
materialistic parents (Goldberg et al. 2003), disrupted fam-
ilies (Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Denton 1997; Roberts,
Tanner, and Manolis 2005), less affluent households (Gold-
berg et al. 2003), and greater susceptibility to influence from
peers and marketing promotions (Achenreiner 1997; Gold-
berg et al. 2003).
Of particular note is the absence of research examining

000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
how materialism develops in childhood and adolescence.
Most observers believe that children begin to exhibit ma-
terialistic orientations around middle to late childhood, often
referred to as the tween years, from 8 to 12 years of age.
Books and articles in the popular press describe children as
becoming brand conscious during this time, requesting and
flaunting the brands that their peers deem popular (Lind-
strom 2003). In fact, many observers link the emergence of
materialism to peer influence, which becomes the primary
source of identification and acceptance for children during
the tween years (Kantrowitz and Wingert 1999; Siegel, Cof-
fey, and Livingston 2001). Also implicated are marketing
activities that target tweens, which increase exposure to
brands and fuel the desire to obtain material goods (Quart
2003; Schor 2004).
Surprisingly, there is little academic research to support
these contentions. Although the idea that materialism de-
velops at some time between infancy and adulthood has
merit, there is an absence of empirical research showingthe
existence of age differences during childhood or adoles-
cence. Prior work has focused on factors other than age that
influence materialism, involving samples of children or ad-
olescents within narrow age ranges. To our knowledge, only
two studies exist with a wide enough age range to detect
age differences, and the results are far from unequivocal.
One finds a linear trend in materialism that increases in
7–16-year-olds (Achenreiner 1997), whereas a second finds
no age differences among 9–11- versus 12–14-year-olds
(Goldberg et al. 2003). Needed is a closer examination of
age differences to identify antecedents of materialism that
vary as a function of age, thus providing a theoretical ex-
planation for why materialism would vary from childhood
through adolescence.
In this article, we focus on self-esteem as an explanation
for age differences in materialism. Specifically, we propose
that age differences are driven, in large part, by changes in
self-esteem that occur from middle childhood through ad-
olescence. Research from child psychology documents that
self-esteem drops dramatically around ages 12–13 and then
rebounds with the approach of late adolescence (ages
16–18). Given the strong connection between self-esteem
and materialism (Kasser 2002), we believe that age-related
patterns in self-esteem give rise to age differences in ma-
terialism. Because self-esteem exhibits a curvilinear trend,
decreasing from middle childhood to early adolescence and
increasing from early to late adolescence, we predict that
materialism will exhibit a curvilinear pattern as well. Instead
of increasing with age, as most observers suggest, we pro-
pose that materialism increases from middle childhood to
early adolescence and then decreases from early to late
adolescence.
We examine these propositions across two studies with
children and adolescents ages 8–18. In the first study, we
test our predictions in the context of a survey including
measures of self-esteem and materialism. The results con-
firm a curvilinear pattern of age differences as well as pro-
vide evidence for the link between self-esteem and mate-
rialistic orientations. In the second study, we examine the
causal link between self-esteem and materialism in an ex-
perimental context by priming high self-esteem in a sample
of 8–18-year-olds. Comparing levels of materialism in this
group with those of a control group, we find that priming
high self-esteem has the expected effect of reducing ma-
terialistic tendencies, especially among early and late ado-
lescents.
In doing so, we contribute to the evolving debate on
materialism among young consumers. First, we find that
materialism develops in childhood through adolescence in
a unique nonlinear fashion. Second, we provide evidence
that these developmental changes are due, in large part, to
age-related changes in self-esteem. Not only does this con-
tribute to an understanding of why materialistic tendencies
vary with age, but it is also the beginning of a conceptual
framework to explain how materialism develops in children
and adolescents. For example, it is possible that the factors
often thought to encourage materialism in children and ad-
olescents, such as peer influence, actually yield their influ-
ence in an indirect manner—by affecting self-esteem.Third,
our findings have implications for reducing the level of ma-
terialism often seen among early adolescents and even late
adolescents. Our results indicate that simple actions to raise
self-esteem among young consumers can have a dramatic
impact on expressions of materialism.
CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW
What Is Materialism?
Consumer researchers define materialism as “the impor-
tance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions” (Belk
1984, 291) and “the importance a person places on posses-
sions and their acquisition as a necessary or desirable form
of conduct to reach desired end states, including happiness”
(Richins and Dawson 1992, 307). Although the accumulation
of material possessions can be an end in itself, we are inter-
ested in the acquisition of material possessions as a means
for achieving higher goals, such as self-definition and self-
enhancement. Research conducted across a variety of disci-
plines—including psychology, sociology, and market-
ing—finds that many of the reasons for valuing possessions
are related to expressing, maintaining, and signaling one’s
self-concept to others (Belk 1985; Czikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton 1981; Holman 1981; Mukerji 1983; Solo-
mon 1983). Another important goal is the pursuit of happi-
ness. For example, Richins and Dawson (1992, 304) state
that “it is the pursuit of happiness through acquisition rather
than through other means (such as personal relationships,
experiences, or achievements) that distinguishes materialism.”
What Role Does Self-Esteem Play in
Materialism?
One of the most consistent findings in the adult consumer
behavior literature is the link between materialism and self-
esteem, with lower feelings of self-worth related to higher

MATERIALISM IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS 000
levels of materialism (Mick 1996; Richins and Dawson
1992). Materialists are viewed as being caught in an endless
cycle of acquiring material goods in hopes of compensating
for feelings of insecurity and searching for happiness (Four-
nier and Richins 1991; Mick 1996; Richins and Dawson
1992). Psychological research also identifies feelings of in-
security and low self-esteem as important causes of mate-
rialism. Particularly germane to our discussion is the recent
work of Tim Kasser and his colleagues, who argue that one
way materialistic values develop is from “experiences that
induce feelings of insecurity” (Kasser et al. 2004, 13). Con-
sistent with this view, researchers have reported experi-
mental evidence showing that induced feelings of insecurity
and low self-esteem have a direct causal influence on ma-
terialistic orientations (Braun and Wicklund 1989; Chang
and Arkin 2002; Kasser 2002; Solberg, Diener, and Rob-
inson 2004).
