The Good Life versus Consumerism and Greed: Reaching a Better Understanding of Barriers and Motivators for Sustainability

Abstract

A wide range of global problems are connected to the need for more sustainable thinking and actions. For example, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals provide templates for change, but also highlight challenges due to the extent of changes that will be necessary to achieve those goals. Social scientists and educators who wish to support these changes must discover effective ways to assist our global society in working toward achieving those goals and more sustainable development. One of the challenges behind making progress on sustainability issues is that of moving global populations and their decision makers to change ingrained ways of life. In particular, global economic consumption, particularly consumerism, is in direct conflict with environmental limits on water, natural resources, and our ability to produce food, as well as contributing to waste and pollution problems. This article reviews what is known in social science about greed and consumerism in order to better understand obstacles to working on more sustainable development. In contrast to current consumptive behaviors, the article also reviews findings on the concept of eudaimonia, known as “The Good Life,” which is defined as “having a good guardian spirit.” Possibilities for reducing greed and motivating humans toward eudaimonia, rather than hedonia, are considered.

Introduction

Understanding motivators and barriers that affect sustainable development (SD) is important, given the extent of global problems and associated efforts to address them. We live in a world where growth can easily become exploitation and both producers and consumers often do not pay the full costs of production, pollution, and waste management. Thus, the relationship of SD goals to lifestyle and consuming behaviors is important to consider.

One way of better understanding and progressing toward SD is to consider social science theory and research. While the focus of this article is primarily on social aspects of SD, the intertwining nature of various systems is recognized. We need natural environments, in addition to social ones, for both well‐being and as a life support system to provide a good life to all. In addition, a large number of people worldwide are struggling to find adequate food, clothing, shelter, and meet their safety needs. Many of these individuals do not have choices about consumption and materialism. To not acknowledge those individuals would do them a large disservice. The focus of this article is on those individuals who do have choices and whose lifestyles greatly influence how sustainably some of our social groups live.

In terms of social science and SD, application of economic theory may be in conflict with other fields when considering what goals and behaviors can best move us toward SD. The concepts of The Good Life (eudaimonia) and consumerism, as well as greed, are used in the title of this article to represent this difference of opinion and approach and the inherent tension between them as the best way to live our lives to attain prosperity.

Eudaimonia, Hedonia, and Well‐Being

Eudaimonia, a Greek term for The Good Life, has been roughly translated to mean “having a good guardian spirit.”¹ According to Aristotle,² it includes leading an ethical life, working toward the common good, and striving for personal excellence. It is happiness with meaning. Eudaimonia is about a good life for all, not just the individual, so in spirit it embodies much of what SD is about.

The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) No. 3 is about good health and well‐being,³ ideas related to eudaimonia. According to Ryan and Deci⁴ well‐being is optimal functioning and experience. As well, their research suggests there are two types of psychological well‐being. The first is hedonic well‐being, which includes happiness, and is about pursuing what makes life pleasant and avoiding the unpleasant. The second type, eudaimonic well‐being, is about self‐actualization and realizing your true nature. Individuals may experience both, moving back and forth at different points in their lives or in different contexts.

Does it matter if you pursue hedonia or eudaimonia? Park, Peterson, and Ruch⁵ surveyed 27 nations and found variations in emphasis on eudaimonia versus hedonia within cultures. Their results show that across various cultures, meaning seeking predicted life satisfaction (a measure of well‐being) more than happiness seeking. In addition, Frederickson⁶ found that eudaimonia was associated with several positive health indicators, while hedonia was not.

Martin Seligman⁷ proposed three paths to life satisfaction. The first path involves the hedonic approach and is called the pleasant life. A second path involves an engaged life that features positive challenge and achievement. The third path, a meaningful life, features belonging or serving something greater than self. Research shows that the pleasant life may have positive feelings, but they are more shallow and transient. The engaged life leads to deeper positive feelings that are more long lasting, although the meaningful life leads to the deepest and longest lasting positive feelings and thus life satisfaction.

