1

1

Marketing Communication and the Consumer

Group 1.2

Branded life: The influence of life and death

salience on consumers’ brand choice

R.J.W. de Bruin, 1952307

L. Brundel, 1675753

O. El Ouardi, 1776150

S. van Nieuwkasteele, 1921657

J. Ohme, 2111268

J. Schlichte Bergen, 1670492

C. Vonkeman/ Dr. E. Das

VU University Amsterdam,

Department of Communication Science

2

2

Abstract

Being extensively researched death salience is found to increase materialistic thoughts and

behavior in Western societies. The construct of life salience is recently introduced by Das,

Bushman and Arendsen (2010) as the opposite of death salience and is therefore thought to

decrease materialistic thoughts and behavior. In this study the relationship between life

salience, death salience and materialism is retested. Furthermore, effects on brand choice are

also taken into account. An experiment was conducted in the Netherlands and Germany

gathering 223 respondents (N = 223). Having respondents from two nationalities allowed us

to replicate our research. However, life salience did not seem to influence brand choice or

materialism different than death salience did. Present research suggests that the construct of

life salience is more than the raw opposite of the construct of death salience and more

complex than expected.

Key words: Life salience, death salience, materialism, brandstatus, brandconnection,

brandorigin.

3

3

Introduction

Over the last decades, materialism and consumerism have become more and more interwoven

with, especially the Western, cultural worldview (Fransen, Fennis, Pruyn & Das, 2008).

Materialism can be described as „the importance that an individual places on the acquisition

of material objects‟ (Rindfleisch, Wong & Burroughs, 2006, p. 4) and is believed to be

associated with low levels of happiness and satisfaction and high levels of depression and

neuroticism in individuals (Rindfleisch et al., 2006).

Research shows that individuals who are materialistic often possess internal

insecurities like low self-esteem, high self-monitoring and social anxiety (Chatterjee & Hunt,

1996; Kasser & Sheldon, 2000). Because materialism is driven by internal insecurities, it is

understandable that materialistic behavior is highest in situations of great uncertainty

(Rindfleisch et al., 2006). Uncertainty is believed to be the greatest in situations in which one

becomes aware of the inevitability of death. In these kinds of situations, research states,

individuals have greater desire to express cultural values and to engage in culturally

prescribed behavior (Fransen et al., 2008).

According to Arndt, Solomon, Kasser and Sheldon (2004) a cultural worldview can

serve as „a means by which individuals manage the potential for terror provoked by the

human consciousness of mortality‟ (p. 199). When individuals become aware of their

inevitable death, they engage in clinging to their worldview, thereby reacting more negatively

to what threatens their worldview and more positively to what upholds it (Liu & Smeesters,

2010). When, as is the case in Western cultures, materialism is what upholds the worldview it

is understandable that when individuals are confronted with their death, materialistic behavior

will increase.

The present research however, not only investigates the relationship between death

salience and materialism, but also investigates the relationship between life salience and

materialism. Life salience is introduced as a concept by Das et al. (2010) just recently and can

4

4

be seen as the opposite of death salience. Therefore, opposite effects in the relationship

between life salience and materialism can be expected compared to death salience and

materialism.

In addition, the present study also investigates how brands influence the relationship

between both death- and life salience and materialism. Hereby, high and low status brands

and domestic and foreign brands are distinguished. Because materialism is associated with a

preference for luxury products (Mandel and Heine, 1999), it is expected that in death salience

the preference for high status products over low status products will be higher than in life

salience. According to Maheswaran and Agrawal (2004) nationalism is another thing that

upholds an individuals‟ worldview. Therefore we expect that individuals in death salience will

have a higher preference for domestic brands over foreign brands than individuals in life

salience.

The relationship between death salience and materialism can have important

implications in the field of advertising as individuals are confronted with death quite often in

the media. For example, in the United States 40% of the items in newscasts are death-related

(Liu & Smeesters, 2010). According to Pyszczynski, Solomon and Greenberg (2003) even

very short encounters with death can prime death salience in one‟s mind. Moreover,

Maheswaran and Agrawal (2004) state that it is not unreasonable to assume that images of

death are part of consumers‟ daily life, either consciously or unconsciously. To the authors

awareness it is not known if this is also true for encounters with life, but the relationship

between life salience and materialism is still interesting. The connection with different kind of

brands made in this article can give advertisers insight in how to use death and life salience in

their advertisements for different brands.

Death salience, life salience and materialism. When death is salient for an individual, one is

consciously aware of ones‟ own death, which provokes an enormous amount of anxiety.

5

5

According to the Terror Management Theory (Greenberg, Pyszczynski & Solomon, 1986)

individuals deal with this anxiety by clinging to their cultural worldview and enhancing self-

esteem by behaving in a way that is consistent with that worldview. This is also the essence of

the mortality salience hypothesis derived from TMT (Greenberg, Solomon and Pyszczynski,

1997), a hypothesis that is extensively researched and found multiple support (Burke, Martens

& Faucher, 2010).

Cultural worldviews provide protection against existential fear by providing reality

with meaning, order and stability. They provide standards and values which, if lived up to,

give an individual a sense of value and a promise of literal or symbolic immortality (Jonas,

Schimel, Greenberg and Pyszczynski, 2002). Because materialism is an important value in

Western cultures, when reminded of death, individuals will cling to their cultural worldview

by showing materialistic behavior (i.e. spending money). This positive relationship between

death salience and materialism is found by several researchers (Arndt et al., 2004; Das et al,

2010). Similarly, Kasser and Sheldon (2000) found in their experiment that participants in the

death salience condition had higher expectations of their own financial well-being in the

future compared to the control condition. In a second experiment they also found that

participants in the death salience condition where more greedy and consumed more resources

in a forest-management game. These results show that individuals become more materialistic

when they are aware of their own death.

Life salience, as a concept, was introduced by Das et al. (2010) as a complement to the

concept of death salience. Life salience stands for reminders of being fully alive, and is

therefore the opposite of death salience. As stated by the authors: „like death salience, life

salience is a state that is experienced only briefly, and dissipates quickly. Unlike death

salience, however, life salience is a state that is often actively pursued‟ (p. 4).

6

6

Das et al. (2010) conducted two experiments in which life salience was either

manipulated by watching plants grow or by watching a movie about a baby. Both

manipulations resulted in an increase of life-related thoughts in participants, and, as expected,

life salience decreased spending intentions whereas death salience increased spending

intentions.

Although no more research is available about the relationship between life salience

and materialism, comparable results are found in research about near death experiences.

According to Ring (1984) near death experiences cause, among other things, a higher

appreciation for life and a lack of materialism. Similar results were found in experimental

research by Cozzolino, Staples, Meyers and Samboceti (2004). They stated that near death

experiences go far beyond death salience, thereby leading to a shift from extrinsic to intrinsic

values instead of worldview defense. This may be comparable with life salience.

Based on these theories we assume that when individuals are aware of their inevitable death,

they cling to their cultural worldviews, thereby showing materialistic behavior. However,

when individuals are aware of being alive, they will deviate from their cultural worldviews,

thereby showing less materialistic behavior. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H1: For individuals in the death salience condition materialism will be higher

compared to individuals in the life salience condition.

Brand connection and materialism. As early as 1957, Tucker (1957) wrote about how brands

can serve as a means for individuals to define their personality and present this to others. This

concept is called brand connection and defined by Escalas and Bettman (2003) as „the extent

to which individuals have incorporated brands into their self-concept‟ (p. 340).

Brands can also serve as security providers. This suggests that in situations of

insecurity, brand connections become stronger. In this way, Rindfleisch, Burroughs and Wong

7

7

(2009) connected brand connection with TMT. They found an increase in brand connection

when individuals experienced existential fear, however, this effect was only found for

materialistic individuals, not for non-materialistic individuals.

According to Arndt et al. (2004) secure relationships offer protection against

existential fears. Because of their internal insecurities, materialists are less likely to form

strong and meaningful relationships with others (Kasser & Sheldon, 2000). This can explain

why materialists do connect to brands when they are experiencing existential fear, while non-

materialists do not. As Rindfleisch et al. (2009) state: „brand connection provide a means for

materialistic individuals to symbolically cope with death anxiety‟ (p. 9).

Based on the findings of Rindfleisch et al. (2009) we expect materialistic individuals

to form stronger brand connections in death salience. In addition, we expect materialistic

individuals in life salience to form weaker brand connections, as life salience is the opposite

of death salience and therefore opposite effects can be expected. This leads to the following

hypothesis:

H2: In the death salience condition brand connection will be stronger compared to the

life salience condition.