Why does insecurity and low self-esteem lead to a ma-
terialistic orientation? Most researchers believe thatmaterial
goods are an instrument for individuals to cope with or
compensate for doubts about their safety, competence, and
self-worth (Chang and Arkin 2002; Kasser 2002). For ex-
ample, Solomon (1983) explains that uncertainty makes in-
dividuals reliant upon the use of appropriate products as
props to bolster their self-concepts. He provides the example
of adolescent boys’ use of “macho” products such as cars,
clothing, and cologne to bolster their fragile masculine self-
concepts. Similarly, Brown, Collins, and Schmidt (1988)
have proposed that individuals with low self-esteem engage
in indirect self-enhancement by attaching themselves to peo-
ple and material things that are perceived as having signif-
icant value.
How Does Materialism Develop in Children and
Adolescents?
The desire for material goods begins at an early age.
Toddlers and preschoolers make frequent requests for certain
products and make their desires known in many ways, in-
cluding grabbing products off store shelves, begging, and
whining (John 1999). Children’s drive to acquire these
goods can be very strong, with an immediate and over-
whelming desire for items such as toys, cereal, and candy
(Goldberg and Gorn 1978). However, for young children,
the acquisition of desired items is usually an end in itself
rather than being a means for achieving higher-order goals,
such as self-enhancement, usually associated with materi-
alism.
When does this drive for material goods emerge? And
how does it develop throughout childhood into adolescence?
Although many aspects of development take place during
childhood and adolescence, we begin our exploration with
developments in self-esteem. Because materialism research
with adults has identified a strong relationship between self-
esteem and materialism, we use findings on children’s de-
veloping self-esteem as a logical starting point for our dis-
cussion. We do, however, incorporate additional aspects of
development into the discussion to explain why the link
between self-esteem and material goods is particularly
strong at certain ages.
Self-Esteem. In children and adolescents, self-esteem
exhibits a strong age-related pattern. Self-esteem often de-
clines around age 12 or 13 (Erikson 1963; Harter 1983;
Mendelson and White 1985; Rosenberg 1979) and rebounds
by middle to late adolescence (McCarthy and Hoge 1982;
O’Malley and Bachman 1983). The decline in self-esteem
from middle childhood to early adolescence has been ex-
plained by several factors, including physical changes ac-
companying puberty that make children very critical and
self-conscious, discrepancies between an ideal self and how
they see themselves, and moving into junior high schools
where they are the youngest and least important members
of the school (Simmons, Rosenberg, and Rosenberg 1973;
Zigler, Balla, and Watson 1972). Self-esteem reboundsonce
adolescents become more realistic about their self-concept,
more comfortable with their social environment and peer
groups, and less self-conscious about their physical ap-
pearance (McCarthy and Hoge 1982).
Self-Esteem and Materialism. We know from the
adult literature that material possessions provide a way to
cope with insecurity and feelings of low self-esteem (Braun
and Wicklund 1989; Chang and Arkin 2002; Kasser 2002;
Solberg et al. 2004). But, can we expect children and ad-
olescents to use material possessions in the same way? Using
material possessions as a coping strategy for low self-esteem
requires an understanding of the symbolic meanings of ma-
terial goods and their usefulness for enhancing and com-
municating one’s self-concept. That is, one needs to un-
derstand that material possessions have symbolic meanings,
reflecting concepts such as prestige or sophistication, which
can be used to cope with feelings of low self-worth and
even communicate a more positive self-concept to others.
Understanding of these concepts develops during middle
to late childhood. By the time children reach late childhood
(ages 10–11), they understand symbolic meanings and status
accorded to certain types of possessions and products, as
reported in studies of the development of consumption sym-
bolism (Belk, Bahn, and Mayer 1982; Belk, Mayer, and
Driscoll 1984) and brand images (Achenreiner and John
2003; Chaplin and John 2005). Also by late childhood, chil-
dren appreciate possessions as a way to define their self-
concepts, viewing possessions as a salient part of who they
are (Chaplin and John 2005; Dixon and Street 1975). Added
to this is a new understanding of how they are perceived
by others (Selman 1980) and that impressions are formed
on the basis of many factors (Barenboim 1981), including
ownership of material goods (Chaplin and John 2005).
This new appreciation for material possessions emerges
about the same time as children experience a decline in self-
esteem as they enter adolescence (ages 12–13), providing a
strong motivation for acquiring possessions to enhance their
self-esteem, thereby fueling materialistic tendencies. Con-
sistent with this view, researchers have explained that ad-

000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
olescents manage their impressions by acquiring brands and
products used by their peer group such as clothing, music,
and even cigarettes, using them as props to seek peer ac-
ceptance (Cohen 1982; Solomon 1983).
By late adolescence (ages 16–18), self-esteem begins to
rebound and the emphasis on material possessions is less-
ened. As older adolescents become more realistic about their
self-concept and more comfortable with their social envi-
ronment, the need for coping strategies to overcome feelings
of low self-worth becomes less urgent (McCarthy andHoge
1982). Additionally, older adolescents have a fuller reper-
toire of strategies for bolstering their feelings of self-worth
and managing the impressions they communicate to others.
By late adolescence, individuals gain more personal auton-
omy and freedom of action to behave in ways that are more
effective in enhancing their self-esteem (McCarthy and
Hoge 1982), such as choosing their own social groups and
placing more emphasis on activities and accomplishments
than on material goods for self-definition (Belk 1988).
Hypotheses. By the time children reach early adoles-
cence and experience a decline in self-esteem, the stage is
set for the use of material possessions as a coping strategy
for feelings of low self-worth. This leads to a focus on
material goods as an indirect means of self-enhancement
and the adoption of materialistic tendencies. In contrast,the
increase in self-esteem occurring between early and late
adolescence results in a decrease in materialism as adoles-
cents develop a more confident sense of who they are and
develop means of self-enhancement that do not rely solely
on material possessions. Hence, we predict:
H1: Age differences in materialism exist among chil-
dren and adolescents.
H1a: Early adolescents (ages 12–13) are more
materialistic than younger children (ages 8–9).
H1b: Late adolescents (ages 16–18) are less ma-
terialistic than early adolescents (ages 12–13).
H2: Age differences in materialism are mediated by
self-esteem.