Why might life satisfaction be stronger for more meaningful lifestyles? According to self‐determination theory⁸ all individuals have three basic needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Fulfilling these needs has been found to support psychological growth,⁴ experiences of vitality,⁹ and self‐congruence.¹⁰ A life characterized primarily by eudaimonia would theoretically allow an individual to better meet all three of these needs, leading to higher and longer‐lasting levels of well‐being. In support of this idea, Martin and Hill¹¹ examined data from 77,000 individuals in 51 developing countries in relation to well‐being and the concepts of autonomy and relatedness. Once basic needs are met, relatedness and autonomy are both important to support well‐being. Without basic needs met (consumption adequacy), poverty appears to negate any ability of relatedness or autonomy to support well‐being.

Spirituality, Interconnectedness, and Social Capital

Other concepts have been associated with a meaningful life and may help with understanding the “guardian spirit” aspect of eudaimonia and The Good Life. For example, spirituality is a concept that connects the individual with their broader social environment. Spirituality involves feelings of being connected to something beyond oneself, part of a greater whole. It differs then from religiosity, which can be seen as a way of expressing spirituality.¹² Riley et al.¹³ identified two types of spirituality—religious and existential. Their research compared health outcomes in a sample of chronically ill people and found that both types of spirituality led to higher levels of life satisfaction as well as a reduced risk of new health problems, in contrast to those individuals with no spiritual beliefs.

Closely related to spirituality is the idea of a sense of interconnectedness, defined¹⁴ as a feeling of oneness in all things. It provides a sense of relationship with other humans and the natural world and is associated with possessing empathy.¹⁵ Sustainable living may be dependent on possessing a sense of interconnectedness, which involves caring about how personal, individual‐level actions affect others now and into the future. The spiritual sense of interconnectedness may also be foundational to the stewardship or guardian spirit that underlies eudaimonia.

Social capital is another concept related to interconnectness. Social capital,¹⁶ according to Putnam, includes trust, norms, and networks of social organization that facilitate coordinated actions and benefit society. Cooperation among individuals and groups will be important in working toward SD and is SDG No. 17 for the United Nations.³ Social capital is also important for aspects of well‐being. For example, a World Health Organization study of 14 European countries¹⁷reported that higher levels of social capital were predictive of individual health outcomes. Yet, according to Putnam, consumerism and materialism may be undermining social capital, thus making well‐being more difficult. Social trust is an important aspect of social capital and foundational for cooperativeness.¹⁸ In a study of youth from 1976 to 1995, Rahn and Transue¹⁹ found that social trust declined in youth over this period. These authors propose that materialistic values may be undermining the views of youth about trusting others. Morin and Balz²⁰ report declines in adults' social trust over a similar period of time. The loss of social capital and social trust are both potentially damaging to efforts to promote sustainability if they make cooperation efforts more difficult, but may also be contributing to lower levels of well‐being.

Sense of Place

A sense of place involves our understandings of important environments we inhabit. Broadly, it involves knowing and understanding where you live, including physical, social, and cultural features of home, recreational, and work settings. Having a strong and positive sense of place may be supportive of well‐being and has been found to promote feelings of community and is part of personal,²¹ as well as cultural identity.²² According to Low and Altman,²³ sense of place is formed by emotional, social, cultural, and spiritual bonds to spaces and has been associated with feelings of security.²¹ Sense of place is also reported to provide for positive outcomes, including well‐being²⁴ and care of the environment.²⁵

Damage to an individual's sense of place is connected to many world problems that are directly or indirectly related to unsustainable behaviors and consumerism. For example, climate change and economic crises can have negative impacts on sense of place and associated feelings of security, thus leading to loss of well‐being. Cultural trauma, one type of damage to sense of place according to Sztompka,²⁷ occurs when the normal and understood context of life and social circumstances (social place) lose their predictability and stability, which leads to cultural disorientation and problems with well‐being. Studies of rapid social transformations, as well as economic changes, support the theory that rapid social change affects psychological well‐being, rates of suicide, depression, hospital admission rate, and other stress indicators.²⁸ Romaine²⁹ found that changes related to modernization had a profound negative impact on self‐identities, given the role of identification with the land in self‐definitions of The Good Life. In contrast, a strong sense of cultural identity predicted higher levels of well‐being among indigenous people in Norway.³⁰

The world is experiencing an extensive loss of culture and language, another type of cultural trauma. According to UNESCO,³¹ 50 to 90 percent of the world's almost 7,000 languages may be gone by 2100. According to Romaine,²⁹ given that culture is dependent on language and is a foundation for well‐being, modernization that is not culturally sensitive is a serious human rights issue since people do not give up language and culture voluntarily.

