Media Use and Materialism: A Comparative Study of Impact of Television Exposure and Internet Indulgence on Young Adults

Abstract

Media exposure is often witnessed to promote materialism in youth. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to investigate and compare the level of materialism in young media users due to television exposure and Internet indulgence. A sample of 714 young media users (15–24 years) has been taken from schools and colleges of Punjab (India) and data have been analysed through hierarchical regression analysis and independent sample t-test through SPSS 19.0. Using a three-factor structure to measure materialism—material success, material happiness and material centrality—the findings reveal that media (TV and Internet) strongly inculcates materialism in young media users, when effects of child and family variables are controlled. But, magnitude of the effect of media (TV and Internet) is more prominently visible on material centrality construct than other two constructs of materialism. Also, groups of child and family variables showed significant differences across materialism constructs. Internet indulgence coupled with socio-oriented family communication significantly contributes to materialism. Because of the highest influence of media on material centrality, the leaders in the media industry should be more involved in scrutinizing the content and encourage their clients to develop more socially responsible depictions in media.

Keywords

India young media users television exposure Internet indulgence materialism

Introduction

Media diet of youth has grown steadily as the bedrooms of these people have become media emporium in which they use two or more than two media at a same time. They watch television, movies, play video games, use computers and surf Internet simultaneously. Young people are seen to spend about 7 hours and 38 minutes using media per day in the USA (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010). Although data from India are limited about the time spend by youth on media, yet significant proportion of youth spend considerable time (more than two hours daily) viewing television which is considered to be a dominant mass medium in Indian families (Kaur & Singh, 2011). Moreover, it has been reported that television viewing tops the list of preferred activities among Indian children and approximately 55 per cent children report television viewing to be their favourite activity (Indiantelevision.com, 2006). They watch TV for entertainment (Wadkar, 1998) and prefer to watch adult-oriented programmes such as movies and film songs (K. Jaiswal & S. Jaiswal, 1992; Phatak & Singh, 1986) and also prefer television to print media (Sethi, Chhikara, & Kumari, 1997).

Television continues to be the prime choice of media users even when new interactive media such as Internet are emerging in India (Papathanassopoulos et al., 2013). Nonetheless, the role of Internet has also become influential in the lives of young Indian users. Internet is treated as an important means of entertainment as well as a channel for speedy communication. The base of Internet users in India is currently estimated to be about 120 million users and it ranks third largest in the world after China and the USA (Gnanasambandam et al., 2012). Although Indian users spend less time online per capita as compared to users in developed nations, yet, Internet is frequently used for social networking and communication. It also serves to influence purchase decisions of Indian consumers for products and services such as apparels, books, financial services and travel for those who use Internet and the figures are comparable with those of developed nations (Gnanasambandam et al., 2012). In India, teenagers spend more time online in which they use over 26 per cent of their online time for entertainment while only 2 per cent for education purposes (Natu, 2005). Indian students surf Internet for self-development, relaxation and seeking career opportunities. Moreover, they use Internet as it is user-friendly and gives wide exposure to them (Roy, 2009). Youth in India spend a quarter of their online time on social media sites like LinkedIn and Twitter and they use 23 per cent of time on emails (The Hindu, 2013, August 24). Teenagers, especially boys, surf online games more frequently which diminishes their involvement in other social activities. For example, these users start withdrawing from society and do not interact with the outside world as much as the girls do (Natu, 2005). Lenka (2014) through a review-based study opined that marketers particularly target children as they get easily fascinated towards unrealistic promotional offers made by them and consequently children persuade parents to purchase those offers depicted in media. However, the unfulfilled requests of children for material things make them unhappy and dissatisfied, which later on take the shape of conflicting situations in the family.

Materialism and Youth

Researchers have developed many definitions to theorize the concept of materialism. It has been defined as ‘the importance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions’ (Belk, 1984, p. 265) or ‘the orientation, which views material goods and money as important for personal happiness and social progress’ (Ward & Wackman, 1971, p. 422). Richins and Dawson (1992) developed an 18-item material value scale for adults based on three dimensions—success, centrality and happiness. They defined material success as the degree to which possessions and its acquisition are central to a person’s life, material happiness as the degree to which possessions and its acquisition bring happiness and life satisfaction, and material success as the degree to which people assess the success of others in terms of possessions. Further, Opree, Buijzen, van Reijmersdal, and Valkenburg (2011) developed and validated the material value scale for children (MVS-c) in the Netherlands on these three constructs (success, centrality and happiness) and Soni and Behal (2015) validated MVS-c in Indian settings to measure materialism among Indian youth.

