Materialism Research Results from The Pollux GroupBy David Atkins
Summary Report June 2009Research overviewSimple Living America sought to evaluate attitudes toward simplicity and materialism in the near-mainstream population and to determine the best options for possible new directions. To this end, qualitative research consisting of ten in-depth interviews was conducted on 5/27/09 in Los Angeles, CA. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes each. All research was conducted by
David Atkins, principal at The Pollux Group, Inc. As the data gathered was qualitative in nature, conclusions should always be drawn with caution due to the limited sample population in the study.Key respondent specifications- 6 women, 4 men
- 7 Democratic voters, 2 DTS and 1 GOP voters
- Mostly moderate in political ideology, donors to variety of non-profit organizations
- Battery of questions reveals openness to anti-materialist messaging
- Four aged 20-34, four aged 35-59, two aged 60+
- Mostly some college or college graduates
- Mix of occupations
- At least $20,000 household income, with most between $40,000-$75,000
- Mostly Caucasian, two African-Americans, one Hispanic
Executive summaryFinancial hardship was the primary cause of stress. Cost-saving measures such as coupon-shopping and generic purchases were the primary methods of dealing with this stress. Lack of time was a constant but not a major stress. Overconsumption and materialism were seen as major problems. Most did not see it as their problem and instead externalized it onto others. Loss of inner values due to consumerism was seen as a problem, but it was perceived as a product of an inner emptiness or lack of self esteem. Most did not blame consumerism first as a cause of psychological problems, but blamed psychological problems as a cause of consumerism.
“Keeping up with the Joneses” was the phrase most often used unaided to describe the phenomenon. Most indicated an interest in an anti-consumerism organization, but would not become a dedicated activist. Other issues were seen as more prominent and more directly affecting populations in greater need. Success stories were seen as key to connect emotionally.
“Mindful Consumption” was by far the favorite keyword of those suggested, due to preference for the balance and intentionality associated with
“mindful” and the clarity of issue created by
“consumption.” “Living Simply” was 2nd,
“Sustainable Consumption” 3rd,
and
“The Satisfaction of Enough” 4th.
Financial hardship caused primary stressWhen asked the cause of their greatest stress in life, the vast majority of answers related to economic stress. The current economic climate was seen as significantly to blame: there was a general sense among respondents that cost of living continued to increase, even as their own incomes were not adequate to keep up with the extra expenses. However, finances were seen as a constant source of stress, in good times and bad. The most often mentioned other source of stress was difficulty with relationships, whether with family, friends or significant others. Interestingly, stress due to lack of time was rarely mentioned unaided by respondents, although nearly all immediately stated that it was a problem when asked by the moderator. When asked what respondents did to alleviate this time stress, most seemed confused: time stress was seen as a normal part of life, and not something that one could usually take direct action to resolve.
Many felt that overconsumption was a problemWhen asked whether financial problems were caused by a lack of money for necessities, or by the purchase of unnecessary items, most said that it was some combination of both. Those with lower incomes were likelier to blame the stress on a lack of money for necessities, while those with higher incomes were likelier to blame overconsumption. There was a general sense that most Americans tend to spend too much money on unnecessary purchases, particularly electronic gadgets and clothing items. Many respondents, however, felt that some seemingly unnecessary purchases were essential to their well-being in order to engage in hobbies that particularly interested them.
Most externalized the overconsumption problemWhen asked about their own consumption behavior, most respondents felt that they themselves did not have a problem, but that many of their friends and acquaintances—and even significant others—did. While it is true that screening criteria led to interviews with individuals less materialistic than average, the near universality of the externalization of the problem was striking. Respondents simply refused to believe that they themselves had an overconsumption problem, but were easily able to point to overconsumption by others. Importantly, those whom respondents claimed were hyperconsumers tended to be portrayed more as agents than as victims. Most of the time, it seemed to be someone else’s problem—and someone else’s fault.
Loss of inner values was seen as a problemWhile most respondents felt that they themselves were in touch with their core inner values, they usually felt that many others had often lost sight of those values in the pursuit of overconsumption. When asked to define those core values, most respondents mentioned words and phrases such as
“happiness,” “staying balanced” and
“making others happy.” Overconsumption was usually seen as a product of an inner emptiness or lack of self-esteem, which an individual attempted to solve (unsuccessfully) through the purchase of material goods. This behavior was seen as doubly destructive, as it often placed individuals into financial hardship, thus decreasing happiness and self-esteem. It is important to note that most did not blame consumerism first as a cause of psychological problems, but blamed psychological problems as a cause of consumerism.