H2a: Early adolescents (ages 12–13) are more
materialistic than younger children (ages 8–9)
due to lower self-esteem.
H2b: Late adolescents (ages 16–18) are less ma-
terialistic than early adolescents (ages 12–13)
due to higher self-esteem.
STUDY 1
Sample
Participants from three age groups were recruited from
St. Paul, Minnesota: 50 third/fourth graders (ages 8–9), 50
seventh/eighth graders (ages 12–13), and 50 eleventh/
twelfth graders (ages 16–18). Each age group contained an
equal number of males and females. Parental consent and
participant assent were obtained prior to the study.
Procedure
Participants were interviewed individually. After a brief
description of the study, respondents completed tasks mea-
suring their level of materialism and then self-esteem. Each
task was described and demonstrated by the interviewer.
Next, participants completed several questions used for mea-
sure validation. Participants were then debriefed, asked not
to talk about the study until its completion, and compensated
with small prizes for their participation. The proceduretook
approximately 45 minutes to complete.
Measures
Self-Esteem. Self-esteem was measured using a sorting
task. To begin, the experimenter placed four 3 #5 index
cards in front of the child, with individual cards labeled “all
of the time,” “most of the time,” “sometimes,” and “never.”
Participants were handed a deck of 3 #5 index cards, with
each card containing an item adapted from Rosenberg’s
(1965) self-esteem scale (see table 1). Participants read each
item and decided how often it described them (all of the
time, most of the time, sometimes, or never). A child who
felt that this statement described him/her all of the time,
would take that card and place it in the pile labeled “all of
the time.” The same procedure was used for all 20 items,
and responses were summed to obtain the final measure.
Materialism. Materialism was measured by asking par-
ticipants to construct a collage to answer the question, “What
makes me happy?” Choosing more material goods, such as
“money” and “brand names,” over nonmaterialistic senti-
ments, such as “being with friends” or “no homework,”
indicated higher levels of materialism. Although rating
scales are often used to measure materialism in adults, we
selected a collage format to accommodate the wide age range
(8–18 years) in our sample, which is broader than age ranges
included in prior work using rating scales (e.g., 9–14 years;
Goldberg et al. 2003). Rating scales ask respondents toagree
or disagree with statements such as “Money can buy hap-
piness,” which can have a different meaning for young chil-
dren versus older adolescents and adults. However, thebasic
concept of “happiness” is easy to understand regardless of
age. Combining the basic concept of “happiness” with a
collage methodology, which has been successfully used with
children and adolescents (Chaplin and John 2005), produced
a task that was familiar, engaging, and well understood by
the wide age range of respondents in our study. Also, by
measuring materialism in a less transparent way than rating
scales, we hoped to reduce socially desirable responding
among older adolescents, who are quite aware of negative
connotations attached to materialistic values.
The collage exercise began by showing participants a set
of stimuli available for composing their collages. Although
collage methods often require respondents to find their own

MATERIALISM IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS 000
TABLE 1
STUDY 1: MEASUREMENT SCALES
Measure Number of items Examples Response scale Reliability
(coefficient a)
Main study measures:
Self-esteem 20 “I feel good about myself”
“I am happy with the way I look”
“I’m just as good as anyone else”
4pall the time
3pmost of the time
2psometimes
1pnever
.86
Validation measures:
Youth Materialism Scale
(YMS) 10 “I would love to buy things that
cost lots of money”
“When you grow up, the more
money you have the happier
you’ll be”
4pYES
3pyes
2pno
1pNO
.78
Selfishness 6 “My happiness depends on the
happiness of those around me”
“I try to do what is best for me,
regardless of how that might
affect others”
4pall the time
3pmost of the time
2psometimes
1pnever
.83
Impression management 5 “In order to get along and be
liked, I am what people expect
me to be”
“I can change my behavior de-
pending on who is around”
4pall the time
3pmost of the time
2psometimes
1pnever
.71
pictures or words, we provided a set of stimuli to ensure
that younger as well as older respondents would have an
accessible set of materials. These items were mounted on
five poster boards, each representing a different theme: hob-
bies, people, sports, material things, and achievements (see
fig. 1). These themes were suggested by pilot tests asking
children and adolescents to answer an open-ended question
about happiness (“What makes you happy?). Twenty lam-
inated labels and/or pictures were placed on each board. For
example, “camping” and “skateboarding” labels were in-
cluded on the hobbies board, “getting good grades” and
“being good at sports” were found on the achievements
board, “money” and “new clothes” were included on the
material things board, “basketball” and “hockey” were pic-
tured on the sports board, and “friends” and “teacher” were
included on the people board. These items were selected to
appeal to a wide range of interests. For example, for material
things, we selected many popular items across age groups
(e.g., money), a few more popular with younger children
(e.g., stuffed animals), a few more popular with older chil-
dren (e.g., nice car), a few more popular with boys (e.g.,
nice sports equipment), and a few more popular with girls
(e.g., jewelry).
Participants were asked to construct their happiness col-
lage by choosing items from the theme boards. Post-it
boards, the size of a poster board covered with a reposi-
tionable adhesive, were used for the theme boards and blank
collage board. This allowed participants to easily move pic-
tures and labels from board to board, add or eliminate labels
from collages, and artistically arrange the elements on their
collage. Blank cards and markers were available for partic-
ipants to make up their own labels or pictures. Upon com-
pleting their collages, participants were asked to describe
why they had placed certain items on the collage. These
responses served as a check to ensure that collage items
were being interpreted as material goods or nonmaterial
goods as we intended. A photograph of the collage was then
taken for later data analysis.
Next, we asked participants to reduce their collages by
discarding half of the labels or pictures, leaving the items
most important to their happiness. Participants were forced
to make trade-offs at this stage, which encouraged partici-
pants to think carefully about the things that truly made
them happy versus things that were not crucially important
to their happiness. A photograph of the happiness collage
(now in its reduced form) was taken for data analysis.
Two measures of materialism were computed from each
child’s original and reduced happiness collage (see fig. 2).
The first measure was the number of material possessions
included on the collage. A second measure adjusted for the
possibility that a larger number of material items might be
included on the collage simply because of a greater number
of items on a collage. We adjusted for collage size by di-
viding the number of material possessions on a collage by
the total number of items on the collage.