High status brands, low status brands and materialism. Because brands can be seen as a

representation of the self, it is understandable that individuals do not prefer every brand

equally. According to Heine, Harihara and Niiya (2002) high status products convey the

message that „one is meeting some implicit standards associated with success in their society‟

(p. 189). Fransen et al. (2008) state that high status products are preferred „presumably

because these kinds of possessions show that one is doing well and meeting the standards of

one‟s society‟ (p. 1054). Therefore it is expectable that individuals prefer high status brands

over low status brands.

8

8

Mandel and Heine (1999) found an increased interest in luxury items after individuals

were reminded of death in their research about the relationship between death salience and

luxury items. This finding supports our expectation that in de death salience condition,

participants have an increased interest in high status brands.

Lacking previous research, as life salience, as a concept, is thought to be the opposite

of death salience, it is thought that in the life salience condition participants will have a

decreased interest in luxury items and therefore will choose low status brands over high status

brands. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H3: Individuals in the death salience condition will choose more high status brand

over low status brands compared to individuals in the life salience condition.

Domestic brands, foreign brands and materialism. Clinging to cultural worldviews can

enhance nationalistic feelings is shown in an experiment from Greenberg et al. (1990) in

which participants had to evaluate either pro- or anti-American essays. Participants in the

death salience condition, who clung to their cultural worldview, evaluated a pro-American

essay as more positive and an anti-American essay as more negative compared to the

participants in the control condition. Similarly, in an experiment from Jonas, Fritsche and

Greenberg (2005) about the feelings from Germans toward the introduction of the Euro,

participants who were confronted with death showed decreased support for the introduction of

the Euro and increased support for the German Mark compared to the participants in the

neutral condition. Moreover, in another experiment from Jonas et al. (2002), when reminded

of death, American participants were more generous in their donations to national charities

than when not reminded of death. However, there was no effect on donations to foreign

charities.

Liu and Smeesters (2010) also emphasize the relation between death salience and

nationalistic feelings by saying that when confronted with death, individuals show a more

9

9

favorable attitude toward in-group consumption objects, such as domestic brands and a more

negative attitude toward out-group consumption objects such as foreign brands. This was

confirmed in their experiment in which participants saw either a death-related movie or a

neutral movie. After seeing the movie they had to choose between domestic and foreign

brands of the same product. In the death salience condition 74% of the participants chose the

domestic brand over the foreign brand, whereas in the neutral condition this was just 51% of

the participants. Similar results were found in experiments from Fransen et al. (2008). Besides

a more positive attitude toward domestic products in the death salience condition, they also

found a more negative attitude toward foreign products in this condition.

In line with these results we expect that when it comes to consumption products,

individuals will prefer national brands compared to foreign brands when confronted with

death, because the national brands are more in line with their cultural worldviews than the

foreign brands. However, when confronted with life this effect will not appear because

clinging to cultural worldviews is absent in this condition. This results in the following

hypothesis:

H4: Individuals in the death salience condition will have a higher preference for

domestic brands over foreign brands than individuals in the life salience condition.

Since little is yet known about the concept of life salience, additional research is needed. The

different nationalities of the researches gave an opportunity to obtain two different participant

samples and conduct the research in two different countries, thereby instantly replicating the

results of the present research. This replication increases reliability of the findings and thereby

more insight into the concept of life salience.

10

10

Method study 1 – Dutch sample

Participants. Dutch participants were recruited by convenience sampling and approached by

e-mail or other online means. Primarily family, friends and fellow students were approached.

They were asked to participate in this study by filling out an online questionnaire.

Participation was on voluntary basis.

In total 74 questionnaires were completely filled out (N = 74). 70.3% of the

participants were female and 29.7% were male. The mean age of the participants was 27 (M =

27.38, SD = 10.60). 36.5% of the participants were in or finished a Master study at university,

17.6% of the participants were in or finished a Bachelor study at university 21.7% of the

participants were in or finished a High Professional Education, 6.8% were in or finished a

Middle Professional education and 17.6% were in or finished high school. Because the

participants were recruited by means of convenience sampling, the sample is not

representative.

Design. A 3 (Condition: death salience, life salience, neutral) x 2 (Brand status: high status

brands, low status brands) x 2 (Brand origin: domestic brands, foreign brands) mixed design

was used in this study. The first factor was measured between subjects and the last two factors

were measured within subjects. Participants were randomly assigned to the different

conditions with N = 27 in the death salience condition, N = 30 in the life salience condition

and N = 17 in the neutral condition. Dependent variables measured were materialism and

brand choice for either high or low status brands or domestic and foreign brands. Brand

connection is included as possible moderators.

Procedure. Participants were asked to participate in a study by filling out an online

questionnaire. To establish a higher response rate the message also contained information

saying that it would take maximum ten minutes of time to participate. A hyperlink in the

11

11

email redirected the participants to the program „Examine‟ where the questionnaire was

available. Examine randomly divided participants over the conditions.

The questionnaire started with a screen with an introduction message. This message

stated that the survey was conducted by the Department of Communication sciences at the

Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam and participants were secured that participating would be

totally anonymous. There was no further information about the purpose of the research.

Participants were then informed that they would see a video and were asked not to

skip the video or stop watching it halfway. After this information the participants saw a short

video of approximately 1 minute. The videos in both the death salience and life salience

condition was already used in earlier research of Das et al. (2010) and showed respectively

fruits in a bowl decaying and grass in a field growing. The neutral video showed fragments of

the city of New York. All the videos were shown without sound and were not pretested.

After watching the video participants were asked to fill out a word completion task

which served as manipulation check. In this task participants had to complete 15 word by

adding filling out one letter. It was said the purpose of the word completion task was to stay

cognitively stimulated. Next, participants were asked to proceed with the rest of the

questionnaire, which ended with three questions about age, gender and educational

achievements. Finally, participants were thanked for participating.

Questions measuring the preference for domestic or foreign brands differed for Dutch

and German participants. Apart from that and the videos, the questionnaires were identical in

each condition. For the German participants the questionnaires were in German whereas for

the Dutch participants the questionnaires were made in Dutch.

Measures. A word completion task was used to test whether the manipulation had succeeded.

Furthermore, all measures were constructed as 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (I do not

12

12

agree at all) to 7 (I totally agree), except for the measure of domestic/foreign brands, in

which participants had to choose one out of two brands.

Manipulation check. To measure whether the manipulation was successful, a word completion

task was taken into the questionnaire. The word completion task had a total of 15 items, 5

items being fragments of words associated with life, 5 items being fragments of words

associated with death and 5 items being fragments of neutral words. Participants had to

complete the words by filling out one letter. The word completion task was used to measure

if, after watching the movie, life or death indeed was salient for the participants were.

Therefore, participants in the death salience condition should fill out significantly more death

related words than participants in both other conditions. The same is true for life related

words in the life salience condition and neutral words in the neutral condition.

The word completion task, as a manipulation check was also used in the study

conducted by Das et al. (2010), but for the present study it was shortened by nearly half of the

words to account to the aim of a relatively short questionnaire. For the German questionnaire

the words were carefully translated into German words. (See Appendix A for an overview of

the 15 items).

High/low status brands. Participants were asked to rate four brands according to their status.

The list of brands consisted of two high status brands: Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger and

two low status brands: H&M and ZARA. All brands, except Tommy Hilfiger, were extracted

from previous research by Truong, Simmons, McCole and Kitchen (2008) in which

participants were asked to rate the status of eight different brands. The Tommy Hilfiger brand

was added to achieve a better fit with the Dutch and German participants, because the other

brands Truong et al. (2008) used were thought to be less known by the approached

participants.

13

13

To measure the perceived brand status, three questions were asked for each brand. The

items were extracted from a status measurement scale used in previous research by

Sangkhawasi and Johri (2007) where reliability of the scale was approved. Examples of items

were „Calvin Klein represents success‟ or „Calvin Klein is unique‟ (see Appendix A for all

three items). Items for Calvin Klein were compiled into a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .79).

Participants saw Calvin Klein as a high status brand (M = 4.48, SD = 1.62). Items for Tommy

Hilfiger were compiled into a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .88). Participants saw Tommy

Hilfiger as a high status brand (M = 4.36, SD = 1.62). Items for H&M were compiled into a

mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .72). Participants saw H&M as a low status brand (M = 2.88, SD

= 1.57). Items for ZARA were compiled into a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .83). Participants

saw ZARA as a moderate brand (M = 3.49, SD = 1.51). This procedure was meant to check if

the high status brands chosen were indeed perceived as high status brands and the low status

brands chosen were indeed perceived as low status brands.

