Materialism and Gratitude Christopher J. Mayfield, Lidia Orozco, Alic Berdin,

Daniel Ignacio, & David R. Gerkens California State University, Fullerton

•Materialism: A system that eats us from the inside out (Monbiot, 2013) – This headline from The Guardian shows that the corrosive effects of materialism continue to be acknowledged in popular culture, but notes the vitality our economic system depends on our self-identifying as consumers. Recently several empirical studies reveal the adverse consequences of materialism that we have been warned about in writings from as early as the Bible.

• Prior research has found that gratitude and materialism are negatively correlated, materialism and well-being are negatively correlated, and gratitude and well-being are positively correlated (Polak & McCullough, 2006).

•Few studies have explored these relationships experimentally. • Kasser et al. (2014) reduced materialism via an intervention and found self-esteem (as an

indicator of subjective well-being, SWB) improvements over time. However, changes in satisfaction with life (SWL) were not significant.

• Lambert et al. (2009) manipulated gratitude, then measured state materialism and SWL. Their findings support a model in which gratitude increases SWL which decreases materialism.

•Although the studies above manipulated materialism and gratitude, they still used self-report measures to assess outcomes. This leaves open the question of whether these manipulations would affect behavior in ways indicative of lowered materialism and increased gratitude. •The trust modification of the dictator game (Berg et al., 1995) provides an opportunity for individuals to exhibit behaviors reflective of gratitude or materialism.

• In one variation the participant receives a financial gift from a second participant. The value of the gift has been increased by the researcher and the receiving participant has the opportunity to repay none, some, all, or more than the original gift (arguably representing a continuum from materialistic to grateful behaviors).

• Increases in repayment (financial sacrifice) have been experimentally produced by manipulating the prosocial emotion of trust (Morhenn et al., 2008).

•Gratitude has often been described as a positive emotion (e.g. Lambert et al., 2009), and also as a pro-social and moral emotion (McCullough et al., 2001). The current study •This series of experiments tested the effect of a gratitude induction manipulation on financial sacrifice in a hypothetical vignette version of the dictator/trust game as well as on self-report measures of gratitude and materialism.

Method Continued

• The gratitude group were instructed to write about up to 5 things for which they were grateful. Writing was to be in narrative form with participants reflecting on positive outcomes (Lyubomirsky, 2013). The spatial layout group described the layout of their bedrooms.

• Participants completed the Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ-6; McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002) and the Material Values Scale (MVS; Richins, 2004) during an online prescreening for the research pool and post-manipulation in Experiment 4.

Results and Discussion •Experiments 1 & 2 violated assumptions of chi square (expected values less than 5 for too many cells) due to relatively small sample sizes, but descriptive statistics clearly show the even split response is predominant, regardless of condition (Figures 2 & 3). A significant χ2 (3, N=108) = 12.69, p = .005 was found in Experiment 3 showing that response patterns were not equivalent across conditions. Response rates show that 74% of the control group kept more money than they gave back. In contrast, only 50% of the gratitude group kept more than they returned (Figure 4). This pattern of responses are consistent with the idea that induction of gratitude reduces materialistic striving. •Experiment 4 involved the same manipulation but outcomes were measured with the GQ-6 and the MVS. Somewhat surprisingly post-manipulation GQ-6 scores did not differ across groups (F < 1). Nor were changes in GQ-6 scores from prescreen to post-manipulation different across groups (F < 1). Also surprisingly, post-manipulation MVS scores were slightly higher for the gratitude (M=8.99, SE=.53) than the control (M=7.57, SE=.49) group [F(1,48)=3.89, MSE=19.240, p=.05, ηp

2= .08]. MVS change scores from prescreen to post-manipulation and did not differ by group (p’s > .3). Failure to find differences on the GQ-6 may be because the scale is intended to measure dispositional gratitude. It is unclear why MVS scores were higher for the gratitude group than the control. Despite the equivocal GQ-6 and MVS results in the context of our manipulation, Table 1 shows that we have replicated prior research on the relationship between gratitude and materialism.