Results
Reliability and Validity. We conducted several anal-
yses for the materialism collage measures. For test-retest
reliability, we asked a sample of respondents to complete a
second happiness collage two weeks after the main study.

000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE 1
THEME BOARD EXAMPLES
Comparing these collages to those from the main study, we
found strong test-retest correlations for the number of ma-
terial possessions (original collage: , ; re-rp.84 p!.01
duced collage: , ) and the percentage of ma-rp.88 p!.01
terial possessions (original collage: , ;rp.87 p!.01
reduced collage: , ).rp.89 p!.01
Tests of concurrent validity were also conducted. Mate-
rialism measures based on the original collage were corre-

MATERIALISM IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS 000
FIGURE 2
HAPPINESS COLLAGE EXAMPLE
lated with those for the reduced collage, indicating strong
concurrent validity for the number of material possessions
( , ) and the percentage of material posses-rp.71 p!.01
sions ( , ). Given these results, we focusedrp.67 p!.01
attention on measures from the original collage, specifically
the number of material possessions, for subsequent analyses.
We also correlated our measure with Goldberg et al.’s
(2003) Youth Materialism Scale (YMS), the best rating scale
available for measuring materialism in children 9–14 years
of age. The YMS asks children to agree or disagree with a
series of statements that reflect materialistic values, includ-
ing two items referring to possessions as a means for achiev-
ing happiness (see table 1). We made one modification to
the scale, using scale points of “YES, yes, no, NO” in lieu
of “agree” and “disagree,” to make it easier for our youngest
respondents. For validation purposes, we correlated the
YMS and happiness collage measures for 9–14-year-olds in
our sample. Although these two measures are different in
nature, we expected, and found, a high correlation between
the two measures ( , ).rp.88 p!.01
Third, we correlated our materialism measure with a mea-
sure of selfishness. Researchers have used measures of self-
ishness (nongenerosity) to validate materialism measures
with adults (Richins and Dawson 1992). We asked partic-
ipants to respond to six statements, which were summed to
form a selfishness scale (see table 1). The resulting scale
was correlated with our measure of materialism, confirming
a significant positive correlation ( , ).rp.53 p!.01
Finally, to assess whether socially desirable responding
(SDR) might be operative, we correlated our materialism
measure with one measuring impression management (see
table 1). Impression management has been identified as the
most important aspect of socially desirable responding
(Mick 1996), with evidence of SDR indicated by a sig-
nificant negative correlation between materialism and im-
pression management. However, we found a significant
positive correlation between materialism and impression
management ( , ), suggesting that SDR is notrp.42 p!.01
a factor. In fact, the positive correlation supports our view
of materialism as instrumental to the purposes of self-
enhancement.
Tests were also conducted for the self-esteem measure.
A test of internal consistency indicated an acceptable level
of reliability ( ). To validate children’s responses,ap.86
we identified camp counselors who had known each partic-
ipant for at least a year. Counselors were asked to rate the
self-esteem of the participant by agreeing or disagreeing
with the statement, “In general, [name of participant] views
him/herself favorably” on a 1 (disagree a lot) to 5 (agree a
lot) scale. Correlations between children’s and counselor’s
ratings indicated an acceptable level of convergence (rp
,)..62 p!.01
Hypothesis 1. Planned contrasts between age groups
confirmed the existence of age differences in materialism(see
fig. 3). Specifically, 8–9-year-olds included fewer material
items on their collages than did 12–13-year-olds (Mp
vs. 6.72, , ) and 16–18-year-olds3.62 t(1, 98) p5.50 p!.01
included fewer material items than did 12–13-year-olds
( vs. 6.72, , ). These age-Mp5.26 t(1, 98) p2.38 pp.02

000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE 3
STUDY 1: AGE DIFFERENCES IN SELF-ESTEEM AND
MATERIALISM
related trends were not influenced by collage size, indicated
by an absence of age differences for total number of items
placed on collages ( , ,Mp26.54 Mp28.64
ages 8-9 ages12-13
, all ). Data from reduced collagesMp27.98 p’s1.15
ages 16-18
exhibited the same trends, with 8–9-year-olds includingfewer
material things than did 12–13-year-olds ( vs. 2.94,Mp.90
, ) and 16–18-year-olds includingt(1, 98) p5.45 p!.01
fewer material items than did 12–13-year-olds ( vs.Mp1.38
2.94, , ).t(1, 98) p3.90 p!.01
Hypothesis 2. The mediating role of self-esteem was
examined using tests of mediation outlined by Baron and
Kenny (1986). For each age contrast of interest, 8–9-year-
olds versus 12–13-year-olds and 12–13-year-olds versus
16–18-year-olds, we specified three separate regressions:(1)
the effect of age on materialism, (2) the effect of age on
self-esteem, and (3) the effect of age and self-esteem on
materialism. A mediating effect is supported if the coeffi-
cients for age in the first two equations and the coefficient
for self-esteem in the third equation are significant and if
the effect of age on materialism is weaker in the third re-
gression than in the first. Perfect mediation is indicated if
age has no effect with self-esteem included in the model.
Our analysis provided support for the mediating effect of
self-esteem (see table 2). Results for the first two regressions
indicate a significant effect of age on materialism as well
as a significant effect of age on self-esteem. Thus, the ex-
pected age differences in self-esteem emerged. We found
8–9-year-olds had higher self-esteem than did 12–13-year-
olds ( vs. 3.00, , ) andMp3.34 t(1, 98) p4.30 p!.01
16–18-year-olds had higher self-esteem than did 12–13-
year-olds ( vs. 3.00, , ).Mp3.24 t(1, 98) p2.87 pp.01
Results for the third regression yielded evidence of self-
esteem as a mediator of the relationship between age and
materialism. Specifically, self-esteem is a partial mediator
for the increase we see in materialism from middle childhood
(ages 8–9) to early adolescence (ages 12–13), indicated by
a drop in the size of the age coefficient from the first to
third regression. Self-esteem is a perfect mediator for the
decrease we see in materialism from early adolescence(ages
12–13) to late adolescence (ages 16–18), indicated by a drop
in the significance of the age coefficient from the first to
third regression.