Domestic/foreign brands. To measure the brand choice for domestic and foreign brands

participants saw a picture of two beer brands, one domestic brand (Dutch or German) and one

foreign brand (Belgian for Dutch participants and Czech for German participants). In this

picture the product‟s name and origin were clearly visible. With this picture a question was

stated; „Think about buying beer for an upcoming party. Which beer would you choose to

buy?‟. Also, participants saw a picture of two chocolate brands, one domestic brand (Dutch or

German) and one foreign brand (Swiss for both studies). Again, the product‟s name and origin

were clearly visible and with the picture a question was stated; „Think about receiving a

chocolate bar after participation. Which chocolate bar would you want to receive?‟ (The

pictures are located in Appendix A). Participants had to choose one of the two brands in both

questions. This approach is similar to the one used by Fransen et al. (2008).

14

14

Brand connection. Brand connection was measured using items from Escalas and Bettman

(2003). For each brand participants had to give their opinion on 5 statements. For example,

„Calvin Klein reflects who I am‟ and „I think Calvin Klein (could) help(s) me become the type

of person I want to be‟. (See Appendix A for an overview of all 5 items). The items for brand

connection for Calvin Klein were compiled into a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .94)

Participants did not have a strong brand connection with Calvin Klein (M = 2.18, SD = 1.24).

The items for brand connection for Tommy Hilfiger were compiled into a mean index

(Cronbach‟s α = .94) Participants did not have a strong brand connection with Tommy

Hilfiger (M = 2.40, SD = 1.50). The items for brand connection for H&M were compiled into

a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .92). Participants did have a moderate brand connection with

H&M (M = 3.62, SD = 1.68). The items for brand connection for ZARA were compiled into a

mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .95). Participants did have moderate brand connection with

ZARA (M = 3.42, SD = 1.81).

Materialism. To measure the state of materialism after seeing the death, life or neutral movie

the Materialism Value Scale from Richins (2004) was used but the words „right now‟ were

added to the items. For example: „Right now, I admire people who own expensive homes,

cars and clothes‟ and „ Right now the things I own say a lot about how well I‟m doing in life‟

(See Appendix A for an overview of all 6 items). The present research aimed at measuring

participants‟ materialistic feelings after the manipulation and not their general materialistic

feelings. Therefore, questions were about this moment particularly by adding the words „right

now‟. Adjusting the Materialism Value Scale (Richins, 2004) in this way has previously been

done by Chang and Arkin (2002), who found this scale to be reliable. After items were

compiled into a mean index, the present research found this scale to be reliable too

(Cronbach‟s α = .79).

15

15

Brand choice high and low status brands. To measure the probability of chosing for high and

low status brands a new scale was used. Three questions were asked for each brand, for

example „If you think about an upcoming shopping-tour to buy some new winterclothes, how

likely would it be that stores of those following brands are at your shopping-route?‟ (see

Appendix A for all three items). To check if these items can be used into one scale a

reliability check was done for low status brands (Cronbach‟s α = .86) and for the high status

brands (Cronbach‟s α = .83).

Results study 1 – Dutch sample

Preliminary analysis. A Pearson Correlation analysis was executed in order to find out if the

different variables were correlated (See Appendix B; Table 1a). First of all a significant

positive correlation was found between materialism and high status brand choice (r = .35, p

< .01) which indicates that if a participant scored higher on materialism, he was more likely

to choose high status brands. Secondly, a positive correlation was also found between

materialism and high status brand connection (r = .40, p < .01) which indicates that if a

participant scored higher on materialism, he was more likely to have a stronger connection to

high status brands. Thirdly, a negative correlation was found between high status brand

choice and gender (r = -.29, p < .05) indicating that men are more likely to choose high status

brands than women do.

A positive correlation was found between low status brand choice and low status

brand connection (r = .72, p < .01) which indicates that if a participant chooses low status

brands, he was more likely to have a stronger connection to low status brands as well. A

positive correlation was also found between low status brand connection and high status

brand connection (r = .24, p < .05) which indicates that participants who scored higher on

brand connection (for either high or low status brands) were more likely to be connected to

16

16

brands in general. Domestic brands correlated positively with age (r = .38, p < .01) which

indicated that the older the participant is, the more likely he is to choose for domestic brands.

Manipulation check. A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to check whether

the movies shown in the different conditions were perceived the way they were intended. The

variable for the number of life related words mentioned in the word completion task was

entered as the dependent variable, while condition was the independent variable. In the life

salience condition more life related words were mentioned (M = 3.90, SD = 1.06) than in the

death salience condition (M = 3.56, SD = 1.12) and the neutral condition (M = 3.05, SD =

1.07). The overall contrast was significant; F(2, 75) = 3.81; p < .05. However, the life salience

and death salience condition did not differ significantly; F(1, 55) = 1.42; p > .05. Also, the

values in the neutral condition were not in between the values of the life salience and death

salience condition as they were supposed to be.

The amount of death related words mentioned in the word completion task was

measured as well. In the death salience condition participants mentioned more death related

words (M = 2.22, SD = 1.40) than in the life salience condition (M = 1.23, SD = 1.07) and the

neutral condition (M = 1.38, SD = .87). The overall contrast between all the conditions was

significant; F(2, 75) = 5.86; p < .01. Also, all separate conditions differed significantly from

each other (p < .05).

The amount of neutral words mentioned in the word completion task was measured as

well. In the neutral condition participants mentioned more neutral words (M = 10.57, SD =

1.50) than in the death salience condition (M = 9.22, SD = 1.42) and the life salience

condition (M = 9.87, SD = 1.28). The overall contrast between all the conditions was

significant; F(2, 75) = 5.57; p < .01. However, the neutral condition and the life salience

condition did not differ significantly (p > .05).

17

17

The death salience manipulation has succeeded; however, the life salience

manipulation has failed, although the difference was in the right direction. This seems to

indicate that our manipulation failed, but it is more likely that the manipulation check itself

failed because a shorter version of the word completion task from Das et al. (2010) was used.

Therefore the conditions will still be used as stimuli. However, the neutral stimulus did not

appear to be neutral and was excluded from further research and therefore left out in the

hypotheses where condition was an independent variable.

A Mixed ANOVA was used to check whether the brands chosen to be low status

brands were perceived as being low status brands and the brands chosen to be high status

brands were perceived as being high status brands. Although ZARA was perceived as a

moderate brand and not a low status brand, combined with H&M (M = 3.29, SD = 1.12) they

did differ significantly from the high status brands Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger (M =

4.36, SD = 1.46); (F(1, 55) = 41.82; p < .01). Therefore, to prevent ending up with just one

low status brand, it is decided to leave ZARA in the analysis and still treat ZARA and H&M

as low(er) status brands.

Testing the hypothesis. Hypothesis 1 stated that for individuals in the death salience condition

materialism will be higher, whereas for individuals in the life salience condition materialism

will be lower. To test this hypothesis a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was

conducted. Participants in the life condition scored higher on materialism (M = 3.89, SD =

1.06) than participants in the death condition (M = 3.65, SD = 1.17). However, this difference

was not significant; F(1, 55) = .70; p > .05. Therefore H1 needs to be rejected.

H2 stated that in the death salience condition the brand connection will be stronger,

whereas in the life salience condition the brand connection will be weaker. An ANOVA was

used to test this hypothesis with brand connection as dependent variable and condition as

independent variable. Participants in the life salience condition scored higher on brand

18

18

connection (M = 3.02, SD = .99) than participants in the death salience condition (M = 2.73,

SD = 1.06). However, this difference was not significant; F(1,55) = 1.19; p > .05. Therefore

H2 needs to be rejected.

H3 stated that individuals in the death salience condition will choose more high status brand

over low status brands compared to individuals in the life salience condition. A Mixed

ANOVA analysis was used to test this hypothesis with condition as the between subject

variable and low versus high status brands as within subject variable. Participants in the death

salience condition chose low status brands (M = 4.75, SD = 1.70) over high status brands (M =

3.19, SD = 1.75). An opposite direction thus was found in the death salience condition, this

effect is significant; F(1, 55) = 10.27; p < .01. Also participants in the life condition chose

low status brands (M = 4.93, SD = 1.36), over high status brands (M = 3.65, SD = 1.57). In the

life salience condition the direction of the effect was as predicted and also significant; F(1,

55) = 7.77; p < .01. The overall interaction effect was not significant because of the opposite

effect found in the death salience condition; F(1, 55) = .17; p > .05. H3 is therefore partially

rejected.