The transience of world populations has implications for increases in “no sense of place.” Observed negative effects of relocation include behavioral problems in children whose families move frequently,³² stress related to relocation for work,³³ and grief and loss experienced through forced relocation of the elderly.³⁴ Oishi³⁵ found that frequent relocations fostered more independent and less interdependent methods of coping and development of more independent bases for self‐esteem and well‐being, suggesting that transient populations are potentially less likely to not only feel secure and function effectively in local environments, but that they put less value on doing so. Given the connection of valuing the environments²⁵ we inhabit and taking care of them, this transience may be problematic for promoting sustainable development.

Consumerism and Materialism

Given all the possible threats to well‐being discussed thus far, one answer often presented as a way to contend with unhappiness, dissatisfaction, alienation, and a range of health issues is to consume. There is a wide range of beliefs and attitudes that influence how much and what people around the planet consume. Concerns about limits on natural resources, tillable soil, potable water, etc. are frequently raised as one motivator for SD.³⁶ To better understand why people continue to consume at rates that our planet cannot support or why we continue to damage the life‐support system of the planet to fuel our consumption needs is a large topic. According to Merriam‐Webster, consumerism is “the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; also, a preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods.”³⁷ A related concept, materialism, is defined as “a way of thinking that gives too much importance to material possessions rather than to spiritual or intellectual things.”³⁸ Thus, possessing a materialistic value orientation (MVO) can be defined as the importance that individuals give to material goods, status, and other outward signs of success.

Materialism as a core societal approach to well‐being is likely ineffective according to Csikszentmihalyi,³⁹ who proposes that as people consume in an attempt to enjoy life, they may experience brief moments of satisfaction at the moment of consumption, but this feeling is quickly replaced by a longing for more due to the pervasiveness of advertising, thus leading individuals to an unfulfilling life. Research supports this prediction. For example, according to Solberg and colleagues,⁴⁰ those with high MVOs have lower well‐being and less satisfying social relationships, although the direction of this effect must be questioned; in other words, does consumption make people less happy or do less happy people focus more on consumption? The extent of materialism is a societal level problem, not just an individual one as exposure to materialistic models and values were shown to increase MVO levels,⁴¹ while Goldsmith and Clark⁴² found that adolescents were affected by peer pressure to exhibit more materialistic values.

Other research findings support the problems of holding an MVO. For example, Ryan and Deci⁴³ found that unmet needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness were associated with a high MVO. According to Kasser and colleagues,⁴⁴ a high MVO was associated with parenting styles that foster insecurity, having divorced parents, and being socioeconomically disadvantaged. Individuals with a high MVO are more likely to have problems with relationships⁴⁵ and have less empathy.⁴⁶ Wilkinson and Pickett⁴⁷ found high levels of disparity in income in social groups (one sign of differences in MVO) correlated with problems of physical and mental health, and negatively correlated with well‐being and trust in others.

There are two theories about why a person might acquire a high MVO.⁴⁸ The first is that materialism compensates for unmet needs, such as lack of competence, self‐doubt, and insecurity or safety concerns. The other theory is that materialism is socialized and taught to children as they are raised within families or cultural groups that possess these orientations. Research suggests both are factors.⁴⁹

Greed and Guilt

Greed has been defined as “the tendency to always want more and never be satisfied with what one currently has.”⁵⁰ In economic theory, the “axiom of greed”⁵¹ proposes that people should always want more of a desirable good and that everyone maximizing their own interests will benefit society as a whole. According to Melleuish⁵² greed leads to employment, while wealth and greed can be seen as a driver of growth.⁵³

