Death-Related Status Consumption: Scale Development and Validation

Abstract

Although it has been widely discussed in the literature, no scale has yet been developed to measure the consumption aspect of death. This study aims to develop a domain-specific death-related status consumption (DRSC) scale to bridge this gap in the field. Results reveal the following three dimensions of the scale: conspicuousness, planning, and showing respect. In four studies, which collate the views of 1,302 participants, both students and adults, the DRSC demonstrates internal consistency and validity across cultures (Turkey, the U.S., and culturally diverse sample). The importance of such a scale for the field is discussed.

Keywords

death funeral services status consumption scale development funeral consumer

Materials and consumption practices have been used to deal with the mourning and memorialization process throughout history (Kuijt et al., 2020). Materials that generate meanings and memories for death and the deceased are seen as constitutive of ideologies (Fogelin, 2007) and therapeutic tools (Hinton, 1963). At present, reactions to death are mainly expressed through goods and services in many cultures. In contemporary societies, funerals are big affairs, can go on for days, include many people, and generate vast consumption of death-related goods and services. Funeral goods and services not only help consumers memorialize the deceased but also mediate relationships between the bereaved. Despite its importance, till date, literature has paid limited attention to the consumption aspects of death. From this perspective, it can be stated that there is a lack of understanding of how consumption around death affects and is affected by other death-related constructs.

Consumer researchers from qualitative traditions have been more interested in aspects of death and dying compared to quantitative researchers. Most of the studies they produced have focused either on the funeral industry and marketing strategies (Aoun et al., 2019; Garman & Kidd, 1982; Korai & Souiden, 2017; Longoria, 2014; Szmigin & Canning, 2015; Van Ryn et al., 2019;) or the ritual dimension of death-related consumption and bereavement experiences (Bonsu & Belk, 2003; Bonsu & DeBerry-Spence, 2008; Dobscha, 2016; Gabel et al., 1996; Gentry et al., 1995; Gibson, 2008; Hackley & Hackley, 2016; Hallam & Hockey, 2001; O’Donohoe & Turley, 2005). Such qualitative studies provide a detailed understanding of the way funeral consumers use consumption objects in death rituals; however, these studies cannot be generalized and have limited external validity.

While the majority of scholars focusing on death and the funeral come from qualitative traditions, some quantitative researchers have investigated the consumption aspect of death mainly through the lens of Terror Management Theory (Greenberg et al., 1986). For example, Mandel and Heine (1999) found that people are attracted to luxury items when they are reminded of their mortality. In a more recent study, Audrin et al. (2018) found that luxury goods help individuals cope with death-related anxiety. Rindfleisch et al. (2009) found that the fear of death encourages materialistic individuals to form strong connections with their brands. Since there was no domain-specific scale to measure death-related consumption practices, many of these studies have used previously developed general scales in their inquiry. Because of the exceptional situation of the funeral consumer, we believe that consumption related to death requires a situational context and a domain-specific measurement. Our research seeks to fill this gap by developing a valid and reliable measurement.

Status Consumption and the Context of Death Rituals

People need rituals to give meaning to death, to deal with it, and to attain emotional closure and move on with life. Funerals as rites of passage comprise a high level of symbolism and emotiveness (Korai & Souiden, 2017). Status consumption patterns in funeral ceremonies are often revealed through death rituals. As noted by White (2014), the conspicuousness of death rituals could be thought of as a ritual itself. Accordingly, Bonsu and DeBerry-Spence (2008) express death rituals as consumption objects and ideological processes that simultaneously provide integration with society and identity formation. Funeral celebrations are witnessed as social activities and prominent occasions where funeral consumers, mostly bereaved families, showcase their wealth, establish their respect for the deceased (De Witte, 2003; Stuart & Jun, 1992), and affirm the family’s prestige (Van der Geest, 2000). In addition, death rituals often gain a symbolic meaning through material goods and services. In other words, death-related goods and services are symbolic tools to signify the social class and/or status of the deceased, as well as that of their family (Farrell, 1980; Warner & Lloyd, 1959). Consequently, funeral consumers symbolically use death-related goods and services to preserve their self-identity and family prestige after death (Boateng & Anngela-Cole, 2012; Kates, 2001; Mandel & Smeesters, 2008; Metcalf & Huntington, 1991; Pincuo & Daudey, 2013; Radford & Bloch, 2012; Rindfleisch et al., 2009; Zaleskiewicz et al., 2013).