H4 stated that in the death salience condition the preference for domestic brands over

foreign brands will be higher than in the life salience condition. Domestic brands and Foreign

brands were entered in a Mixed ANOVA as within subject variables. Condition was entered

as between subject variable. In this analysis pairwise comparisons were executed compared

by Condition. Participants in the death salience condition indeed had a higher preference for

domestic brands (M = .41, SD = .50), than foreign brands (M = .04, SD = .19), both means

differed significantly from each other F(1, 55) = 11.99; p < .01. Participants in the life

salience condition also had a higher preference for domestic brands (M = .20, SD = .41), over

foreign brands (M = .10, SD = .31), but here both means did not differ significantly from each

other F(1, 55) = .97; p > .05. The interaction effect between condition and domestic and

foreign brands was marginal significant; F(1, 55) = 10.17; p = .07. When looked at the

19

19

pairwise comparison a second time with Domestic and Foreign brands as the comparing

variable, an additional marginal significant effect was found. There was a marginally

significant mean difference between participants who chose domestic brands in the life

salience condition (M = .04, SD = 1.38) and in the death salience condition (M = .41, SD =

1.38); F(1, 55) = 2.97; p = .09. Not enough support was found to accept H4, but there were

some marginally significant sub-effects and the overall contrast was marginally significant.

Exploratory analyses. In order to find additional results, H2 and H3 were tested again while

using materialism as an independent variable instead of a moderator. To avoid confusion, the

two new hypotheses were renamed to H5 and H6.

H5 states that individuals who are in a more materialistic state will have stronger

brand connections than individuals who are less in a state of materialism in both the life and

death condition. An ANOVA was conducted with brand connection as dependent variable

and materialism as independent variable. Participants who were less materialistic scored

lower on brand connection (M = 2.63, SD = .98) than participants who were more

materialistic (M = 3.15, SD = .96). This mean difference was significant; F(1, 76) = 5.71; p <

.05. Therefore H5 was accepted.

H6 states that individuals who are more materialistic will choose more high status

brands in all conditions compared to individuals who are less materialistic. A Mixed ANOVA

was used with low status brands and high status brands as dependent within subject variables,

and materialism as between subject variable. Both materialistic and non-materialistic

participants chose low status brands (M = 4.73, SD = 1.54 for materialists, M = 4.74, SD =

1.49 for non-materialists) over high status brands (M = 4.00, SD = 1.51 for materialists, M =

3.17, SD = 1.59 for non-materialists). However, participants who were more materialistic

indeed chose more high status brands (M = 4.01, SD = 1.45) than participants who were less

20

20

materialistic (M = 3.18, SD = 1.59). The mean difference was significant; F(1, 76) = 5.76; p <

.05. Therefore, H6 is accepted.

Covariates. Finally, a two-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was executed to see if the

results from the ANOVA‟s were not influenced by the covariates. The covariates age, gender

and education were entered in the model with materialism as dependent variable and

condition as independent variable. The covariates did not significantly affect the dependent

variable; F(1,52) = < 1; p > .05. Therefore, the results from ANOVA were not changed.

The same covariates were entered in the mixed ANOVA analysis with low and high

status brands as within subject variable and condition as between subject variable. In that case

gender was a significant covariate F(1,52) = 7.96; p < .05. However, when gender was added

to the ANOVA model, results still were not changed.

Finally the covariates were entered in the mixed ANOVA with domestic and foreign

brands as within subject variable and condition as between subject variable. Again, gender

was a significant covariate F(1,52) = 11.40; p < .05. However, when gender was added to the

ANOVA model, results remained the same.

Conclusion study 1 – Dutch sample

A short review of the results of the Dutch sample shows that H1 found no support and had to

be rejected. In the death salience condition participants were not more materialistic than in the

life salience condition. H2 also had to be rejected. In the death salience condition participants

did not show a stronger brand connection than participants in the life salience condition did.

H4, although having marginally significant results, had to be rejected too. Participants in the

death salience condition did not have a stronger preference for domestic brands over foreign

brands than participants in the life salience condition.

21

21

H3 was partially rejected because an opposite direction in the effect was found for the

death salience condition. In the life salience condition the effect was as predicted. In both

conditions participants chose significantly more low status brands than high status brands.

Finally, an additional hypothesis, H5, was tested and accepted; participants who are

more materialistic had stronger brand connections in all conditions than participants who are

less materialistic. Another additional hypothesis, H6, was also tested and accepted;

participants who are more materialistic chose more high status brands than participants who

are less materialistic.

Method study 2 – German sample

Method. The method for the German study was exactly the same as the method for the Dutch

study, except for the participants, and the reliability of the scales used. The questionnaire for

the German participants was in German.

Participants. German participants were recruited by convenience sampling and approached by

e-mail or other online means. Primarily family, friends and fellow students were approached.

They were asked to participate in this study by filling out an online questionnaire.

Participation was on voluntary basis.

In total 149 questionnaires were completely filled out (N = 149). 73.8% of the

participants were female and 69.2% were male. The mean age of the participants was 24 (M =

24.27, SD = 4.13). 3.4% of the participants were in or finished a Master study at university,

24.2% of the participants were in or finished a Bachelor study at university 33.6% of the

participants were in or finished a High Professional Education, 36.9% were in or finished a

Middle Professional education and 2.0% were in or finished high school. Because the

participants were recruited by means of convenience sampling, the sample is not

representative.

22

22

Participants were randomly distributed over the different conditions with N = 55 in the

death salience condition, N = 49 in the life salience condition and N = 45 in the neutral

condition. Because the participants were recruited by means of convenience sampling, the

sample is not representative.

Reliability high/low status brands. Items for Calvin Klein were compiled into a mean index

(Cronbach‟s α = .94). Participants saw Calvin Klein as a high status brand (M = 4.22, SD =

1.20). Items for Tommy Hilfiger were compiled into a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .83).

Participants saw Tommy Hilfiger as a high status brand (M = 3.86, SD = 1.76). Items for

H&M were compiled into a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .92). Participants saw H&M as a low

status brand (M = 2.76, SD = 1.60). Items for ZARA were compiled into a mean index

(Cronbach‟s α = .80). Participants saw ZARA as a moderate brand (M = 3.20, SD = 1.52).

This procedure was meant to check if the high status brands chosen were indeed perceived as

high status brands and the low status brands chosen were indeed perceived as low status

brands.

Reliability brand connection. The items for brand connection for Calvin Klein were compiled

into a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .94) Participants did not have a strong brand connection

with Calvin Klein (M = 1.65, SD = 1.20). The items for brand connection for Tommy Hilfiger

were compiled into a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .95) Participants did not have a strong

brand connection with Tommy Hilfiger (M = 1.71, SD = 1.34). The items for brand

connection for H&M were compiled into a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .92). Participants did

not have a strong brand connection with H&M (M = 2.76, SD = 1.60). The items for brand

connection for ZARA were compiled into a mean index (Cronbach‟s α = .92). Participants did

not have a strong brand connection with ZARA (M = 2.42, SD = 1.62).

23

23

Reliability materialism. The materialism items were compiled into a mean index (Cronbach‟s

α = .78).

Brand choice high and low status brands. All items were compiled into a mean index to

measure if the scales were reliable. For low status brands Cronbach‟s α = 83, for high status

brands Cronbach‟s α = .70.

Results study 2 – German sample

Preliminary analysis. A Pearson Correlation analysis was executed in order to find out if the

different variables were correlated (See Appendix B; Table 1b). First of all a significant

positive correlation was found between materialism and high status brand choice (r = .29, p <

.01) as well as for materialism and low status brand choice (r = .29, p < .01). This indicates

that participants who scored higher on materialism chose more high status brands and more

low status brands, thus more brands in general.

Secondly, a positive correlation was also found for materialism and high status brand

connection (r = .35, p < .01) as well as for materialism and low status brand connection (r =

.40, p < .01). This indicates that participants who scored higher on materialism were more

likely to have a higher brand connection for low status brands and high status brand, thus for

brands in general.

Finally, a positive correlation was found between low status brand choice and low

status brand connection (r = .60, p < .05) which indicates that if a participant chose low status

brands, he was more likely to have a stronger connection to low status brands as well.

Manipulation check. A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to check whether

the movies shown in the different conditions were perceived the way they were intended. The

variable for the number of life related words mentioned in the word completion task was

24

24

entered as the dependent variable, while condition was the independent variable. In the life

salience condition more life related words were mentioned (M = 2.76, SD = .63) than in the

death salience condition (M = 2.60, SD = .76) and the neutral condition (M = 2.69, SD = .82).

The overall contrast was not significant; F(2, 146) = .58; p > .05. There was no significant

difference between all the conditions.