Pre = prescreen; Success, Centrality, & Happiness are MVS subscales; * = p < .05, ** = p < .01 N = 50 for post-manipulation measures, N = 34 if prescreen measure used in correlation

•Correlations between our post-manipulation gratitude scale and pre-screen and post-manipulation materialism subscales were all negative and statistically significant. It is not clear why the prescreen gratitude scale did not correlate with materialism, but the overall pattern suggests that as gratitude increases, materialism decreases. •Among participants in the gratitude condition in Experiment 4, researchers rated the gratitude narratives on the degree to which subjects were grateful for non-material versus material goods and the degree to which the narrative seemed to reflect activation of gratitude. For the participants who both completed the prescreen and were in the gratitude condition (N=16) there was a significant positive relationship between GQ-6 prescreen scores and activation of gratitude ratings (r = .55*) and a significant negative relationship between prescreen centrality of materialism and gratitude activation (r = -.63**). These potential relationships should be explored with a larger sample to see if those with a grateful disposition are better able to express gratitude (or perhaps experience greater gratitude in certain situations) than those with less grateful dispositions.

Method Participants •There were 61, 61, 108, and 50 participants in Experiments 1-4 respectively. Participants were undergraduate introductory psychology students at California State University, Fullerton. The resulting sample was 66% female and 31% male (3% failed to report), with an age range of 18 to 42 and a mean age of 20.1 (SD = 2.3). Over 72% of participants were freshman or sophomores.

Dictator / Trust Game •A vignette version of the trust game was adapted from prior research (Berg et al., 1995; Morhenn et al., 2008). In Experiments 1-3, after the writing task (gratitude or spatial layout) participants were presented with the following scenario: “You are in the audience of a game show called Trust. The basic premise of the show is that after a preliminary round in which contestants win some amount of money they are given a choice. They can allocate any portion of the money they won to an audience member and the show will triple whatever amount of their winnings given to the audience member. The audience member then has the choice to return any portion of that money to the contestant, but they can also just keep it all. Imagine you are the audience member randomly selected to receive the money. The contestant won 100 dollars and gave it all to you. You now have 300 dollars. What would you do?”

A. Give 0 dollars to the contestant B. Give 100 dollars to the contestant C. Give 150 dollars to the contestant D. Give 200 dollars to the contestant E. Give 300 dollars to the contestant

Figure 1. Experimental procedure.

Table 1. Pre-GQ6 Pre-Success

Pre-Centrality

Pre- Happiness

GQ6 Success Centrality Happiness

Pre-GQ6 1 -.04 -.07 .14 .22 .06 .04 .16 Pre-Success 1 .70** .66** -.61** .66** .68** .68**

Pre-Centrality 1 .53** -.40* .34 .29 .47**

Pre-Happiness 1 -.66** .55** .55** .71**

GQ6 1 -.32* -.35* -.36*

Success 1 .75** .67**

Centrality 1 .68**

Happiness 1

Results

Consent Gratitude Writing (10 min.)

Spatial Layout Writing (10 min.)

Trust Game or Post-Manipulation Scales (Exp. 4)

Demographics

Debriefing

•Experiment 2 Change – Game show name (also how it was listed on research pool website) was changed from “Trust” to “The Choice”. Many participants referenced “trustworthiness” when guessing the hypothesis in debriefing and we weren’t intending to activate a trust schema or test the socially desirable response of appearing trustworthy.

Control Keep $300

Keep $200

Even Split

Return $200

Return $300

Gratitude

Control Keep $300

Keep $200

Even Split

Return $200

Return $300

Gratitude

•Experiment 3 Change – Many participants referenced “fairness” when guessing the hypothesis in debriefing again suggesting a strong influence of responding in a socially desirable way. To prevent the “fair” even split response from dominating the outcomes we simply removed that option, thereby forcing participants to either be at least slightly more grateful or slightly more materialistic.

Control Keep $300

Keep $200

Return $200

Return $300

Gratitude Conclusions The present study is the first to our knowledge to test the effects of gratitude induction on a financial decision making task as an indicator of materialism. Results revealed different patterns of responding in a vignette version of the dictator/trust game. This was especially true when the highly socially desirable response of an even split was eliminated. Gratitude induction increased the amount of financial sacrifice participants chose to make. In addition we replicated previous research showing a negative correlation between self-reported gratitude and materialism. Future studies should continue to explore manipulations and behavioral indicators of gratitude and materialism.

Introduction