When it comes to death, materialistic behavior is often associated with feelings of insecurity (Kasser & Sheldon, 2000). Feelings of insecurity, emotional burden, and social status concerns of bereaved families may lead them to consume more or show materialistic tendencies. These arguments are also aligned with Terror Management Theory, which postulates that human behavior is affected by the fear of death (Greenberg et al., 1986). Thinking about death is an uncomfortable situation for most of us. However, the occurrence of the death of a loved one or attending or planning a funeral reminds us of our mortality. Accordingly, some studies (Fransen et al., 2008; Fransen et al., 2011; Heine et al., 2002; Mandel & Heine, 1999) argued that reminders of death increase the possession of status products, because they signify that the deceased and/or the bereaved family are prosperous and meeting the standards of the society they live in.

The Unique Position of Bereaved Consumers in the Funeral Industry

According to Terror Management Theory, when individuals are faced with death, they engage in various forms of denial and they often do not want to think or talk about it. As noted by Levy (2015) “only a minority of consumers plan a ceremony or ritual, and the large majority do nothing about most of these issues until forced to do so” (p. 20). This makes consumption associated with death different from other consumption practices. Since death is an undesired and often unanticipated life passage, consumers are unlikely to have prior experience of death-related products and services or have insufficient knowledge about them. As per the study conducted by Garman and Kidd (1982), nine out of 10 consumers were unprepared for their own funerals. The unwillingness of people to accept mortality makes it difficult to attempt a rational discussion of final rites (Harmer, 1971). In most cases where the deceased did not previously specify, bereaved families are often unsure of the deceased’s funeral wishes (Szmigin & Canning, 2015). This situation causes them to make different choices among alternatives compared to a normal buying situation. Often, the inability to predict when funeral services will be needed puts consumers within time constraints (Gentry et al., 1995). Although the reaction of every family to sudden death vary, it is known that time constraints systematically affect the consumer decision-making process leading up to a funeral. Trompette (2007) sets out these factors that cause time constraints as (1) the necessity for the burial of the dead body within a certain period due to legal regulations and religious requirements and (2) practical practices carried out with medical concerns. In most cultures, delaying funerals to seek alternative products and services is not socially acceptable because such a search is perceived as a situation that could damage the image of the deceased or their family (Korai & Souiden, 2017). Trompette (2007), therefore, defines the funeral consumers as effectively lost consumers. Although funeral consumers are directly involved in the purchasing process by thinking about issues, such as service quality and cost, they have a lost appearance due to the lack of transparency of the funeral market and doubts regarding the product and service quality.

It is known that funeral consumers, especially bereaved families, are strongly driven by emotion at the time of purchase and they feel powerless and hopeless (Korai & Souiden, 2017). This situation makes consumers vulnerable to emotional turmoil (Gentry et al., 1995) and less sensitive to the marketing activities of funeral homes (Korai & Souiden, 2017). Moreover, funeral consumers may feel that they under-appreciated the deceased throughout their life. Funeral celebrations are therefore seen as a final chance or even a duty to compensate for this situation (Schwartz et al., 1986). In other words, funeral consumers may witness death-related goods and services as final gifts or a responsibility to the deceased. This is also another factor causing funeral celebrations to present as conspicuous events.

Need for a Consumption of Death Measurement

Different funeral-specific measures have been developed by researchers to date. However, no studies have yet attempted to develop a domain-specific scale to measure death-related consumption behaviors. Although funeral arrangements are strongly associated with consumption behavior and objects in many societies, attention given by consumer researchers to this area has always been limited to date. However, the potential for developing consumption of death measurement increases the importance for consumer researchers to analyze consumer behavior in specific circumstances and at a particular time. In addition, such a tool could be useful for death researchers in two main ways. First, how ostentatious a funeral ceremony is could be seen as an indication of the meaning that the deceased or their family attributed to the death, life, and even social relationships. The way funerals are organized makes it easy to obtain information about the characteristics of the deceased and the bereaved family. Second, we believe that a consumption of death scale can be associated with other death-related instruments, such as death anxiety, fear of death, and grief scales, and even more specific scales, such as interpretation of death, bereavement guilt, and death obsession.