The amount of death related words mentioned in the word completion task was

measured as well. In the death condition participants mentioned more death related words (M

= 1.84, SD = 1.15) than in the life salience condition (M = 1.67, SD = 1.20) and the neutral

condition (M = 1.51, SD = .99). The overall contrast between all the conditions was not

significant; F(2, 146) = 1.05; p > .05. There was no significant difference between all the

conditions.

The amount of neutral words mentioned in the word completion task was measured as

well. In the neutral condition participants mentioned more neutral words (M = 8.82, SD =

1.21) than in the death salience condition (M = 8.56, SD = 1.48) and the life salience

condition (M = 8.78, SD = 2.16). The overall contrast between all the conditions was not

significant; F(2, 146) = .35; p > .05. There was no significant difference between all the

conditions.

This seems to indicate that our manipulation failed, but it is more likely that the

manipulation check itself failed because it was directly translated from Dutch to German.

Therefore the conditions will still be used as stimuli. However, the neutral stimulus did not

appear to be neutral and was therefore left out in the hypotheses where condition was an

independent variable.

A Mixed ANOVA was used to check whether the brands chosen to be low status

brands were perceived as being low status brands and the brands chosen to be high status

brands were perceived as being high status brands. Although ZARA was perceived as a

moderate brand and not a low status brand, combined with H&M (M = 2.78, SD = 1.06) they

25

25

did differ significantly from the high status brands Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger (M =

4.12, SD = 1.35); (F(1, 102) = 137.05; p < .01). Therefore, to prevent ending up with just one

low status brand, it is decided to leave ZARA in the analysis and still treat ZARA and H&M

as low(er) status brands.

Testing the hypothesis. H1 stated that for individuals in the death salience condition

materialism will be higher, whereas for individuals in the life salience condition materialism

will be lower. To test this hypothesis an one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was

conducted. Participants in the life condition scored higher on materialism (M = 3.90, SD =

1.02) than participants in the death condition (M = 3.62, SD = 1.31). Although the effect was

marginally significant (F(1, 102) = 3.63; p = .06), H1 still needs to be rejected.

H2 stated that in the death salience condition the brand connection will be stronger,

whereas in the life salience condition the brand connection will be weaker. An ANOVA was

used to test this hypothesis with brand connection as dependent variable and condition as

independent variable. Participants in the life salience condition scored higher on brand

connection (M = 2.33, SD = 0.97) than participants in the death salience condition (M = 2.06,

SD = 0.97). However, this difference was not significant; F(1, 102) = 2.09; p > .05. Therefore

H2 needs to be rejected.

H3 stated that individuals in the death salience condition will choose more high status brand

over low status brands compared to individuals in the life salience condition. A Mixed

ANOVA analysis was used to test this hypothesis with condition as the between subject

variable and low versus high status brands as within subject variable. Participants in the death

salience condition chose low status brands (M = 4.60, SD = 1.53) over high status brands (M =

3.30, SD = 1.69). An opposite direction in the effect was thus found in the death salience

condition, this effect is significant; F(1, 102) = 19.39; p < .01. Also participants in the life

salience condition chose low status brands (M = 5.25, SD = 1.25) over high status brands (M =

26

26

3.53, SD = 1.68). In the life salience condition the direction of the effect was as predicted and

also significant; F(1, 102) = 30.39; p < .01. The overall interaction effect was not significant

because of the opposite effect found in the death salience condition; F(1, 102) = .97; p > .05.

H3 is therefore partially rejected.

H4 stated that in the death salience condition the preference for domestic brands over

foreign brands will be higher than in the life salience condition. Domestic brands and Foreign

brands were entered in a Mixed ANOVA as within subject variables. Condition was entered

as between subject variable. Participants in the death salience condition had a higher

preference for domestic brands (M = .33, SD = .47), than foreign brands (M = .11, SD = .32),

both means differed significantly from each other F(1, 102) = 5.58; p < .05. Participants in the

life salience condition also had a higher preference for domestic brands (M = .33, SD = .47),

over foreign brands (M = .23, SD = .42), but here both means did not differ significantly from

each other F(1, 102) = 1.09; p > .05. The interaction effect between condition and domestic

and foreign brands was not significant; F(1, 102) = .75; p > .05. Therefore H4 needs to be

rejected.

Exploratory results. . In order to find additional results, H2 and H3 were tested again

while using materialism as an independent variable instead of a moderator. To avoid

confusion, the two new hypotheses were renamed to H5 and H6.

H5 states that individuals who were in a more materialistic state will have stronger

brand connections than individuals who are less in a state of materialism in both the life and

death condition. An ANOVA was conducted with brand connection as dependent variable

and materialism as independent variable. Participants who were less materialistic scored

lower on brand connection (M = 1.76, SD = .72) than participants who were more

materialistic (M = 2.51, SD = 1.00). This mean difference was significant; F(1, 147) = 28.28;

p < .01. Therefore H5 was accepted.

27

27

H6 states that individuals who are more materialistic will choose more high status

brands in all conditions compared to individuals who are less materialistic. A Mixed ANOVA

was used with low status brands and high status brands as dependent within subject variables,

and materialism as between subject variable. Both materialistic and non-materialistic

participants chose low status brands (M = 5.19, SD = 1.38 for materialists, M = 4.56, SD =

1.38 for non-materialists) over high status brands (M = 3.70, SD = 1.74 for materialists, M =

2.96, SD = 1.55 for non-materialists). However, participants who were more materialistic

indeed chose more high status brands (M = 3.70, SD = 1.74) than participants who were less

materialistic (M = 2.96, SD = 1.55). The mean difference was significant; F(1, 147) = 7.51; p

< .01. Therefore, H6 is accepted.

Covariates. Finally, a two-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to see if the

results from the ANOVA‟s were not influenced by the covariates. The covariates age, gender

and education were entered in the model with materialism as dependent variable and

condition as independent variable. The covariate education was marginally significant F(1,

99) = 3.78; p = .06. However, when education was added to the ANOVA model, results were

not changed.

The same covariates were entered in the mixed ANOVA analysis with low and high

status brands as within subject variable and condition as between subject variable. In that case

gender (F(1,99) = 9.51; p < .01) and education (F(1,99) = 4.60; p < .05) were significant.

However, when gender and education were added to the ANOVA model, results were not

changed.

Finally the covariates were entered in the mixed ANOVA with domestic and foreign

brands as within subject variable and condition as between subject variable. None of the

covariates were significant F(1, 99) = .< 1; p > .05. The results from ANOVA remained the

same.

28

28

Conclusion study 2 – German sample

A short review of the results of the German sample shows that H1 found no support and had

to be rejected. In the death salience condition participants were not more materialistic than in

the life salience condition. H2 also had to be rejected. In the death salience condition

participants did not show a stronger brand connection than participants in the life salience

condition did. H4, although having marginally significant results, had to be rejected too.

Participants in the death salience condition did not have a stronger preference for domestic

brands over foreign brands than participants in the life salience condition.

H3 was partially rejected because an opposite direction in the effect was found for the

death salience condition. In the life salience condition the effect was as predicted. In both

conditions participants chose significantly more low status brands than high status brands.

Finally, an additional hypothesis, H5, was tested and accepted; participants who are

more materialistic had stronger brand connections in all conditions than participants who are

less materialistic. Another additional hypothesis, H6, was also tested and accepted;

participants who are more materialistic chose more high status brands than participants who

are less materialistic.

General discussion

The present research investigated the effect of both life salience and death salience on

materialism, brand connection and brand choice, hereby distinguishing high and low status

brands and domestic and foreign brands. In all cases opposite effects were expected in the life

salience condition compared to the death salience condition, based on previous findings by

Das et al. (2010). Two additional hypotheses were added, to investigate the relationship

between materialism and brand connection and brand status. Here, it was expected that

materialism would lead to stronger brand connection and choice for high status brands.

29

29

Both additional hypotheses found support. Materialism indeed increased brand

connection and materialists indeed chose more high status brands than non-materialists did,

although low status brands were chosen over high status brands by both materialistic and non-

materialistic participants. Furthermore, individuals in de life salience condition, as expected,

indeed chose low status brands over high status brands. Thereby partially supporting H3.

Lastly, H4 had marginally significant results and needed to be rejected, although some

interesting sub-results were found which can be further explored in future research. Results

were highly consistent between the Dutch and German study, thereby offering additional

support for the correctness of the accepted hypotheses.

The main goal of this research was to further examine the concept of life salience.

Contrary to the concept of death salience, little is known about the concept of life salience, as

it is just recently introduced by Das et al. (2010). In this research effects of life salience on

materialism, brand connection and brand choice were compared with effects of death salience

on these variables. Based on previous findings by Das et al. (2010) opposite effects between

life salience and death salience were expected. In addition, expansion of prior research on

brand connection and the choice of brands was also an important aspect of this study. To this

end an online experiment was conducted, including participants from the Netherlands and

Germany, which made it possible to work with two different samples, thereby replicating the

research. Findings however did not support life salience as being the opposite of death

salience.