Discussion
The results of this study confirm the existence of age
differences in materialism. We found materialism increasing
from middle childhood to early adolescence and then de-
creasing by late adolescence. These patterns are related to
levels of self-esteem. Decreases in self-esteem occurring
between middle childhood and early adolescence appear to
result in increases in materialism. As self-esteem rebounds
from early to late adolescence, we see decreases in mate-
rialism. Self-esteem is not only related to materialism
( , ) but also a mediator of the relationshiprp⫺.37 p!.01
between age and materialism.
These results need to be considered in light of the usual
questions raised by correlational data. One concern is that
reported correlations between two variables can be spurious
in nature, emerging only because both are related to a third
variable. For example, age and materialism might be cor-
related only because they are both independently related to
the amount of spending money that a child or adolescent
receives from their parents or a job. Or self-esteem might
be correlated to materialism only because both of these fac-
tors are related to age. A second concern is that correlation
does not imply causation. Although this is not an issue for
some of the relationships we report, notably between age
and materialism or age and self-esteem, it is a concern for
the relationship between self-esteem and materialism. The
possibility exists that low self-esteem may be a consequence,
rather than a cause, of materialism.
We address these concerns by examining the causal link
between age, self-esteem, and materialism in a second study.
We adopt an experimental approach used by psychologists
to study the link between concepts such as insecurity orself-
worth and materialism (Chang and Arkin 2002; Kasser 2002;
Solberg et al. 2004). Although individuals exhibit chronic
levels of self-esteem and materialism, levels of self-esteem
and expressions of materialism can vary by situation (Chang

MATERIALISM IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS 000
TABLE 2
STUDY 1: MEDIATING EFFECTS OF SELF-ESTEEM
Dependent variable Independent variable Coefficient p-value F-value R
2
Materialism
Regression 1:
Materialism Age1 .47 .000 28.041 .222
Regression 2:
Self-esteem Age1 ⫺.33 .000 12.072 .110
Regression 3:
Materialism Age1 .40 .000 17.695 .267
Self-esteem ⫺.22 .017
Materialism
Regression 1:
Materialism Age2 ⫺.26 .009 7.106 .068
Regression 2:
Self-esteem Age2 .27 .007 7.598 .072
Regression 3:
Materialism Age2 ⫺.18 .072 9.136 .159
Self-esteem ⫺.31 .002
N
OTE
.—Age1 indicates results for younger age groups (8–9-year-olds and 12–13-year-olds). Age2 indicates results for older age groups (12–13-year-oldsand
16–18-year-olds).
and Arkin 2002). Thus self-esteem or self-worth can be
manipulated, allowing one to observe the resulting changes
in expressions of materialism.
In study 2, we manipulate self-esteem, which allows us
to look at the causal influence of changing levels of self-
esteem, with all other factors held constant. We prime high
self-esteem and expect to see lower levels of materialism
expressed by children and adolescents as compared to a
control group. Specifically:
H3: Children/adolescents with induced feelings of
high self-esteem will express lower levels of ma-
terialism than children/adolescents in the control
group (no self-esteem prime).
STUDY 2
Design, Sample, and Procedure
We tested our predictions in a 2 (self-esteem prime: high,
control) #3 (age: 8–9, 12–13, 16–18) between subjects
design. Participants from three age groups were recruited
from summer recreational and martial arts classes in Urbana-
Champaign, Illinois: 35 third/fourth graders (ages 8–9; 17
girls and 18 boys), 35 seventh/eighth graders (ages 12–13;
18 girls and 17 boys), and 35 eleventh/twelfth graders (ages
16–18; 18 girls and 17 boys). Data for the experimental
group were collected first, followed by the control group.
Parental consent and participant assent were obtained prior
to the study.
The procedure was identical to study 1, with the exception
of the self-esteem prime, which was administered to the
experimental group at the beginning of the study. Partici-
pants completed the same tasks used in study 1 to measure
self-esteem and materialism. In this study, the self-esteem
measure was used as a manipulation check to assess the
effectiveness of the self-esteem prime. The materialism mea-
sure, derived from the collage task, constituted the main
dependent measure for this study.
Self-Esteem Prime
We primed self-esteem in the context of an activity, often
used in schools and camps, asking children to write nice
things about their fellow students or campers on paper plates.
Upon completion, each child receives a paper plate with
positive peer feedback about them (e.g., cool, pretty,funny).
We used this activity to produce for participants in the ex-
perimental group a paper plate (“Nice Things about Me”
plate) that had exactly eight items, half provided by fellow
classmates/campers and half provided by camp counselors
and class instructors.
In the high self-esteem prime condition, participants re-
ceived their paper plate with the positive comments prior
to the start of the study. As soon as they received theirplate,
they were asked to sit at a table, read their paper plate, and
wait for the experimenter to complete paperwork needed to
begin the study. At the table, in clear view of the participant,
were five additional “Nice Things about Me” plates be-
longing to other children, with each plate having only three
positive comments (see fig. 4). These plates were made by
the experimenter as props for the study and did not belong
to fellow classmates or campers. Participants were able to
see that the other children’s plates had only three nice de-
scriptions, while theirs had many more.
In the control condition, participants also received a “Nice
Things about Me” plate, but they were given the plate at
the completion of the study. Thus, respondents completed
a happiness collage before receiving their “Nice Things
about Me” plate. The purpose of the “Nice Things about
Me” plate for the control group was simply to make sure
that all participants in the study had a plate to take home

000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE 4
STUDY 2: HIGH SELF-ESTEEM PRIME
with them at the end of the study, regardless of the condition
to which they were assigned.