Method

Item Generation Procedure

Following the scale development procedures suggested by (Churchill & Gilbert, 1979), we generated a pool of items by conducting (1) a document analysis, (2) a review of relevant literature, (3) focus groups, and (4) in-depth interview sessions. We conducted in-depth interviews from 45 to 67 minutes long with seventeen bereaved adults; two-hour long interviews were conducted with members of each of the focus groups that constituted from five to seven participants, including two staff members working at a funeral home. Participation in all sessions was voluntary. In all sessions, participants were informed in advance that the topic to be discussed would be about consumption of death and funerals. Discussions were recorded using a tape recorder and notes were taken on the main lines of the discussion by a reporter. Questions were asked of respondents about the basic ritual elements proposed by Rook (1985) (artifacts, scripts, roles, and audiences) and their attitudes toward death-related materials and services used in contemporary funeral ceremonies. Data collected from all sessions were transcribed and analyzed through the use of a constant comparative approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In this initial step, the original pool was established, containing 52 items in total. Following this initial item generation step, an expert evaluation panel consisting of two consumer behavior professors and three doctoral students provided subsequent screening. Considering their evaluations, we eliminated ambiguous and redundant items. We also removed the items which were not appropriate for the funeral consumers and did not measure the concept’s nature. This step reduced the item pool to 44 items. The final set of items was converted into a questionnaire of five-point (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) Likert scales.

Participants and Data Collection Procedure

Ethical approval was obtained for both item generation and data collection stages. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee. The data collection process in this study consisted of four stages. To test the performance of the scale on different sample groups, we collected the data from different groups as much as possible. The common feature of participants was that they had planned and/or attended a funeral more than one year ago and they were over 18 years old. Developing the item pool, eliminating the items, confirming the scale structure, and testing its validity were carried out on different samples. For example, the dimensions were explored and purified on samples 1 and 2 and then confirmed on sample 3. Additional data were collected to thoroughly test convergent and discriminant validity (sample 4). A university campus, Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), and online discussion forums and blogs were used as data collection platforms in this study. For detailed sample characteristics of each sample refer to Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics and Reliability Results of the Scale.

	Sample 1 (pilot study) (n = 201, α = 80)		Sample 2 (EFA) % (n = 209, α = 83)		Sample 3 (CFA) % (n = 589, α = 83)		Sample 4 (validation) (N = 303, α = 80)
	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%	Total	%
Gender
Female	109	54	97	46	300	51	131	43
Male	92	46	112	54	289	49	172	57
Culture
American	94	47	108	52	297	50	Diverse
Turkish	107	53	101	48	292	50	Diverse
Income
Lower middle and below	84	41	122	58	182	31	75	25
Middle	76	39	40	19	251	43	182	60
Upper middle and above	41	20	47	23	156	26	46	15
Age
18–24	59	29	58	28	94	16	28	9
25–34	77	38	91	43	152	26	145	48
35–44	32	16	22	11	158	27	77	25
45–54	14	7	11	5	91	15	27	9
55+	19	10	27	13	94	16	26	8
Education
High school and below	28	14	24	11	77	13	26	9
College	49	24	49	24	268	46	38	13
Bachelor’s and above	124	62	136	65	244	41	264	78
Type of participants	University staffs and students		University staffs and students		Online blogs		MTurk respondents

Note. α: Cronbach’s Alpha.

Study I: Scale Purification and Item Refinement

To further purify and develop a valid and reliable measure, we decided to run a pilot study (Sample 1) before the main study. We examined the corrected item-total subscale correlation for each set of items and removed the items that do not meet a corrected item-total correlation above .50 (Zaichowsky, 1985). In addition, we compared the correlations for items with their hypothesized dimensions with their correlations with the remaining dimensions (Bearden et al., 1989). Items that did not show statistically higher correlations with the dimensions to which they were expected to were also eliminated, resulting in a revised pool of 30 items.