Participants in the death salience condition and life salience condition did not differ in

terms of materialism. This finding contradicts results from several previous research as death

salience leading to an increase in materialism found support in previous research multiple

times (Rindfleisch et al., 2009; Burke, Martens & Faucher, 2010; Arndt et al., 2004; Das et

al., 2010). Because of this, not finding support for the hypothesis in the present research is

30

30

thought to be due to methodological problems as none but the death salience manipulation in

the Dutch study has been proven successful. However, as both the life salience and death

salience manipulation have been proven successful in research by Das et al. (2010) it is

thought that the shorter version of the word completion task used in the present research failed

to measure the success of the manipulation. Still, it can not be said for sure that the

manipulation succeeded. Another explanation suggests that life salience, as a concept, can not

be seen as the complete opposite to death salience. In that case no significant difference

between both conditions could be found.

In their research, Rindfleisch, Burroughs and Wong (2009) linked brand connection to

TMT by finding an increased brand connection in death salience. This however, was only true

for materialistic individuals as for these individuals brand connection is a means to cope with

death salience (Rindfleisch et al., 2009). As life salience can be seen as the opposite of death

salience as a concept (Das et al., 2010), opposite effects were expected in this condition.

However, differences in brand connection between the death salience and life salience

condition were not found, thereby not supporting previous research.

This again suggests that life salience, as a concept, can not be seen as the complete

opposite of death salience. However, more likely the cause of not finding support for the

hypothesis can be found in methodological issues as the manipulation or choosing too few or

the wrong brands. In the last case, when the chosen brands are not appealing to the

participants, brand connection is not likely to be present at all and differences between both

conditions can not be found.

Choice for low status brands over high status brands, as expected, was found in the life

salience condition in both studies. For the death salience condition, no results were found. The

result found for the life salience condition, at first hand suggests that life salience indeed leads

to choice for low status brands over high status brands. However, because no support is found

31

31

for the hypothesis in the death salience condition, it can still not be said that life salience, as a

concept, is the opposite of death salience.

More likely it is that the financial situation of participants is a factor of influence when

looking at participants‟ choice for high or low status brands. Prior research of Howard and

Sheth (1969) coincides with this assumption, suggesting that financial status of a consumer

„can affect his purchase behavior by creating a barrier (inhibitor) to purchasing the most

preferred brand‟ (p. 456). By asking participants implicitly about brand choice when money

would be no issue, it was tried to control for this factor. However, findings suggest that this

has not worked out in the right way or that the high status brands are not chosen correctly for

these participants, leading to a choice for low status brands in any case because they are just

more appealing to them regardless of the price of the brand.

Moreover, again methodological issues can have contributed to not finding full

support for the hypothesis, as Mandel & Heine (1999), in their research did found an

increased interest in luxury items after individuals were reminded of their death. However,

this is at least in the Dutch study rather unlikely, as the manipulation for death salience did

succeeded here.

Although no difference in choice between domestic and foreign brands was found

between the death salience and life salience condition, an interesting sub-result was found. In

the death salience condition, participants had a higher preference for domestic brands over

foreign brands in both studies. This is in line with research from Fransen et al. (2008), Jonas

et al. (2005), Jonas et al. (2002) and Greenberg et al. (1990), all stating that when reminded of

death, participants will display nationalistic feelings and therefore choose domestic over

foreign brands. For the life salience condition, no results were found. Additional research

must be performed to see if the preference for domestic brands over foreign brands in the

death salience condition really is caused by death salience. Another explanation can be found

in research by Zafar et al. (2004) stating that origin of low involvement products like coffee

32

32

and bread only make a difference on purchase intention when additional factors like taste and

brand of product itself are not taken into account. If they are taken into account, brand origins

impact becomes weak for these types of products.

Looking further into the concept of materialism, it was found that materialism leads to

stronger brand connections. This supports previous findings from Rindfleisch et al. (2009)

and Rindfleisch, Burroughs and Wong (2008) stating that a positive relationship between

death salience and brand connection exists, but only for materialistic individuals. Also,

materialistic individuals were found to choose high status brands than less materialistic

individuals, which support previous research from (Mandel & Heine, 1999).

In the end, ample support is found for the concept of life salience being the opposite of

the concept of death salience. No hypotheses in which death and life salience were expected

to opposite to each other were completely accepted. Moreover, no effects were found that

clearly resulted from life salience. Therefore, this research failed to achieve its main goal of

contributing to extending knowledge about the concept of life salience. However, although

not significant, directions of the results for life salience were often in the opposite direction

than expected. This suggests that the construct of life salience is more than the raw opposite

of the construct of death salience and more complex than expected. Nearly equal results in

every aspect of the two studies conducted in the Netherlands and Germany support this, when

assumed that the manipulations did work. The equal results also give additional reliability to

the hypotheses proven to be correct.

Limitations and Future Research. Findings of this study have to be interpreted within the

study‟s limitations. First of all, the construct of life salience (Das et al., 2010) is new to

research, and not yet well founded. That is why assumptions about the directions of the

hypotheses relied on a thin base of knowledge in this field, mainly concentrating on the fact

that life salience will result in opposite findings of death salience research.

33

33

Secondly, the construct of death salience is a subject to restrictions present research

did not control for. On the one hand Greenberg et al. (1997) found that self-esteem is an

impacting factor of death salience, saying “that self-esteem provides protection against deeply

rooted anxiety about mortality.” (p.35). Looking at the samples, which consisted mainly of

students, it can be argued that the self-esteem of students, due to achieved feeling of success

in proceeding to higher educational levels, is higher compared to the general public and

therefore has an impact on the results in this study, equaling conditions of life and death

salience. On the other hand Arndt et al. (2004) suggest that secure relationships, as a buffer of

anxiety can offer protection against existential fear. This is another factor which also might

have influenced the results of this study but present research did not control for. Furthermore,

Brown and Kaldenberg (1997) argue that the self-monitoring ability of participants influences

their brand choice. Using a very implicit manipulation in this research, self-monitoring could

be stronger than the manipulation itself, ruling out the intentional kind of brand choice

expected by the participants. To approach results for a general public, future research should

therefore take a broader range of factors into account which might have equalized the

conditions of life and death salience in the present studies, namely self-esteem, the existence

of secure relationships and a the self-monitoring ability.

Thirdly, due to the method of an online survey and the appeal to keep this as short as

possible to prevent the drop out of participants, the survey itself faced some restrictions as

well. For example, the number of clothing brands tested was restricted to four (two for each

status), two domestic and foreign brands were chosen after careful consideration for each

nationality, but not pretested, due to a lack of time. Also, the difficulty to find domestic and

foreign brands, comparable in publicity and popularity has to be mentioned and needs to be

pretested in further research. Therefore it can be argued that the range and allocation of

options for brand choice was too small to create a real distinction between status and origin

and has to be increased in upcoming studies.

34

34

Note that measurement of brand origin choice with displaying the brand logo gave an

explicit hint of origin (see Appendix A). It was chosen to do this, due to the goal of keeping

the survey simple and easy to approach. This approach however, was not yet performed in

former research and therefore was a new, untested measurement. Note further that the brand

of ZARA was not strongly evaluated as a low status brand by participants but more as a

moderate status brand, located between H&M as low status and Calvin Klein/Tommy Hilfiger

as high status brands. Although both ZARA and H&M were perceived as having a

significantly lower status than Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, it can not be said that the

research was about real low status brands.

Fourth, the assurance that the manipulation worked can only be confirmed for the

death salience condition in the Dutch study. The manipulation for the life salience failed in

both studies. As a reason for this failure it can be named that language offers more explicitly

death related words than life related words. For the manipulation check there was only a

restricted number of words used from the set originally used by Das et al. (2010) to provide a

short questionnaire. Therefore it might be that only five life related words could not measure

life salience of the participants clearly, taking the difficulty of the restricted amount of life

related words in general into account.

In both samples the manipulation for the neutral condition failed. A movie clip was

used which showed fragments of the city of New York. An explanation for the failure of this

manipulation can be found in the fact that New York is a city, where there are many shops

and opportunities to spend money. Furthermore, people can think of 9/11 when pictures of

New York are shown to them. The first reason can evoke thoughts of spending money and

brands, which can trigger life related thoughts. The second reason could contribute to more

death related thoughts. Probably, due to this, the manipulation of the neutral condition failed.