Results
Self-Esteem. A 2 (self-esteem prime: high, control) #
3 (age: 8–9, 12–13, 16–18) ANOVA was performed on the
self-esteem measure (see table 3 for means and standard
deviations). The results confirmed the success of the self-
esteem prime. A significant main effect of the self-esteem
prime emerged ( , ), with partici-F(1, 99) p65.40 p!.01
pants in the control condition reporting lower self-esteem
( ) than participants in the high self-esteem primeMp2.93
condition ( ). Contrasts performed for each ageMp3.48
group confirmed that the self-esteem prime was successful
for 8–9-year-olds ( , ), 12–13-year-t(1, 33) p2.69 p!.01
olds ( , ), and 16–18-year-oldst(1, 33) p5.25 p!.01
( , ). As expected, the impact of thet(1, 33) p7.92 p!.01
self-esteem prime on reported self-esteem was similaracross
age levels, as indicated by the absence of a significant age
#self-esteem prime interaction ( ).p1.10
Materialism. A 2 (self-esteem prime: high, control) #
3 (age: 8–9, 12–13, 16–18) ANOVA was performed on the
materialism measure (see table 3 for means and standard de-
viations). As predicted, a significant main effect of the self-
esteem prime emerged ( , ). Partici-F(1, 99) p69.34 p!.01
pants in the high self-esteem prime condition were less
materialistic than those in the control condition (Mp2.84
vs. 6.00). Contrasts performed for each age group confirmed
that the self-esteem prime had a significant effect on mate-
rialism for 8–9-year-olds ( vs. 3.27,Mp4.30 t(1, 33) p
, ), 12–13-year-olds ( vs. 2.93,2.47 pp.05 Mp8.00
, ), and 16–18-year-olds (t(1, 33) p59.46 p!.01 Mp5.70
vs. 2.33, , ).t(1, 33) p26.26 p!.01
Interestingly, the self-esteem main effect was qualified
by a significant age #self-esteem prime interaction
( , ). As predicted, materialism wasF(2, 99) p9.52 p!.01
higher for the control group versus the high self-esteem prime
group for each age group. However, the self-esteem prime
had a much larger impact on expressions of materialism for
the two older age groups, especially the 12–13-year-olds (see
fig. 5). This finding is consistent with our theorizingin that
early adolescents experience a large drop in self-esteem
that leads to materialism; therefore, the boost inself-esteem
they receive from our self-esteem prime has a very large
impact on their expressions of materialism. In fact, thetwo
older age groups benefit so much that there is an absence
of age differences among participants in the high self-
esteem condition (for all age contrasts, ). The cur-p’s1.15
vilinear trend for age differences found in study 1 is still
intact in the control condition, with materialism increasing
from middle childhood to early adolescence (Mp
ages 8-9
vs. , , ) and4.30 Mp8.00 t(1, 38) p37.00 p!.01
ages 12-13
decreasing from early adolescence to late adolescence
( vs. , ,Mp8.00 Mp5.70 t(1, 38) p14.30
ages 12-13 ages16-18
). Thus, priming high self-esteem eliminated agep!.01
differences in materialism.
Discussion
The results of this study provide further support for the
connection between self-esteem and materialism in children
and adolescents. By priming higher levels of self-esteem,
we were able to provide evidence of the causal role that
self-esteem plays in fostering materialistic orientations. Ma-
terialism was higher for participants in the control condition
than for those in the high self-esteem prime condition, for
all three age groups. Our findings suggest that, over time,
children who experience chronically high (low) levels of
self-esteem are more likely to express lower (higher) levels
of materialism.
Further, our results show that priming high self-esteem
eliminates age differences in materialism, consistent with
our conceptual story regarding self-esteem and materialism.

MATERIALISM IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS 000
FIGURE 5
STUDY 2: AGE #SELF-ESTEEM PRIME INTERACTION
TABLE 3
STUDY 2: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BY SELF-ESTEEM CONDITION
Control High self-esteem prime
Ages 8–9
(np20) Ages 12–13
(np20) Ages 16–18
(np20) Ages 8–9
(np15) Ages 12–13
(np15) Ages 16–18
(np15)
Self-esteem 3.05
(.38) 2.70
(.42) 3.02
(.24) 3.40
(.38) 3.45
(.41) 3.60
(.16)
Materialism 4.30
(2.36) 8.00
(2.43) 5.70
(1.42) 3.27
(1.58) 2.93
(1.75) 2.33
(1.50)
N
OTE
.—Numbers in parentheses represent standard deviations.
We hypothesized that materialism increases as children ap-
proach early adolescence due to a severe drop in self-esteem
that occurs around ages 12–13. By priming high self-esteem,
we reversed the large drop in self-esteem experienced by
early adolescents, thereby reducing the steep rise in mate-
rialism among this group.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our results document the existence of age differences in
materialism. We find that materialism increases from middle
childhood to early adolescence and declines from early to
late adolescence (study 1). We also find that self-esteem is
an important mediator of age differences (study 1) and that
self-esteem is a significant cause of changes in expressions
of materialism (study 2). Our results show that increases in
self-esteem lead to lower levels of materialism.
Theoretical Contributions
Although many observers believe that children begin to
exhibit materialistic orientations as they approach adoles-
cence, there has been little empirical evidence to support
the existence of age differences in materialism. Ourfindings
support the idea that materialism develops as children enter
adolescence but also point to a surprising downturn in ma-
terialism as children enter later adolescence. Mostobservers
have focused on the increase in materialistic orientationthat
occurs with the onset of adolescence, but our research shows
an equally interesting phenomenon of materialism decreas-
ing as adolescents approach adulthood.
What accounts for age differences in materialism? We
begin to address this question by focusing on the role that
self-esteem plays in developing a materialistic orientation.
Our view is that a drop in self-esteem experienced by many
children as they enter adolescence triggers a focus on ma-
terial goods, primarily as a means of self-enhancement. As
self-esteem rebounds in late adolescence, the need for self-
enhancement of any sort, including the use of material
goods, declines along with a decrease in materialistic ori-
entation.
The link between self-esteem and materialism provides a
starting point for understanding how other factors may con-
tribute to the rise in materialism as children approach ad-
olescence. Previous research has identified a number of fac-
tors that are correlated with materialism in children and
adolescents, such as family environment, parenting style,
peer interaction, and media exposure. Although explanations
have been forwarded for why each factor contributes to
materialism, we propose that many of these factors influence
materialism by affecting a child’s level of self-esteem. Chil-
dren who come from families with ineffective communi-
cation styles, with parents who do not provide a supportive
atmosphere, and peers who exert too much influence in their
lives are quite likely to experience low self-esteem.Children
and adolescents are vulnerable to feelings of low self-esteem
in these environments, leading to the search for something
that will make them feel better about themselves. Material
possessions fulfill this role for many children and adoles-
cents, as they focus on material goods as a way to enhance
their poor self-images.