Study II: Further Purification Through EFA

In this phase, data were collected from a fresh group of respondents (Sample 2) to evaluate the remaining pool of 30 items. First, to ensure the high internal consistency of the scale, the same criteria employed in the pilot study were followed. Then, we performed the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity on the remaining items. The KMO measure was within an acceptable range (.82), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < .001), suggesting that our data were suitable for factor analysis. In order to check the dimensionality of the data, all items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis using SPSS. Items with factor loadings less than .50 (Hair et al., 2017) and cross-loadings greater than .40 were removed. We removed the weaker items to arrive at a short, manageable list of items (Richins and Dawson, 1992), which resulted in three-factor structure with ten items in total explaining 62.3 percent of the variance. Factor loadings for each item are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Exploratory Factor Analysis Results.

Item	Items	Factor	EFA Factor Loading
DRSC2	The atmosphere of funerals should be magnificent	1	.77
DRSC4	The body of the deceased person should be transported to the funeral in accompany with a convoy and escorts	1	.75
DRSC24	The amount of money spent on funeral is a symbol of how respectful person the deceased one was	1	.67
DRSC3	Luxury cars should be preferred to transport the body of deceased	1	.65
DRSC8	I attend funerals because I would like other people to attend my own funeral	1	.63
DRSC9	People should tell their friends or families what type of funeral they would like to have	2	.83
DRSC10	People should plan their own funerals	2	.82
DRSC13	I prefer black clothes since the black color means mourning to me	3	.87
DRSC12	I have a specific costume preference for funerals	3	.71
DRSC23	I send flowers to the funerals which I have no chance to attend	3	.64

Note. Factor 1: Conspicuousness; Factor 2: Planning; Factor 3: Showing respect.

Scale Description

The three factors represent the different manifestations of how respondents attribute meaning to the death-related status consumption (DRSC). Eastman et al. (1999) define status consumption as “the motivational process by which individuals strive to improve their social standing through the conspicuous consumption of consumer products that confer and symbolize status both for the individual and surrounding significant others. (p. 54).” Accordingly, the conspicuousness dimension in the scale characterizes the emphasis on the status of the deceased through the consumption of conspicuous goods and services. The common theme of this dimension was that the deceased deserved the best funeral and related goods and services helped people organize the best funeral.

Nowadays, the planning of funeral ceremonies is the subject of a wide variety of consumption factors that begin before death occurs. The funeral industry offers a variety of goods and services that symbolize the status of the deceased and/or the bereaved family as consumers. In focus groups and interviews, a common statement regarding planning was that the funerals should be planned by the bereaved family or the deceased. Beard and Burger (2020) argue that most American people claim that preplanning funeral rites and creating some sort of lasting memorial is an excellent idea. The planning dimension measures the importance of planning from the point of view of funeral consumers.

Besides the fact that funerals are occasions where bereaved families signify their status, funerals are also a matter of showing respect to the deceased and making their life complete (Van Der Geest, 1995). The showing respect dimension was emphasized strongly by the focus group and interview respondents. The main point was that people should show their respect to the deceased using material objects.

Study III: Scale Confirmation Through CFA

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to confirm the factor structure of the proposed 10-item scale. The multidimensional factor structure identified in the exploratory factor analyses (EFA) model was subjected to a CFA using separate data (Sample 3). For testing the model fit, we relied on the values of the recommended indices of model fit; relative Chi-square (χ²/df), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Brown et al., 1991; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Byrne, 2001; Hair et al., 1998; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005; Marsh & Hocevar, 1985; Netemeyer et al., 1996). Figure 1 shows the standardized factor loading estimates for each item and the intercorrelation values between the dimensions. Results confirmed that all standardized factor loadings were above .50 and the three-factor model indicated a good fit with the data (χ²[141] df = 32, χ²/df = 4.41, p < .001, RMSEA = .07, CFI = .92, GFI = .95, and SRMR = .03).

Figure 1.

Three-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the 10-Item DRSC Scale.