The manipulation check in the German study failed, probably due to the attempt made

to use the same words for the manipulation check in both studies. Translation difficulties and

35

35

the different quantity of possible words to form in the German language can be named as

reasons for the failing. Due to the fact that the videos for death salience and life salience have

been used in previous research by Das et al. (2010) and showed their effect, the assumption

can be made that the manipulation check has failed and not the manipulation itself. This

assumption also finds support in the fact that results in both studies, Dutch and German, were

nearly equal.

Lastly, the manipulation for the Dutch sample partially worked, but this does not

guarantee that it lasted long enough. Viewing a manipulation for only 60 seconds before

completing a survey of approximately 10 minutes could have been too short to assure good

functionality. Furthermore, due to technical restrictions, it could not be ensured that

participants viewed the manipulating spot in full length. Future research should be aware of

the problems an online survey can cause for testing these two conditions. Therefore it is

suggested to perform further tests on life salience constructs in a controlled environment of a

lab-experiment, using a stronger and longer lasting manipulation.

Conclusion. Brand connection as an outcome of a materialistic world view and the construct

of brand choice are not dependent to the condition of life and death salience when it comes to

their status and origin, looking at the results of this research. Yet, materialism of people has

an impact how deeply they feel connected with a brand. The new field of research concerning

the concept of life salience must be reviewed more extensively to interpret it as an opposite of

death salience and the impacts Terror Management Theory has on consumers. Present

research could not contribute findings for this distinction, yet if offers recommendation for

new factors to include, testing the concept of life salience in connection to brands. Hopefully

it can contribute to further findings, strengthening that consumption is not only induced by the

fear of death but rather can be a vital „brand‟ of life.

36

36

References

Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K.M. (2004). The urge to splurge: A terror

management account of materialism and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 14(3), 198-212.

Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. (2004). The urge to splurge revisited:

Further reflections on applying terror management theory to materialism and

consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 225-229.

Browne, B.A., & Kaldenberg, D.O. (1997). Conceptualizing self-monitoring: links to

materialism and product involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(1), 31-44.

Burke, B.L., Martens, A., & Faucher, E.H. (2010). Two decades of terror management theory:

A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 14(2), 155-195.

Chatterjee, A., & Hunt, J.M. (1996). Self-monitoring as a personality correlate of materialism:

An investigation of related cognitive orientation. Psychological Reports, 79, 523-528.

Cozzolino, P.J., Staples, A.D., Meyers, L.S., & Samboceti, J. (2004). Greed, death, and

values: From terror management to transcendence management. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 278-292.

Das, E., Bushman, B.J., & Ardensen, J. (2010). Feeling alive without spending a dime: Life

and death salience exert opposite effects on worldview defense and consumption

patterns. Article currently under review.

Escalas, J.E., & Bettman, J.R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference

groups on consumers‟ connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3),

339-348.

Fransen, M., Fennis, B., Pruyn, A., & Das, E. (2008). Rest in peace? Brand-induced mortality

salience and consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1053-1061.

37

37

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need

for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In: R.F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public and

private self (pp. 189–212). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., &

Lyon, D. (1990). Evidence for terror management II: The effects of mortality salience

on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308-318.

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management theory of self-

esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 61-139.

Heine, S.J., Harihara, M., & Niiya, N. (2002). Terror management in Japan. Asian Journal of

Social Psychology, 5, 187-196.

Howard, J.A. & Sheth, J.N. (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

Jonas, E., Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2002). The scrooge effect: Evidence

that mortality salience increases prosocial attitudes and behavior. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1342-1353.

Jonas, E., Fritsche, I, & Greenberg, J. (2005). Currencies as cultural symbols – An existential

psychological perspective on reactions of Germans towards the Euro. Journal of

Economic Psychology, 26(1), 129-146.

Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K.M. (2000). “On wealth and death: Materialism, mortality

salience and consumption behavior,” Psychological Science, 11(4), 348–51.

Liu, J., & Smeesters, D. (2010). Have you seen the news today? The effect of death-related

media contexts on brand preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 251-262.

38

38

Maheswaran, D., & Agrawal, N. (2004). Motivational and cultural variations in mortality

salience effects: Contemplations on terror management theory and consumer behavior.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 213-218.

Mandel, N., & Heine, S. (1999). Terror management and marketing: He who dies with the

most toys wins. Advances in Consumer Research, 26(1), 527-532.

Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2003). In the wake of 9/11: The psychology of

terror (1st ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: Materialism,

existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 1-

16.

Rindfleisch, A., Wong, N., & Burroughs, J.E. (2006). Seeking certainty via brands: An

examination of materialism and brand resonance. Association for Consumer Research,

North American conference, Orlando, Florida.

Ring, K. (1984). Heading toward Omega: In search of the meaning of the near-death

experience. New York: Coward, McCann, & Geoghegan.

Zafar, A.U., Johnson J.P., Yang, X., Fatt, C.K., Teng, H.S. and Boon, L.C. (2004). Does

country of origin matter for low-involvement products? International Marketing

Review, 21(1), 102-120.

39

39

Appendix A

Introduction

Welkom!

Dankjewel dat je aan dit onderzoek wilt deelnemen. Dit onderzoek is opgesteld binnen

de masteropleiding aan de afdeling Communicatiewetenschap aan de Vrije Universiteit

Amsterdam. Je neemt anoniem deel aan dit onderzoek, er zal geen persoonlijke

informatie van je worden opgeslagen.

Je kunt doorgaan naar de volgende vraag door op de ‘Volgende‘ knop te klikken

Willkommen!

Vielen Dank für deine Teilnahme.

Diese Befragung wird vom Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft an der Vrijen

Universiteit Amsterdam im Rahmen eines Masterkurses durchgeführt.

Die Umfrage ist absolut anonym, es werden also keine personenbezogenen Daten über dich

oder deinen Computer gespeichert.

Du gelangst immer zur nächsten Frage, wenn du auf den ‚Verder„-Button klickst.

Manipulation

4. Bekijk de volgende videoclip. Gebruik alsjeblieft de fullscreen modus.

4. Bitte schau dir zuerst ein kurzes Video an. Benutze dabei bitte den Vollbild-Modus.

40

40

Manipulation check - Word completion task

5. Om er voor te zorgen dat je cognitief geprikkeld blijft volgt er nu een kleine test.

Hieronder volgen een aantal woorden waarin een letter of lettergreep ontbreekt. Het is

aan jou het woord compleet te maken. Je kunt de ontbrekende letter of lettergreep in de

antwoordbox onder de vraag invullen. Voorbeeld: na_el

In dit geval is bijvoorbeeld het woord 'navel' te maken, je kunt de 'v' in de antwoordbox

typen. Probeer deze taak zo snel mogelijk te maken, het gaat om je eerste ingeving.

zo_

gebo_ren

le_en

_euk

_eest

lij_

ster_en

doo_

gra_

_oord

_aas

_ eel

_ind

_ong

stoe_

5. Um dein Gehirn ein wenig zu stimulieren folgt jetzt ein kurzer Test. Hier siehst du einige

Worte in deinen ein oder zwei Buchstaben fehlen. Deine Aufgabe ist es, die Wörter zu

vervollständigen. Du kannst die fehlenden Buchstaben in die Kästchen unter den Wörtern

einfügen.

Groß- und Kleinschreibung sowie Singular/Plural spielt dabei keine Rolle!

Beispiel: na_el könnte in diesem Fall z.B. Nabel bedeuten, also trägst du ein b in das

Antwortkästchen ein. Sei so schnell wie möglich, es geht darum welche Worte dir spontan in

den Sinn kommen.

son_e

gebo_en

lebe_

net_

_est

_eiche

_eist

ste_ _en

to_

_ord

_ase

gel_

_ind

_unge

_au

Materialism

6. Bekijk de onderstaande stellingen en kruis de optie aan die het meest overeenkomt

met jouw mening. Het gaat daarbij om wat je op dit moment denkt.

1. Ik bewonder mensen met dure huizen, auto’s en kleding.

2. Mijn bezittingen vertellen een hoop over hoe het me vergaat in dit leven.

41

41

3. Dingen kopen geeft me voldoening.

4. Ik houd van veel luxe in mijn leven.

5. Mijn leven zou beter zijn als ik bepaalde dingen zou bezitten die ik nu nog niet heb.

6. Ik zou gelukkiger zijn als ik meer dingen zou kunnen kopen.

6. Schau dir bitte die folgenden Aussagen an und kreuze an, wie sehr du diesen Aussagen

zustimmst. Dabei geht es darum, was du in diesem Augenblick denkst.