Greed has become a topic of increasing interest since recent scandals in the investment and banking world, as well as signs of poor corporate decision making.⁵⁴ Greed has not been extensively studied by social science, although it has been discussed in fields from economics to psychology as well as philosophy and religion. Most fields of study, other than economics, see greed as a negative,⁵⁰ although even from an economics standpoint, greed has also been associated with consumer debt⁵⁵ and financial scandals.⁵⁶

Greed has been proposed as dispositional. For example, dispositional greed has been found to be positively correlated with antisocial behavior⁵⁷ and negatively correlated with empathy.⁵⁸ Other evidence, however, supports that greed is influenced by outside factors. Lo and colleagues⁵⁹ found that greed was not related to personality types, but appeared amenable to education. Gilliland and Anderson⁶⁰ found that observers who witness greed are more likely themselves to then act in greedy ways. According to these researchers “when the opportunity for personal gain (is) sufficient and the social stigma of aligning with a greedy party is not overly burdensome, some people will embrace the ‘greed is good’ mentality and join, invest in, patronize, or otherwise align with a greedy party” (p. 110).⁶⁰ Wilke⁶¹ proposed the greed‐efficiency‐fairness hypothesis, which states that greed is enhanced by situations in which resources are scarce and/or the environment is uncertain. In support of this theory, increased greed has been associated with fear, particularly of death.⁶² Thus, living in a world that seems unsafe or appears that way may foster more greedy behavior.

Materialism is heavily promoted in the messages we receive,⁶³ making it difficult to tell whether greed is genetic or situational or perhaps motivated through a third factor that interacts with the large volume of materialistic messages that we receive. For example, exposure to a large volume of advertising that promotes consuming as the source of happiness may lead to materialism. While we do not have a clear answer on where greed come from, according to Kasser and Kanner⁴⁸ cultures of consumption exist with pressure to conform and engage in consumerism, making peer pressure another factor to consider.

Lee⁶⁴ pointed out that an understanding of human dynamics, particularly related to exploitation and greed, was essential to moving toward SD. He suggested that greed is often controlled by social sanctions, moral norms, and legal repercussions, with guilt being one of the primary controls on greed. Related to this idea, Brennan and Binney⁶⁵ reported that advertising that manipulates guilt can be effective in influencing behavior. In support, Cohen and fellow researchers⁶⁶ write that those who are highly prone to guilt make fewer unethical business decisions. Yet, education and socialization may also be a factor. For example, Bauman and Rose⁶⁷ found that graduating business students were less ethical than when they entered their program.

In the absence of social norms such as guilt and shame to influence antisocial behaviors and in a social environment where there are many role models of greed that are rewarded rather than sanctioned, social mechanisms toward reasonable limits on consumption may not be strong enough or may not exist at all. According to Klein,⁶⁸ large corporations are reshaping the beliefs of people around the world through globalization of business. Corporate culture, with a low emphasis on concern for others and a large emphasis on profits, is becoming the societal culture according to Kanner and Soule.⁶⁹ Johansson and colleagues⁷⁰ found that in terms of resource preservation, when self‐interest was promoted, long‐term resource preservation declined, suggesting an important link between the values of consumption and sustainability.

Motivators and Barriers for Sustainable Development

Pursuing eudaimonia at the individual level would appear to increase well‐being and life satisfaction and be supportive of not only the UN's SDG for health and well‐being, but several others including: No. 8, Decent Work and Economic Growth; No. 12, Responsible Consumption; and No. 16, Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. Having a good guardian spirit would undoubtedly also inspire individuals to protect the environment and promote equality in other goals as well. At the group level, adoption of eudaimonic lifestyles as a goal can be promoted in neighborhoods, communities, and at the societal level. Given the human need for relatedness (as discussed), supporting and connecting individuals with the various social environments they inhabit in ways that provide for basic needs, support relationships, build social capital, and provide opportunities for meaning should be an important societal goal. Preserving and strengthening our social environments are also important as a foundation for eudaimonic lifestyles and enabling them to flourish.