Study IV: Scale Validation

Validation Across Cultures

This study assesses whether the validity of the scale is stable across cultures. Since we collected the data from Turkish and the U.S. respondents (samples 1, 2, 3), we wanted to ensure cross-cultural invariance of the scale. The configural invariance of the three-factor measurement model between Turkey and the U.S. was examined. Table 3 showcases that the three-factor structure fits the data well in the Turkish sample as well as the U.S., indicating that they exhibit the same simple factor structure. Although the hypothesized multi-dimensional structure appeared to be a good fit to the data, an alternative unidimensional model was also tested on sample 4. Table 3 shows that the unidimensional model provided a poorer fit than the multidimensional model. Results also shows that the three-factor structure was preserved on sample 4, which includes respondents from different cultures. This strengthens the generalizability of the scale across cultures.

Table 3.

Model Comparisons: Scale Dimensionality.

	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	GFI	RMSEA
Model
Turkish (n = 292) Three-factor model	85	32	2.65	.92	.94	.07
U.S. (n = 297) Three-factor model	72	32	2.25	.94	.95	.06
Diverse sample (n = 303) Three-factor model	42	32	1.31	.97	.96	.05
Diverse sample (n = 303) Unidimensional model	120	35	3.45	.89	.91	.09

Convergent, Discriminant and Nomological Validity

In this phase, we recruited MTurk respondents (Sample 4) to test the differences and relations empirically between the DRSC scale and other constructs that are theoretically related and distinct. We assumed that the DRSC scale should be correlated with the attitudes toward funerals scale (Lester & Blustein, 1980), and status consumption scale (Eastman et al., 1999) whereas it should be uncorrelated or lowly correlated with voluntary simplicity (VS) (Leonard-Barton, 1981). Accordingly, we calculated bivariate correlations between the scales. Results showed that a strong and positive correlation was found between DRSC and attitude toward funerals (r = .71, p < 0.01) and status consumption (r = .67, p < 0.01), which was evidence of the convergent validity of the DRSC scale. However, correlations between the DRSC and VS (r = .16, p < 0.01) were low as predicted, which provides evidence of discriminant validity. One can claim that VS should be unrelated or negatively related to DRSC. Nevertheless, the exceptional nature of consumption of death makes this result meaningful. Namely, when it comes to death, voluntary simplifiers, who are supposed to avoid status-related consumption behaviors, could be more likely to purchase goods with status. Therefore, we believe that the low correlations between VS and DRSC should be seen as evidence for discriminant validity. These results also could be seen as evidence for nomological validity. Nomological validity is related to whether the correlations among variables reflect the theoretical or hypothetical relationships of the variables.

To further confirm the discriminant validity, we wanted to ensure if the three components of DRSC were conceptually different. To do this, we used Fornell–Larcker criterion and cross-loadings. According to this, (1) the square root of each construct’s AVE should be higher than its correlation with another construct, and (2) each item should load highest on its associated construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As it is shown in Table 4, square root of each construct’s AVE was higher than its correlation with another construct, and (2) each item loaded highest on its associated construct. On this basis, discriminant validity of the three dimensions of the DRSC was established. In addition, composite reliabilities of the dimensions were strong, ranging from 0.79 to 0.89 (Hair et al., 2017). In summary, construct validity was established through reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity testing (Peter, 1981).

Table 4.

Fornell–Larcker Criterion Results and Cross-Loadings.

	Conspicuousness (AVE=.55; CR=.86)	Planning (AVE=.74; CR=.85)	Respect (AVE=.56; CR=.79)
Fornell–Larcker criterion
Conspicuousness	0.745	—	—
Planning	0.583	0.864	—
Showing respect	0.441	0.549	0.748
Cross-loadings
DRSC3	0.801	0.493	0.349
DRSC24	0.769	0.450	0.301
DRSC2	0.745	0.406	0.332
DRSC4	0.704	0.412	0.355
DRSC8	0.698	0.402	0.305
DRSC9	0.272	0.888	0.504
DRSC10	0.333	0.839	0.441
DRSC14	0.380	0.427	0.778
DRSC13	0.425	0.387	0.769
DRSC12	0.572	0.416	0.695

Note. AVE: Average Variance Extracted; CR: Composite Reliability.Bold values show the outer loading of the indicator variable with their respective latent variable. They should be higher than the outer loading calculated with other latent variables. *P < 0.01

Discussion

This research provides a conceptualization of DRSC construct reflecting funeral consumers’ tendency to preserve or gain social status through various consumption practices. In this research, we developed a 10-item scale that is generalizable across student and nonstudent samples, and our scale showed acceptable internal consistency and reliability. The results also confirmed discriminant and convergent validity of DRSC.