Youth constitute an important market segment and are a key target for marketers. In India, majority of population is in the age group of 15–34 years and is termed as world’s youngest country with 430 million youth which is expected to reach 464 million by 2021 (Shivakumar, 2013). Moreover, purchasing power of this segment is increasing as the earning age of Indian youth has come down by 10 years and most of them are earning alongside studying (Mehra, 2008). Therefore, they make buying decisions for themselves as well as influence family purchase decisions. Moreover, due to emergence of dual carrier families (where both parents earn) and a shift from joint families to nuclear families, Indian parents allow adolescent children greater influence in some family decisions (Chadha, 1995). Materialism is a serious issue needs to be addressed especially in Indian context as people in emerging economies are found to be more materialistic than their counterparts in North America and Europe (Ipsos, 2013). Moreover, 58 per cent Indians expressed that their success is measured by the things they own. Not only adults, youngsters are also striving to catch up with the lifestyle of most advanced economies in terms of satisfying material wants (Economic Snapshot, 2011). In Indian context, Gupta (2011) empirically examined and found that foreign brands had a significant impact on consumers’ materialistic values. On the other hand, Handa and Khare (2013) indicated that Indian youth did not endorse high level of materialistic tendencies. However, young women found to be more materialistic as they involved more in purchase of fashion clothing than their male counterparts.

Greater exposure to media (television and Internet) is charged with inculcating materialism in young media users (Chan, Zhang, & Wang, 2006; Harmon, 2001). Two media have been identified to represent traditional and mass media (television) on one hand and modern and interactive media (Internet) on the other hand to compare the impact of both media on materialism in youth. However, no study to the best of our knowledge so far has compared the level of materialism in young media users due to television exposure and Internet indulgence. Thus, an attempt has been made in this direction through the present study, especially in the Indian context.

Review of Previous Literature

Television and Internet content depict images of lavish homes, fancy apparels, accessories, cars, and such depictions fuel consumption patterns of young media users. Further, these depictions tend to arouse desires for owning and buying things in consumers’ mind which can otherwise be dormant. As they want many products and services shown in media, they tend to become more materialistic. Previous studies investigating the relationship between television exposure and Internet indulgence with materialism, respectively, have been presented here.

Researchers found positive relationship between television advertising and materialism (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2003; Chan & Zhang, 2007; Goldberg & Gorn, 1978; Jiang & Chia, 2009; Richins, 1987). These studies reported that advertising uses embellished depictions of happy consumers living in a material world which people believe as social reality. As a result, these people become materialistic. Chan and Zhang (2007) also noted that Chinese college students viewed advertisements with higher motivation and demonstrated stronger tendencies to imitate celebrity models, which promoted high level of materialistic values among them.

Longitudinal studies have also evidenced the effect of television advertising on materialism (Moschis & Moore, 1982; Moschis, Sim Ong, Mathur, Yamashita, & Benmoyal-Bouzaglo, 2011). These studies reported that television advertising promoted materialism, especially when parents did not discuss consumption issues with them. In addition to this, it was opined that viewers who watched television in adolescence became more materialistic in their young adulthood. Previous studies also provide for the relationship between television viewership and inculcation of materialism among viewers. Chan and Cai (2009) found a positive relationship between heavy television viewership and materialistic values and reported that depictions in television create desires for buying and owning products (depicted in television) in the minds of adolescents and such desires multiply if adolescents watch television more frequently. Also, Moschis and Moore (1982), Greenberg and Brand (1993) and Chan (2003) corroborated similar findings for 6 to 12 grade children. However, Chan et al. (2006) found no significant relationship between television exposure and materialism probably because state government followed strict rules about the content of television programming in China.

Few researchers have also examined the influence of Internet exposure on materialism among young users (Gu & Hung, 2009; Gu, Hung, & Tse, 2005). Gu and Hung (2009) examined the development of materialistic values in adolescents aged 15–19 years due to media exposure (TV and websites). The findings of the study reported that adolescents were more materialistic in terms of acquisition centrality and novelty seeking than parent generation. Bush and Gilbert (2002) surveyed 713 university students and reported that students who indulge in using Internet more frequently were more materialistic and also demonstrated lower level of self-esteem than those who were less involved in its use. Sun and Wu (2011) also found a significant positive relationship between Internet addiction and materialism in American college students. However, Chan (2005) examined the influence of Internet exposure on materialism in Chinese children and reported that Chinese children did not endorse strong materialistic attitude. However, younger boys were found to be more materialistic than older girls. In addition to this, she reported that children who used Internet more frequently were found to be more materialistic than those who used Internet less frequently.

Child and Family Variables and Materialism

Some researchers have reported that child’s own as well as family variables also influence the level of materialism among them (Achenreiner, 1997; Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2003; Chan, 2003, 2005; Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Gupta, 2011; Xu, 2010). Younger children especially boys are seen to focus on every advertised product and hence demonstrate more materialistic attitudes (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2003; Chan, 2005; Xu, 2010). However, Chan (2003) found no significant differences in materialism across boys and girls for Chinese children, as both boys and girls believed that television advertisements were truthful as well as both of them liked those advertisements. In addition to this, the authors reported that children who received higher allowance from parents exhibited more materialistic value orientations than those who received lower allowance from parents. Gu and Hung (2009) reported that the level of income did not influence adolescents’ materialism but it exerted strong influence on parents’ materialistic values. In addition to this, Chan et al. (2006) examined the influence of family and peer communication on materialistic value orientations of Chinese adolescents and found that family communication negatively influenced materialism, while peer communication influenced materialism positively. Moschis et al. (2011) also reported that concept-oriented family communication did not influence the development of materialistic values among youth. Two studies examined the role of active and restrictive mediation used by parents in order to mediate advertising effects on children (Bijmolt, Claassen, & Brus, 1998; Wiman, 1983). Bijmolt et al. (1998) found that active mediation was the most effective style while Wiman (1983) concluded that restrictive mediation style was more effective in mediating advertising effects. Lenka (2014) also demonstrated through an Indian sample of respondents that guidance provided by parents can significantly mitigate the effects of materialism among children.