1. Ich bewundere Leute, die teure Häuser, Autos und Kleidung besitzen.

2. Die Dinge, die ich besitze sagen viel darüber aus, wie gut es mir im Leben geht.

3. Dinge zu kaufen bereitet mir viel Freude.

4. Ich habe gern viel Luxus in meinem Leben.

5. Mein Leben wäre besser, wenn ich bestimmte Dinge besitzen würde, die ich nicht

habe.

6. Ich wäre glücklicher, wenn ich mir mehr Dinge leisten könnte.

7. Hoevee

7. Hoeveel van je maandelijkse inkomen wil je ongeveer aan kleding, elektronica en

cosmetica uitgeven?

7. Was würdest du sagen, wie hoch schätzt du den Anteil, des dir im Monat zur Verfügung

stehenden Geldes, den du in Zukunft monatlich für Kleidung, Technik und Kosmetik

ausgeben wirst.

Brand preference

Helemaal mee oneens □ □ □ □ □ □ □ helemaal mee eens

stimme überhaupt nicht zu □ □ □ □ □ □ □ stimme sehr zu

0% □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 100%

42

42

8. Als je denkt aan de eerstvolgende keer dat je gaat winkelen om nieuwe winterkleding

te kopen, hoe groot is de kans dat je naar winkels zou gaan waar ze de onderstaande

merken verkopen? Vul dit in op een schaal van 1-7, waar 1 voor heel onwaarschijnlijk

en 7 voor heel waarschijnlijk staan.

8. Wenn du an eine bevorstehende Shopping-Tour denkst um neue Wintersachen zu kaufen,

wie wahrscheinlich wäre es, dass ein Geschäft der folgenden Marken auf deiner Einkaufsroute

liegen würde? Gib dies bitte auf eine Skala von 1-7 an, wobei 1 sehr unwahrscheinlich und 7

sehr wahrscheinlich bedeutet.

H&M

Calvin Klein

Zara

Tommy Hilfiger

9. Stel je voor dat je een waardevolle voucher wint bij deze shopping tour die je kunt

besteden in een winkel van een van de onderstaande merken. Geef voor elke winkel aan

hoe waarschijnlijk het is dat je de voucher in die winkel zou gebruiken. Vul dit in op een

schaal van 1-7, waar 1 voor helemaal niet waarschijnlijk en 7 voor heel waarschijnlijk

staan.

9. Stell dir vor du gewinnst einen wertvollen Gutschein für ein Geschäft der folgenden

Marken auf dieser Shopping-Tour. Bitte kennzeichne für jedes einzelne Geschäft, auf einer

Skala von eins 1 - 7 wie wahrscheinlich es wäre, dass du deinen Gutschein dort einlöst,

wobei 1 sehr unwahrscheinlich und 7 sehr wahrscheinlich bedeutet.

H&M

Calvin Klein

Zara

Tommy Hilfiger

Heel onwaarschijnlijk□ □ □ □ □ □ □ heel waarschijnlijk

helemaal niet waarschijnlijk □ □ □ □ □ □ □ heel waarschijnlijk

43

43

10. Je kan producten waarderen, onafhankelijk van hoe duur ze zijn. Hoe graag wil je

kleding bezitten van de onderstaande merken, als je geen rekening hoeft te houden met

de prijzen en beschikbaarheid van deze producten?

10. Man kann ja Produkte von Marken auch unabhängig von deren Preis oder ihrer

Verfügbarkeit gut finden. Wie sehr würdest du gerne Kleidungsstücken von den folgenden

Marken besitzen, deren Preis und Verfügbarkeit einmal außen vorgelassen?

H&M

Calvin Klein

Zara

Tommy Hilfiger

Status

11. In hoeverre ben je het eens met de volgende stellingen over het onderstaande merk?

11. Wie sehr stimmst du den Aussagen über die folgende Marke zu?

Brand X staat voor succes.

Brand X is uniek.

Brand X is exclusief.

Marke X steht für Erfolg.

Marke X ist einzigartig.

Marke X ist exklusiv.

Brand Connection

12. In hoeverre ben je het eens met de volgende stellingen over deze merken?

1. Merk X weerspiegelt wie ik ben.

2. Ik kan mij identificeren met merk X.

3. Ik kan merk X gebruiken om naar anderen te communiceren wie ik ben.

4. Ik denk dat merk X mij kan helpen of een bepaald persoon te worden die ik

graag wil zijn.

5. Merk X past goed bij mij .

helemaal niet graag □ □ □ □ □ □ □ heel graag

helemaal mee oneens □ □ □ □ □ □ □ helemaal mee eens

Helemaal mee oneens □ □ □ □ □ □ □ helemaal mee eens

44

44

12. Wie sehr stimmst du den Aussagen über die folgende Marke zu?

1. Marke X spiegelt wider wer ich wirklich bin.

2. Ich kann mich mit Marke X identifizieren.

3. Ich nutze oder kann Marke X nutzen um nach anderen Menschen zu zeigen wer ich

bin.

4. Ich denke Marke X hilft mir /könnte mir helfen die Art von Mensch zu werden, die ich

sein will.

5. Marke X passt zu mir.

National/international brands

13. Stel je voor dat je bier moet inkopen voor een feestje. Welk bier heeft je eerste

voorkeur?

13. Angenommen du müsstest Bier für eine anstehende Party kaufen. Welches der beiden

Biere würdest du spontan nehmen?

stimme überhaupt nicht zu □ □ □ □ □ □ □ stimme sehr zu

45

45

14. Stel je voor dat je als beloning voor je deelname aan dit onderzoek, één van de

onderstaande chocolade mocht kiezen. Welke chocolade heeft je voorkeur?

14. Wenn du jetzt die Wahl zwischen zwei Schokoladen-Marken als Dankeschön für deine

Teilnahme hättest, für welche Schokolade würdest du dich spontan entscheiden?

15. Wat is je leeftijd?

15. Bitte trage hier dein Alter ein.

16. Wat is je geslacht?

16. Bitte kreuze hier dein Geschlecht an.

17. Geef het hoogste niveau van opleiding aan, dat je hebt afgerond.

17. Was ist dein höchster erreichter Bildungsabschluss.

○Lagere school

○ VMBO

○ HAVO

○ VWO

○ MBO

○ HBO Bachelor

○ Universitaire Bachelor

○ HBO Master

○ Universitaire Master

○ Doctoraat

46

46

○ Anders

□ noch kein Abschluss

□ Hauptschulabschluss

□ Realschulabschluss

□ Abitur/ Fachabitur

□ 1. Hochschulabschluss (Bachelor)

□ 2. Hochschulabschluss (Master, Magister, Diplom etc.)

□ Promotion

Dit is het einde van de vragenlijst. We willen je hartelijk bedanken voor je

medewerking!

Der Fragebogen ist jetzt zu Ende. Wir bedanken uns ganz herzlich für deine Teilnahme.

47

TABLE 1a. Matrix of the correlation of materialism, low status brand choice, high status brand choice, condition, domestic brands, foreign brands, low status brand connection, high status

brand connection, age, gender and education.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Materialism -

2. Low status brand choice -

3. High status brand choice .33

** -

4. Condition -.09 -.08 -

5. Domestic brands -.03 .05 -.20 -

6. Foreign brands .17 .14 -.15 -.26

* -

7. Low status brand connection .13 -.11 .12 -.12 -.02 -

8. High status brand connection .40

** .51

** -.06 -.15 .23

* .25

* -

9. Age -.08 -.02 -.03 .40

** -.10 -.42

** -.12 -

10. Gender -.04 -.26

* -.19 .16 -.21 .20 -.30

** -.25

* -

11. Education .16 -.03 .13 -.17 .10 .21 .16 -.33

** -.06 -

Table 1a

Correlation matrix Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

Ap

pen

dix

B

48

TABLE 1b. Matrix of the correlation of materialism, low status brand choice, high status brand choice, condition, domestic brands, foreign brands, low status brand connection, high status

brand connection, age, gender and education.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Materialism -

2. Low status brand choice -

3. High status brand choice .29

** -

4. Condition .11 .09 -

5. Domestic brands .10 .09 .11 -

6. Foreign brands -.08 .01 .03 -.22

** -

7. Low status brand connection .40

** .12 .14 .03 -.02 -

8. High status brand connection .35

** .57

** .08 .11 -.05 .32

** -

9. Age -.17

* .03 -.05 -.02 -.04 -.30

** -.08 -

10. Gender -.01 -.09 .04 .04 -.13 .21

** -.10 -.06 -

11. Education -.20

* -.17

* -.01 .05 -.08 -.09 -.08 .39

** .03 -

Table 1b

Correlation matrix Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01