Based on this analysis, holding a materialistic set of values may predispose someone to higher levels of consumption, which is a problem for SD. An associated barrier to SD is a general lack of awareness about the consequences of consumerism⁷¹ or of other ways to live our lives.⁷² In addition, increased instability, fear, low self‐worth, etc. appear to promote materialism. Unfortunately, even messages about climate change, loss of species, pollution, etc. may also contribute to fear and insecurity and inadvertently fuel consuming, given that buying may be understood as the answer to unhappiness and insecurity, a message heavily promoted in the media. Other negative states of mind, including the loss of social connectedness, social capital, and declining levels of social trust, may also promote consuming and greed.

Another barrier to SD may be false beliefs about the relationship of consumption to happiness, well‐being, and life satisfaction. This situation is made worse by media attention to role models for greed,⁷³ including professional athletes, movie and music celebrities, etc. This is true in Western cultures as well as in developing countries due to the arrival and availability of Western media and advertising. There are few role models of more simple approaches and eudaimonic values to contrast with the extensive exposure to messages that promote materialism.

In addition, some individuals believe that world or regional economies will collapse if people stop buying and that high rates of consumption are desirable and to be encouraged. Limitations of the planet in a variety of necessities such as food, water, and raw materials are in conflict with this view. While modernization is taking place in many third world countries, these changes appear to be making the planet less habitable.⁷⁴ What aspects of these changes in these areas are sustainable and not destructive, versus those that are unsustainable and destructive, are under debate. Even capitalism itself is under attack as an inhibitor for sustainability. For example, according to Gould and colleagues,⁷⁵ capitalism is not sustainable. While they propose that we must develop a new economic model, the current lack of alternatives is another barrier to moving toward SD.

Promotion of Sustainable Development Goals

The general public may not be opposed to making lifestyle changes to help the planet. For example, Macnaghten and Jacobs,⁷⁶ who assessed residents in the United Kingdom about SD, found support, as well as understanding that current ways of life are problematic. However, mistrust in government and lack of self‐efficacy about how to help were also reported from their research. This lack of understanding among individuals of how to move forward may be one of the biggest barriers for SD. Implementation and the complexity of world systems are also hindrances. Based on the social science theories and concepts presented in this article, there do appear to be opportunities to support SD through changing values and associated lifestyles that would better align with SD goals. The following recommendations are proposed to promote The Good Life and its many benefits as well as support sustainability in the process.

Eudaimonic lifestyle

Encouraging eudaimonia as a lifestyle can help redirect individuals from current economic models of development, which focus on consumption as the important center of social life. Eudaimonia, The Good Life, can provide a broader and much needed alternative that will contribute to life satisfaction and help the planet.

Spirituality and mindfulness

Spirituality as an understanding of being part of something larger should be encouraged as it contributes to better motives toward others. Mindfulness can support spirituality, along with other benefits. People who are mindful⁷⁷ are more aware of being influenced by others and aware of what may lead to well‐being, thus supporting eudaimonia. Mindfulness has also been associated with higher levels of well‐being.⁷⁸

Strengthen and protect social ties

Promoting a healthy sense of place and feelings of interconnectedness, high levels of social trust, and social capital would all appear to support well‐being while helping with SD. We can encourage stronger neighborhoods and communities through local living, local food, and movements such as eco‐villages and transition towns.⁷⁹ One benefit of these approaches would be to weaken the hold that large multinational corporations have over people through more local commerce. In addition, we need to find ways to help those in developing countries provide for their basic needs without having to give up their traditional values and the culturally determined ways they have historically used to define The Good Life for their people.

Sustainability education

Efforts should be made in education to promote ethical behavior toward others and to integrate the practice of these values in applied project work. To embed these efforts in sustainability education and include them in public education programs would provide a useful context for the types of issues that work well for ethical development. Lander⁸⁰ proposed that SD is related to wisdom through the shared emphasis on ethical reasoning. Certainly the values of eudaimonia are in close alignment with having a guardian spirit or engaging in stewardship and wisdom.

Media literacy

While not commonly associated with sustainability education, in order to weaken the impact of advertising and the media on beliefs about consumption and happiness, we need to include strong programs of media literacy in our schools⁸¹ to help students and future citizens of the world to understand the hidden messages and implications of the media they consume. This education can also include the development of critical thinking skills (already an important goal of education) using the messages of the media for analysis and evaluation while also strengthening comprehension about the issues surrounding SD.