Even in environments where religious and traditional practices are stronger, there are serious differences between the past and the present in terms of the way funerals are organized (Cook & Walter, 2005). At present, death-related goods and services have reached the size that can form an industry. Nowadays, it is even possible to customize funeral ceremonies according to the wishes of the consumers by choosing different products and services that will enrich or simplify the rituals. Cengiz and Rook (2016) argue that while funerals became a new venue for conspicuous consumption, the shape of traditional funeral rites has changed and started becoming simpler with the help of increasing cremation rates in the U.S. in recent years. Similarly, as recently noted by Lowe et al. (2019), there is a marked shift away from even traditional forms of memorialization in the funeral industry. Despite this shift and enormous transformation in the death industry, an instrument that could measure the consumption of death have not yet been developed by either death researchers or consumer researchers. Therefore, the main contribution of this study was to address this gap in the literature.

As noted by Dobscha and Podoshen (2017), innovators in the area of death research and consumption, death research is crucial to understanding the consumer experience. Jessica Mitford, in her seminal work, criticized that the funeral industry ignored the bereaved families’ real needs and market experiences as consumers (Mitford, 1963). From this point of view, it can be argued that this scale is also useful for practitioners in understanding funeral consumers’ attitudes toward death-related goods and services. By implementing this short and valid scale, consumer preferences could be understood more easily by funeral service practitioners.

Limitations and Future Research

This research identifies a phenomenon that is observable in contemporary societies but rarely studied in the academic literature, namely, status consumption practices in funerals. The ability to test a person’s death-related consumer behaviors will allow researchers to make more meaningful inferences about death, for example, how bereavement guilt or regret in coping with loss influences the consumption of death. Accordingly, while this paper focused on developing a consumption of death scale, future research should examine the relationships between funeral-specific scales and death-related constructs.

This study also enriches death-related consumption as a research field and has opened a new perspective for the study of status consumption behavior. However, we acknowledge some limitations of this study. First, this scale measures the behavioral tendencies and attitudes toward consuming for status at funerals rather than actual status consumption behaviors. Future studies should validate that our self-reporting scale is associated with actual behavior. Second, our scale focused on the status consumption dimension. One can argue that a consumption of death scale should consist of more dimensions in addition to status consumption. However, it should be noted that the purpose of this research was not to compile an exhaustive list of items and develop a general scale. As previously noted, status was one of the most common dimensions associated with death and funerals both in consumer and death research literature. Therefore, our focus was to develop a domain-specific scale and reach to the list of manageable items using the lenses of status consumption (see Russell et al., 2004 for the details of this approach). In addition, the benefits of developing domain-specific scales have been widely discussed in the literature. Accordingly, we developed a domain-specific measurement given the exceptional situation of the funeral consumer.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This research is partly based on a PhD dissertation completed by Cengiz under the direction of Torlak.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Hakan Cengiz

Omer Torlak

Author Biographies

Hakan Cengiz: is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Karabuk University. He received his Ph.D. from Eskişehir Osmangazi University in 2014, where he concentrated his studies in consumption of death and consumer lifestyles. His current research focuses on fear of death, death anxiety and death related consumption.

Omer Torlak: received his PhD in Marketing from Istanbul University in 1991. He continues his studies in the fields of marketing ethics, marketing history, consumption culture and consumer behavior.

References

Aoun

S. M.

Lowe

Christian

K. M.

Rumbold

(2019). Is there a role for the funeral service provider in bereavement support within the context of compassionate communities? Death Studies, 43(10), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2018.1506835

Audrin

Cheval

Chanal

(2018). Materialism moderates the impact of mortality salience on impulsive tendencies toward luxury brands. Death Studies, 42(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2017.1334008

Beard

V. R.

Burger

W. C.

(2020). Selling in a dying business: An analysis of trends during a period of major market transition in the funeral industry. Omega - Journal of Death and Dying, 80(4), 544–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222817745430