To illustrate, consider the role of peer pressure in the
development of materialistic orientations among adoles-
cents. Peer pressure is often identified as an important factor

000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
that drives young people to acquire particular materialgoods
in order to be accepted by their peers and escape ridicule.
The influence of peers is thought to peak in early to mid
adolescence (Berndt 1979), which is the same time frame
we have isolated for a drop in self-esteem. We propose that
self-esteem mediates the link between peer influence and
materialism. We would also propose that self-esteem me-
diates the link between peer acceptance and materialism.
These linkages can be tested, allowing us to build a con-
ceptual framework to better understand how the many in-
fluences on materialism are related to each other in children
and adolescents.
These possibilities could be tested in the context of a
conceptual model similar to the one proposed by Kasser
(Kasser 2002; Kasser et al. 2004). This model specifies that
materialism develops through two paths: “(1) from expe-
riences that induce feelings of insecurity and (2) from ex-
posure to social models that encourage materialistic values”
(Kasser et al. 2004, 13). A strong materialistic orientation
is one way that individuals cope with or compensate for
doubts about their safety, competence, and self-worth (path
1). People also become materialistic by internalizing the
materialistic orientations of important people in their lives,
such as parents or peers, and materialistic messages from
popular culture and the media (path 2). Our results pertaining
to self-esteem fit the first pathway well. Additional influ-
ences on materialism, including many addressed by prior
research, may exert their effects in an indirect way through
self-esteem (path 1) as we have suggested, and/or in a direct
way through a modeling (path 2).
Methodological Contributions
One of the primary reasons why age differences in ma-
terialism have not received more attention is the difficulty
of measuring materialism across a wide age range of children
and adolescents. In this research, we use a collage meth-
odology, which provides an engaging activity for young
children and adolescents to reveal the importance of material
goods in their lives. Collages have been used successfully
in prior research with adults (Zaltman and Coulter 1995) as
well as children (Chaplin and John 2005), providing several
advantages over other methods. Collages involve less mem-
ory and verbalization than do in-depth interviews, while
reducing comprehension demands for rating scales. These
advantages are particularly important for measuring a con-
cept as abstract as materialism with younger children. Our
collage method also camouflages the intent of the measure-
ment exercise, which is particularly important for older ad-
olescents. By focusing the collage on the topic of happiness
and providing a wide array of collage materials, we made
it difficult to guess what was being measured, thereby re-
ducing the opportunity to respond in a socially desirable
manner.
Second, we introduce the use of experimental techniques
into the study of materialism in children and adolescents.
Experimental methods are becoming more frequent in psy-
chological studies of materialism among adults (Braun and
Wicklund 1989; Kasser 2002; Solberg et al. 2004). Although
these techniques have distinct benefits for researching adult
populations, they are even more helpful in studying the
causes of materialism among children and adolescents. For
example, in studying age differences in materialism, onecan
easily identify a number of factors that change with age,
such as advertising exposure, media use, product experience,
product knowledge, and spending power. Experimental
methods allow one to examine one or two factors of interest,
such as self-esteem, holding all other possible factors con-
stant.
Societal Implications
Questions about how materialism develops in children
and adolescents are not only intriguing but are important to
a wide range of constituents—parents, educators, publicpol-
icy officials, and consumer researchers. Addressing these
questions holds the promise of understanding more about
materialism, about how values develop in our families and
communities, and about how children become socialized as
consumers in contemporary society.
For many constituents, the key question is what can be
done to diminish materialism among children and adoles-
cents? The ideas receiving the most attention appear to be
those centered around placing constraints on media and ad-
vertising exposure—such as bans on advertising to children,
bans on corporate marketing in public schools, and parental
limits on TV exposure. Our results suggest that strategies
aimed at increasing self-esteem among tweens and adoles-
cents would be effective. In fact, we found a simple self-
esteem manipulation to be so powerful among adolescents
that it decreased their focus on material goods to the level
of much younger children. Peer acceptance was the basis
of our self-esteem manipulation, but there are many ways
to influence feelings of self-worth and self-esteem in chil-
dren and adolescents (Brooks and Goldstein 2001). Parents,
teachers, peers, and other concerned adults can participate
in this endeavor. Giving children or adolescents a sense of
self-worth and accomplishment seems to be quite an effec-
tive antidote to the development of materialism.
REFERENCES
Achenreiner, Gwen Bachmann (1997), “Materialistic Values and
Susceptibility to Influence in Children,” in Advances in Con-
sumer Research, Vol. 24, ed. Merrie Brucks and Deborah J.
MacInnis, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
82–88.
Achenreiner, Gwen Bachmann and Deborah RoedderJohn (2003),
“The Meaning of Brand Names to Children: A Developmental
Investigation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (Sep-
tember), 205–19.
Barenboim, Carl (1981), “The Development of Person Perception
in Childhood and Adolescence: From Behavioral Compari-
sons to Psychological Constructs to Psychological Compar-
isons,” Child Development, 52 (March), 129–44.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-

MATERIALISM IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS 000
Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Re-
search: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (Decem-
ber), 1173–82.
Belk, Russell W. (1984), “Three Scales to Measure Constructs
Related to Materialism: Reliability, Validity, and Relation-
ships to Measures of Happiness,” in Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 11, ed. Thomas Kinnear, Provo, UT: Associ-
ation for Consumer Research, 291–97.
——— (1985), “Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Ma-
terial 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., Kenneth D. Bahn, and Robert N. Mayer (1982),
“Developmental Recognition of Consumption Symbolism,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 4–17.
Belk, Russell W., Robert Mayer, and Amy Driscoll (1984), “Chil-
dren’s Recognition of Consumption Symbolism in Children’s
Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (March), 386–97.
Berndt, Thomas (1979), “Developmental Changes in Conformity
to Peers and Parents,” Developmental Psychology,15(6),
608–16.
Braun, Ottmar L. and Robert Wicklund (1989), “Psychological
Antecedents of Conspicuous Consumption,” Journal of Eco-
nomic Psychology,10 (June), 161–87.
Brooks, Robert and Sam Goldstein (2001), Raising Resilient Chil-
dren, Chicago: Contemporary Books.