Conclusion

If the welfare of others and future generations is important, as definitions of SD would suggest, then it is essential to answer fundamental questions about what approaches to lifestyle would support and improve the livelihood of others. Understanding conflicting perspectives on lifestyle related to eudaimonia versus consumerism and greed as well as the connection to well‐being are fundamental to understanding motivators and barriers for SD. In particular, we can work toward SD through promoting the motivators while simultaneously weakening and eliminating the barriers. This means that economic systems in which the social welfare of others is not considered important are fundamentally in conflict with SD. A better understanding of the factors that promote sustainable lifestyles and consideration of the suggestions for using them to support SD is another tool in our efforts to protect our world and have a more stable and safer future.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Craig

. Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Psychology Press, London, 2000, p. 260.

O'Toole

. Creating the Good Life: Applying Aristotle's Wisdom to Find Meaning and Happiness. Rodale Books, Emmaus, PA, 2005.

United Nations. United Nations Resolution A/RES/70/1. http://www.un.org/en/ga/70/resolutions.shtml (last accessed 10/20/2016).

Ryan

, and Deci

. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being. Ann Rev Psychol, 2001; 52(1):141–166.

Park

, Peterson

, and Ruch

. Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction in twenty‐seven nations. J Pos Psychol, 2009; 4(4):273–279.

Fredrickson

. Positive emotions broaden and build. Adv Exp Soc Psychol, 2013; 47(1):5–3.

Seligman

. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well‐Being. Simon and Schuster, 2012.

Deci

, and Ryan

. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self‐determination of behavior. Psychol Inquiry, 2000; 11(4):227–268.

Ryan

, and Frederick

. On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well‐being. J Pers, 1997; 65(3):529–565.

10.

Sheldon

, and Elliot

. Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well‐being: The self‐concordance model. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1999; 76(3):48–2.

11.

Martin

, and Hill

. Life satisfaction, self‐determination, and consumption adequacy at the bottom of the pyramid. J Cons Res, 2012; 38(6):1155–1168.

12.

Eames

, and Cayley

. Spiritual well‐being for older New Zealanders. Perspect Public Health, 2010; 130(2):62–63.

13.

Riley

, Perna

, Tate

, et al. Types of spiritual well‐being among persons with chronic illness: Their relation to various forms of quality of life. Arch Phys Med Reh, 1998; 79(3):258–264.

14.

Your Dictionary.com. http://www.yourdictionary.com/interconnectedness (last accessed 10/02/2014)..

15.

Rifkin

. Empathic education: The transformation of learning in an interconnected world. Chron High Ed, 2010; 30. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Empathic-Education-The/65695 (last accessed 3/15/2018).

16.

Putnam

. Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, 2000.

17.

Rocco

, and Suhrcke

. Is Social Capital Good for Health? A European Perspective. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, 2012. www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/170078/Is-Social-Capital-good-for-your-health.pdf (last accessed 3/15/2018).

18.

Thielmann

, and Hilbig

. Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. J Res Pers, 2014; 50:61–65.

19.

Rahn

, and Transue

. Social trust and value change: The decline of social capital in American youth, 1976–1995. Pol Psychol, 2009; 19(3):545–565.

20.

Morin

, and Balz

. Americans losing trust in each other and institutions. Washington Post, Jan. 28, 1996, A1.

21.

Hay

. Sense of place in developmental context. J Environ Psychol, 1998; 18(1):5–29.

22.

Kyle

, and Chick

. The social construction of a sense of place. Leis Sci, 2007; 29(3):209–225.

23.

Low

, and Altman

. Place attachments: A conceptual inquiry. In Burch

, Cheek

, and Taylor

(eds.), Social Behavior, Natural Resources, and the Environment. Harper & Row, New York, 1992.

24.

Ryan

, Weinstein

, Bernstein

, et al. Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. J Environ Psychol, 2010; 30(2):159–168.

25.

Stedman

. Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place‐based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ Beh, 2002; 34(5):561–581.

26.

Kudryavtsev

, Stedman

, and Krasny

. Sense of place in environmental education. Environ Educ Res, 2012; 18(2):229–250.

27.