Bearden

W. O.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Teel

J. E.

(1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1086/209186

Boateng

Anngela-Cole

(2012). Socio-economic transformation of Akan funeral rites in Ghana: The changing process. Omega - Journal of Death and Dying, 65(4), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.65.4.c

Bonsu

S. K.

Belk

R. W.

(2003). Do not go cheaply into that good night: Death-ritual consumption in Asante, Ghana. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/374699

Bonsu

S. K.

DeBerry-Spence

(2008). Consuming the dead: Identity and community building practices in death rituals. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 37(6), 694–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241607310631

Brown

W. S.

Gummesson

Edvardsson

Gustavsson

(1991). Service quality: Multidisciplinary and multinational perspectives. Lexington Books.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993, November). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). SAGE.

10.

Byrne

(2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/s15327574ijt0101_4

11.

Cengiz

, & D. W. Rook. (2016). Voluntary simplicity in the final rite of passage: Death. In S. Dobscha (Ed.), Death in a consumer culture (pp. 228–241). Routledge.

12.

Churchill

J. R.

Gilbert

(1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110

13.

Cook

Walter

(2005). Rites: Language and social relations in traditional and contemporary funerals. Discourse & Society, 16(3), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505051171

14.

De Witte

(2003). Money and death: Funeral business in Asante, Ghana. Africa, 73(4), 531–559. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556778

15.

Dobscha, S. (Ed.). (2016). Death in a consumer culture. Routledge.

16.

Dobscha

Podoshen

J. S.

(2017). Death consumes us—Dispatches from the “death professors”. Consumption Markets & Culture, 20(5), 383–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2017.1368470

17.

Eastman

J. K.

Goldsmith

R. E.

Flynn

L. R.

(1999). Status consumption in consumer behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.1999.11501839

18.

Farrell

J. J.

(1980). Inventing the American way of death (pp. 1830–1920). Temple University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/004057368203900121.

19.

Fogelin

(2007). The archaeology of religious ritual. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094425

20.

Fransen

M. L.

Fennis

B. M.

Pruyn

A. T. H.

Das

(2008). Rest in peace? Brand-induced mortality salience and consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1053–1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.020

21.

Fransen

M. L.

Smeesters

Fennis

B. M.

(2011). The role of social presence in mortality salience effects. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.09.016

22.

Gabel

T. G.

Mansfield

Westbrook

(1996). The disposal of consumers: An exploratory analysis of death-related consumption. In K. P. Corfman & J. G. Lynch, Jr. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 23, pp. 361–367). Association for Consumer Research.

23.

Garman

E. T.

Kidd

C. A.

(1982). Consumer preparedness, knowledge, and opinions about practices and regulations of the funeral industry. Death Education, 6(4), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481188308252140

24.

Gentry

J. W.

Kennedy

P. F.

Paul

Hill

R. P.

(1995). Family transitions during grief: Discontinuities in household consumption patterns. Journal of Business Research, 34(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(94)00054-i

25.

Gibson

(2008). Objects of the dead: Mourning and memory in everyday life. Melbourne University Publishing.

26.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.

27.

Greenberg

Pyszczynski

Solomon

(1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189–212). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9564-5_10

28.

Hackley

(2016). Death ritual and consumption in Thailand: Insights from pee ta Kohn hungry ghosts festival. In S. Dobscha (Ed.), Death in a consumer culture (pp. 91–107). Routledge.

29.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.

30.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123.

31.

Hallam

Hockey

(2001). Death, memory and material culture. Berg.

32.

Harmer

R. M.

(1971). Funerals, fantasy, and flight. Omega—Journal of Death and Dying, 2(3), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.2190/G03G-RWTN-QGC8-R48J

33.

Heine

S. J.

Harihara

Niiya

(2002). Terror management in Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00103

34.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

35.

Kasser

Sheldon

K. M.

(2000). Of wealth and death: Materialism, mortality salience, and consumption behavior. Psychological Science, 11(4), 348–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00269

36.

Kates

S. M.

(2001). Disposition of possessions among families of people living with AIDS. Psychology and Marketing, 18(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1012

37.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

38.

Korai

Souiden

(2017). Rethinking functionality and emotions in the service consumption process: The case of funeral services. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-03-2015-0132

39.