Brown, Jonathan D., Rebecca L. Collins, and Greg W. Schmidt
(1988), “Self-Esteem and Direct versus Indirect Forms of Self-
Enhancement,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55 (September), 445–53.
Center for a New American Dream (2004), New American Dream
Survey Report, http://www.newdream.org/about/PollResults
.pdf.
Chang, LinChiat and Robert M. Arkin (2002), “Materialism as an
Attempt to Cope with Uncertainty,” Psychology and Mar-
keting, 19 (May), 389–406.
Chaplin, Lan Nguyen and Deborah Roedder John (2005), “The
Development of Self-Brand Connections in Children and Ad-
olescents,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 119–29.
Churchill, Gilbert A. and George P. Moschis (1979), “Television
and Interpersonal Influences on Adolescent Consumer Learn-
ing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (June), 23–35.
Cohen, Joel B. (1982), “Playing to Win: Marketing and Public
Policy at Odds over Joe Camel,” Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, 19 (Fall), 155–67.
Czikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981),
The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols of the Self, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, James and Jeannie Street (1975), “The Distinction between
Self and Not-Self in Children and Adolescents,” Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 127 (December), 157–62.
Erikson, Erik H. (1963), Childhood and Society, New York: Norton.
Fournier, Susan and Marsha L. Richins (1991), “Some Theoretical
and Popular Notions Concerning Materialism,” Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 403–14.
Goldberg, Marvin E. and Gerald J. Gorn (1978), “Some Unin-
tended Consequences of TV Advertising to Children,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 5 (June), 22–29.
Goldberg, Marvin E., Gerald J. Gorn, Laura A. Peracchio, and
Gary Bamossy (2003), “Understanding Materialism among
Youth,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (September),
278–88.
Harter, Susan (1983), “To Smile or Not to Smile: Issues in the
Examination of Cross-Cultural Differences and Similarities,”
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment, 48 (5), 80–87.
Holman, Thomas B. (1981), “The Influence of Community In-
volvement on Marital Quality,” Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 43 (February), 143–49.
John, Deborah Roedder (1999), “Consumer Socialization of Chil-
dren: A Retrospective Look at Twenty-Five Years of Re-
search,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (December),
183–213.
Kantrowitz, Barbara and Pat Wingert (1999), “The Truth about
Tweens,” Newsweek, October 18, 62–79.
Kasser, Tim (2002), The High Price of Materialism, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Kasser, Tim, Richard M. Ryan, Charles E. Couchman, andKennon
M. Sheldon (2004), “Materialistic Values: Their Causes and
Consequences,” in Psychology and Consumer Culture, ed.
Tim Kasser and Allen D. Kanner, Washington,DC: American
Psychological Association, 11–28.
Lindstrom, Martin (2003), BRANDchild, London: Kogan Page.
Linn, Susan (2004), Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of
Childhood, New York: New Press.
McCarthy, John D. and Dean R. Hoge (1982), “Analysis of Age
Effects in Longitudinal Studies of Adolescent Self-Esteem,”
Developmental Psychology, 18 (May), 372–79.
Mendelson, Beverly K. and Donna R. White (1985), “Development
of Self-Body-Esteem in Overweight Children,” Developmen-
tal Psychology, 21 (January), 90–96.
Mick, David Glen (1996), “Are Studies of Dark Side Variables
Confounded by Socially Desirable Responding? The Case of
Materialism,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (Septem-
ber), 106–19.
Moore, Roy L. and George P. Moschis (1981), “The Role of Family
Communication in Consumer Learning,” Journal of Com-
munications, 31 (Autumn), 42–51.
Moschis, George P. and Gilbert A. Churchill Jr.(1978), “Consumer
Socialization: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 15 (November), 599–609.
Moschis, George P. and Roy Moore (1979), “Decision Making
among the Young: A Socialization Perspective,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 6 (September), 101–12.
Mukerji, Chandra (1983), From Graven Images: Patterns of Mod-
ern Materialism, New York: Columbia University Press.
O’Malley, Patrick M. and Jerald G. Bachman (1983),“Self-Esteem:
Change and Stability between Ages 13 and 23,” Develop-
mental Psychology, 19 (March), 257–68.
Quart, Alissa (2003), The Buying and Selling of Teenagers, Cam-
bridge, MA: Perseus.
Richins, Marsha L. and Scott Dawson (1992), “A Consumer Values
Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale De-
velopment and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research,
19 (December), 303–16.
Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Frank Denton (1997),
“Family Structure, Materialism, and Compulsive Consump-
tion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March), 312–25.
Roberts, James A., John F. Tanner, and Chris Manolis (2005),
“Materialism and the Family Structure-Stress Relation,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (2), 183–90.
Rosenberg, Morris (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

000 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
——— (1979), Conceiving the Self, New York: Basic.
Schor, Juliet B. (2004), Born to Buy, New York: Scribner.
Selman, Robert L. (1980), The Growth of Interpersonal Under-
standing, New York: Academic.
Seyfer, Jessie (1999), “School Board Bans Ads inTextbooks, May
Remove Some Snacks,” Marketing News, 19 (July), 8.
Siegel, David L., Timothy J. Coffey, and Gregory Livingston
(2001), The Great Tween Buying Machine, Ithaca, NY: Par-
amount Market.
Simmons, Roberta, Florence Rosenberg, and Morris Rosenberg
(1973), “Disturbance in Self-Image at Adolescence,” Amer-
ican Sociological Review, 38 (October), 553–68.
Solberg, Emily G., Edward Diener, and Michael D. Robinson
(2004), “Why Are Materialists Less Satisfied?” in Psychology
and Consumer Culture, ed. Tim Kasser and Allen D. Kanner,
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,
29–48.
Solomon, Michael R. (1983), “The Role of Products as Social
Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 10 (December), 319–29.
Zaltman, Gerald and Robin Higie Coulter (1995), “Seeing the
Voice of the Customer: Metaphor-Based Advertising Re-
search,” Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (July–August),
35–51.
Zigler, Edward, David Balla, and Neill Watson (1972), “Devel-
opmental and Experiential Determinants of Self-Image Dis-
parity in Institutionalized and Noninstitutionalized Retarded
and Normal Children,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 23 (July), 81–87.