Sztompka

. Cultural trauma: The other face of social change. Eur J Soc Theory, 2000; 3(4):449–466.

28.

Kim

, Ng

, and Kim

. Psychological trauma of rapid social transformations: Korea's economic crisis and Hong Kong after the reunification. Hist Soz Forsch, 2010; Jan(1):120–150.

29.

Romaine

. Language and sustainable development: Integrating the economics of language policy with poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation. In Bengt‐Arne

, and Gazzola

(eds.), The Economics of Language Policy. MIT Press, Boston, 2015.

30.

Bals

, Turi

, Skre

, et al. The relationship between internalizing and externalizing symptoms and cultural resilience factors in Indigenous Sami youth from Arctic Norway. Inter J Circumpolar Health, 2011; 70(1):3–7.

31.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue. UNESCO World Report 2. UNESCO, Paris, 2009. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/resources/report/theunesco-world-report-on-cultural-diversity (last accessed 2/20/2014).

32.

Wood

, Halfon

, Scarlata

, et al. Impact of family relocation on children's growth, development, school function, and behavior. JAMA, 1993; 270(11):1334–1338.

33.

Moyle

, and Parkes

. The effects of transition stress: A relocation study. J Org Beh, 1999; 20(5):625–646.

34.

Dimond

, McCance

, King

, et al. Forced residential relocation: Its impact on the well‐being of older adults. West J Nurs Res, 1987; 9(4):445–464.

35.

Oishi

. The psychology of residential mobility implications for the self, social relationships, and well‐being. Perspect Psychol Sci, 2010; 5(1):5–21.

36.

Dobkowski

, Walliman

, Downes

, et al. The Boom and the Bubble: The U.S. in the World Economy. Verso, New York, 2002.

37.

Merriam‐Webster.com. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consumerism (last accessed 3/15/2018).

38.

Merriam‐Webster.com. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism (last accessed 3/15/2018).

39.

Csikszentmihalyi

. Materialism and the evolution of consciousness. In Kasser

, and Kanner

(eds.), Psychology and Consumer Culture: The Struggle for a Good Life in a Materialistic World. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2004.

40.

Solberg

, Diener

, and Robinson

. Why are materialists less satisfied? In Kasser

, and Kanner

(eds.), Psychology and Consumer Culture: The Struggle for a Good Life in a Materialistic World. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2004.

41.

Ryan

, and Connell

. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. J Pers Soc Psych, 1989; 57(5):74–9.

42.

Goldsmith

, and Clark

. Materialism, status consumption, and consumer independence. J Soc Psychol, 2012; 152(1):43–60.

43.

Ryan

, and Deci

. Self‐determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well‐being. Am Psychol, 2000:55(1):68.

44.

Kasser

, Ryan

, Zax

, et al. The relations of maternal and social environments to late adolescents' materialistic and prosocial values. Dev Psychol, 1995; 31(6):90–7.

45.

Kasser

, and Ryan

. Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In Schmuck

, and Sheldon

(eds.), Life Goals and Well‐Being: Towards a Positive Psychology of Human Striving. Hogrefe & Huber, Ashland, OH, 2001.

46.

Sheldon

, and Kasser

. Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality integration. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1995; 68(3):53–1.

47.

Wilkinson

, and Pickett

. The Spirit Level. Why Equality Is Better for Everyone. Penguin, London, U.K., 2010.

48.

Kasser

, and Kanner

. Psychology and Consumer Culture: The Struggle for a Good Life in a Materialistic World. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2004.

49.

Ahuvia

, and Wong

. Personality and values based materialism: Their relationship and origins. J Consumer Psychol, 2002; 12(4):389–402.

50.

Seuntjens

, Zeelenberg

, van de Ven

, et al. Dispositional greed. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2015; 108(6):91–7.

51.

Altman

. The ethical economy and competitive markets: Reconciling altruistic, moralistic, and ethical behavior with the rational economic agent and competitive markets. J Econ Psychol, 2005; 26(5):732–757.

52.

Melleuish

. Greed is great. Rev Inst Public Aff, 2009:61:23.

53.