“Keeping up with the Joneses” was seen to blameWhen asked to define and give a name to the problem under discussion, a plurality used the phrase
“keeping up with the Joneses”. Many others simply said
“competition” and
“ego”. A couple mentioned the word “consumption” or a variation thereof. Only one respondent mentioned the word
“materialism” unaided. This need to maintain consumption equity with one’s neighbors was generally seen as a natural phenomenon, however, more or less central to the human condition, especially in a modern capitalist society. Respondents usually felt that a dedicated effort needed to be made by individuals to avoid falling into the trap of attempting to
“keep up with the Joneses” in order to create a sense of meaning in one’s life.
Most indicated an interest in an anti-consumerist organizationAfter brief discussion of the non-profits and charities with which they were involved or to which they donated, respondents were asked whether they knew of any organization dedicated to helping combat materialism. All but one said they knew of no such organization. When asked whether they would be interested in such an organization, almost all said that they would be. Usually this desire was expressed with a good deal of enthusiasm. There was a shared perception among respondents that overconsumption was a rampant problem that most did not acknowledge, or that did not receive adequate public attention. The efforts of a dedicated organization were welcome to most respondents.
But interest was not sufficient for dedicated involvementWhile respondents felt that an anti-consumerist organization would be beneficial overall and that they personally would be somewhat intrigued by it, most said that they would probably not actively support such an organization with their time and money. When asked why this was the case, the majority seemed to feel that of the many problems and crises facing the world from climate change to food insecurity and a host of other more celebrated causes, fighting materialism was simply not at the top of their list of priorities. This was particularly the case since they did not truly consider hyperconsumers to be victims, and that those afflicted with the problem tended to be well-to-do compared to other distressed populations. Finally, many were unsure how materialism could or would be combated, and what measures could be used to track the success of any efforts made.
Respondents were shown many words and phrasesRespondents were shown thirteen sheets of paper in random order with various words and catchphrases that might be used to help counter consumerism. They were asked to rank their top five favorites and name their two least favorite. The words and phrases were as follows (it was not possible to test an exhaustive list of possibilities):
The Satisfaction of Enough, Mindful Consumption, Voluntary Simplicity, Sustainable Consumption, Living Simply, Postconsumers, Satisfied Living, Simple Living, Simpler Living, Redefine Rich, Get Satisfied, Downshifting, Frugality.“Mindful Consumption” was by far the favorite“Mindful Consumption” was far and away the favorite tagline, with 7 of 10 respondents placing it as either their first or second favorite. This was for two reasons: first, the word
“consumption” was seen as clearly articulating the central issue in a way that concepts centering around simplicity and satisfaction did not. Second, the word
“mindful” carried a sense of balance and intentionality not present in most other taglines except for
“Voluntary Simplicity,” which seemed fundamentalist and austere to many. Similarly,
“Sustainable Consumption” was the third favorite overall. While it lacked the positive traits brought by the word “mindful,” the idea of sustainability brought environmental concerns to mind in a beneficial way for some, and was directly related to the idea of consumption.
“Living Simply” was 2nd favorite“Living Simply” was the 2nd favorite overall, beating out variations
“Simple Living” and
“Simpler Living” by fair margins. Most respondents could not clearly articulate this preference, but it seemed mostly to stem from emphasis on the word
“living,” which tended to emphasize a direct action and intentionality of lifestyle. Most respondents had positive associations with the words
“simplicity” and
“simple” overall, though some were concerned that they were overly vague and perhaps too austere-sounding for a materialistic culture. When respondents were told at the end of the research that the sponsoring organization was called
“Simple Living America,” they felt that the title was fine, and stated that the title would not detract from their interest in the organization or lack thereof in any way.
“The Satisfaction of Enough” was also somewhat popular“The Satisfaction of Enough” came in 4th place. Respondents liked the reinforcement of the idea of satisfaction and the word “enough.” Several felt that this was distinctly preferable to the variations on the word “simple,” which was seen as austere. Satisfaction seemed, rather, to entail fulfillment and contentment. The problem with
“Satisfaction” and its variations, however, was in its vagueness. Many felt that it did not adequately describe an anti-materialistic organization.
“Frugality” and
“Downshifting” were the least liked of all, as they seemed to imply negativity and privation to most respondents.
The entire SLA newsletter is posted at the main site here. Additional columns from the newsletter will be posted at this blog in coming days.Labels: David Atkins, newsletter, Pollux Group, surveys