Kuijt

Chesson

M. S.

Morrow

Giolláin

D. Ó.

Lash

(2020). The good death and the materiality of mourning: Nineteenth-to twentieth-century coastal Ireland. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 25, 333–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-020-00557-5

40.

Leonard-Barton

(1981). Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1086/208861

41.

Lester

Blustein

(1980). Attitudes toward funerals: A variable independent of attitudes toward death. Psychological Reports, 46(3_suppl), 1074–1074. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1980.46.3c.1074

42.

Levy

S. J.

(2015). Olio and intègraphy as method and the consumption of death. Consumption Markets & Culture, 18(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2014.908287

43.

Longoria

(2014). Are we all equal at death?: Death competence in municipal cemetery management. Death Studies, 38(6–10), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2013.766655

44.

Lowe

Rumbold

Aoun

S. M.

(2019). Memorialization practices are changing: An industry perspective on improving service outcomes for the bereaved. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222819873769.

45.

Mandel

Heine

S. J.

(1999). Terror management and marketing: He who dies with the most toys wins. In ACR North American advances (pp. 527–532). Consumer Research Association.

46.

Mandel

Smeesters

(2008). The sweet escape: Effects of mortality salience on consumption quantities for high-and low-self-esteem consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1086/587626

47.

Marsh

H. W.

Hocevar

(1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562

48.

Metcalf

Huntington

(1991). Celebrations of death: The anthropology of mortuary ritual. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803178

49.

Mitford

(1963). The American way of death. A Fawcett Crest Book 50, 62.

50.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Boles

J. S.

McMurrian

(1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400

51.

O’Donohoe

Turley

(2005). Till death us do part? Consumption and the negotiation of relationships following a bereavement. ACR North American advances (pp. 625–626). Consumer Research Association.

52.

Pincuo

Daudey

(2013). Too much loving-kındness to repay: Funeral speech of the Wenquan Pumı. Perspectives, 28, 81–128.

53.

Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal of marketing research, 18(2), 133–145.

54.

Radford

S. K.

Bloch

P. H.

(2012). Grief, commiseration, and consumption following the death of celebrity. Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540512446879

55.

Richins

M. L.

Dawson

(1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1086/209304

56.

Rindfleisch

Burroughs

J. E.

Wong

(2009). The safety of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and Brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1086/595718

57.

Rook

D. W.

(1985). The ritual dimension of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1086/208514

58.

Russell, C. A., Norman, A. T., & Heckler, S. E. (2004). The consumption of television programming: Development and validation of the connectedness scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(June), 150–161.

59.

Schwartz

M. L.

Jolson

M. A.

Lee

(1986). The marketing of funeral services. Business Horizons, 29(2), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(86)90068-6

60.

Stuart

Jun

(1992). Death and funerals among the Minhe Tu (Monguor). Asian Folklore Studies, 51(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/1178422

61.

Szmigin

Canning

(2015). Sociological ambivalence and funeral consumption. Sociology, 49(4), 748–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514552008

62.

Trompette

(2007). Customer channeling arrangements in market organization: Competition dynamics in the funeral business in France. Revue Française de Sociologie, 48(5), 3–33.

63.

Van der Geest

(1995). Old people and funerals in a rural Ghanaian community: Ambiguities in family care. Southern African Journal of Gerontology, 4(2), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.21504/sajg.v4i2.84

64.

Van der Geest

(2000). Funerals for the living: Conversations with elderly people in Kwahu, Ghana. African Studies Review, 43(3), 103–129. doi:10.2307/525071

65.

Van Ryn

Meese

Arnold

Nansen

Gibbs

Kohn

(2019). Managing the consumption of death and digital media: The funeral director as market intermediary. Death Studies, 43(7), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2018.1522387

66.

Warner

Lloyd , (1959). The living and the dead: A study of the symbolic life of Americans (Yankee City Series, Vol. 5). Yale University Press.

67.

Zaichowsky

J. L.

(1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1086/208520.

68.

Zaleskiewicz

Gasiorowska

Kesebir

Luszczynska

Pyszczynski

(2013). Money and the fear of death: The symbolic power of money as an existential anxiety buffer. Journal of Economic Psychology, 36, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.02.008