Newhauser

. The Early History of Greed. The Sin of Avarice in Early Medieval Thought and Literature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000.

54.

Ashforth

, Gioia

, Robinson

, et al. Re‐viewing organizational corruption. Acad Man Rev, 2008; 33(3):670–684.

55.

Livingstone

, and Lunt

. Predicting personal debt and debt repayment: Psychological, social and economic determinants. J Econ Psychol, 1992; 13(1):111–134.

56.

Brummer

. Bad Banks: Greed, Incompetence and the Next Global Crisis. Penguin Random House, London, 2015.

57.

Williams

, Nathanson

, and Paulhus

. Structure and validity of the self‐report psychopathy scale‐III in normal populations. Presentation at the 11th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, Aug. 7, 2003.

58.

Davis

. Logic and the Nature of God. Palgrave Macmillan, London, U.K., 1983.

59.

, Repin

, and Steenbarger

. Fear and Greed in Financial Markets: A Clinical Study of Day‐Traders. National Bureau of Economic Research, No. w11243, 2005.

60.

Gilliland

, and Anderson

. On the Psychology of Greed. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2014.

61.

Wilke

. Greed, efficiency and fairness in resource management situations. Eur Rev Soc Psychol, 1991; 2(1):165–187.

62.

Cozzolino

, Staples

, Meyers

, et al. Greed, death, and values: From terror management to transcendence management theory. Per Soc Psychol Bull, 2004; 30(3):278–292.

63.

Kanner

, and Gomes

. The all‐consuming self. In Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind. Sierra Club Books, New York, 1995.

64.

Lee

. Greed, scale mismatch, and learning. Ecol Appl, 1993; 3(4):560–564.

65.

Brennan

, and Binney

. Fear, guilt, and shame appeals in social marketing. J Bus Res, 2010; 63(2):140–146.

66.

Cohen

, Panter

, and Turan

. Guilt proneness and moral character. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 2012; 21(5):355–359.

67.

Bauman

, and Rose

. Selection or in‐doctrination: Why do economics students donate less than the rest?. J Econ Beh Org, 2011; 79(3):318–327.

68.

Klein

. No Logo. Picador, New York, 1999.

69.

Kanner

, and Soule

. Globalization, Corporate Culture, and Freedom. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2004.

70.

Johansson

, Gustafsson

, and Gä rling

. Conflicts between Greed, Efficiency and Fairness in Resource Allocation Decisions. No.33:2,2, Department of Psychology, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden, 2003. http://psy.gu.se/digitalAssets/1286/1286042_gpr03_nr2.pdf (last accessed 2/14/2018).

71.

Buijzen

, and Valkenburg

. The effects of television advertising on materialism, parent–child conflict, and unhappiness: A review of research. J App Dev Psychol, 2003; 24(4):437–456.

72.

McConnell

, Strain

, Brown

, et al. The simple life: On the benefits of low self‐complexity. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 2009; 35(7):823–835.

73.

Berger

. Ads, Fads, and Consumer Culture: Advertising's Impact on American Character and Society. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, 2015.

74.

Burns

. The sustainability revolution: A societal paradigm shift. Sustainability, 2012; 4(6):1118–1134.

75.

Gould

, Pellow

, and Schnaiberg

. The Treadmill of Production and Unsustainability in the Global Economy. Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO, 2008.

76.

Macnaghten

, and Jacobs

. Public identification with sustainable development: Investigating cultural barriers to participation. Global Environ Change, 1997; 7(1):5–24.

77.

Rosenberg

. Mindfulness and consumerism. In Kasser

, and Kanner

(eds.), Psychology and Consumer Culture: The Struggle for a Good Life in a Materialistic World. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2004.

78.

Brown

, and Ryan

. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well‐being. J Per Soc Psychol, 2003; 84(4):82–2.

79.

Trainer

. Strengthening the vital transition towns movement. Pac Ecol, 2009; 18:11–17.

80.

Lander

. Education for sustainability: A wisdom model. In Handbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education. Springer International Publishing, Hamburg, 2017.

81.

Tornero

, and Varis

. Media Literacy and New Humanism. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education, 2010. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001921/192134e.pdf (last accessed 3/15/2018).