From the foregoing discussion it can be seen that either media, that is, television, or Internet has been investigated separately to cause materialism in youth but the empirical evidence comparing television exposure and Internet indulgence to materialism is feeble. Therefore, such comparison is important because youth now live in a multimedia environment whereby media content has the power to inculcate materialism in them.

Research Methodology

Data have been collected from three cities of Punjab (India)—Amritsar, Jalandhar and Ludhiana—to represent traditional geographical division of Punjab into Majha, Doaba and Malwa, respectively. Young media users in the age category 15–24 years have been selected as Indian youngsters endeavour to catch up with the lifestyle of most advanced economies in terms of satisfying material wants (Economic Snapshot, 2011) and they were approached through DAV schools and colleges. In each city, a DAV school and a college have been chosen using judgement sampling to collect the data as DAV managing committee run a chain of schools and colleges across all cities of Punjab and enrol students from diverse socio-economic and culture backgrounds. With the permission of principal of each school and college, teachers were requested to distribute the questionnaires among students of matriculation to post-graduation. Of the 800 questionnaires that have been distributed to the students, 714 (89.25%) usable questionnaires have been returned. In the sample, 51 per cent (51.40%) respondents belong to the age category of 15–19 years, most of them are boys (51.3%) with weekly pocket money ranging from ₹251—500 approximately (4–8) (46.8%), with monthly family income less than ₹50,000 approximately (less than $820) (59.8%). Nearly 62 (61.6%) per cent of them reported that mothers are their primary caregiver. In addition to this, 48.7 per cent mothers of young media users were graduates while 44.4 per cent fathers were graduates.

Measure Used

Data have been collected through structured and pretested questionnaire. In order to measure the level of materialism in young media users, MVS-c developed by Opree et al. (2011) has been used. The three dimensions of MVS-c are construed of 18 items. Validity of these constructs was checked through confirmatory factor analysis. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that three-factor solution with 16 items is more appropriate in the Indian context than original MVS-c with 18 items developed by Opree et al. (2011) (refer Appendix 1). These three constructs are material success, material happiness and material centrality and responses have been taken on four-point scale with ‘4’ indicating ‘mostly’ and ‘1’ indicating ‘never’.

Further, the respondents were asked to specify the reasons for watching television programmes in order to assess television exposure. Seven reasons were identified from the previous literature of young viewers’ watching television programmes. These are ‘I view TV programmes for entertainment (mean value = 2.60; SD = 0.53)’, ‘I view TV programmes as I am in habit of watching them (mean value = 1.64; SD = 0.71)’, ‘I view TV programmes because I am idle (mean value = 2.18; SD = 0.68)’, ‘I view TV programmes because these provide me information/news about different matters (mean value = 2.36; SD = 0.67)’, ‘I view TV programmes to escape from the pressures of my daily life (mean value = 1.93; SD = 0.73)’, ‘When there is nobody in the house, I view TV programmes to seek companionship (mean value = 2.00; SD = 0.71)’ and ‘I view TV programmes as to avoid boredom (mean value = 2.25; SD = 0.64)’. Responses were acquired on three-point scale ranging from ‘mostly’ = 3 to ‘never’ = 1. Moreover, Internet indulgence was gauged through online activities in which respondents frequently engaged in. These online activities are ‘Search information for learning and doing homework (mean value = 2.40; SD = 0.58)’, ‘Web surfing for interesting topics (mean value = 2.33; SD = 0.62)’, ‘Playing online games (mean value = 1.74; SD = 0.75)’, ‘Leisure (listen to music, radio, video, TV programme) (mean value = 2.35; SD = 0.64)’, ‘Connect with friends (e.g., MSN, email, chat rooms, Facebook) (mean value = 2.53; SD = 0.63)’ and ‘Blogging/website publishing (mean value = 1.50; SD = 0.62)’.

Family communication patterns were measured through a 14-item scale adapted from Chaffee, McLeod, and Atkin (1971), comprised of concept-oriented communication (mean value = 3.23, SD = 0.76) and socio-oriented communication (mean value = 2.76, SD = 0.87). The responses were drawn on four-point scale ranging from ‘often = 4’ to ‘never = 1’. Television parental mediation was measured through 15-item scale, adapted from Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters, and Marseille (1999), which includes three constructs, namely active mediation (mean value = 2.56, SD = 0.67), restrictive mediation (mean value = 2.57, SD = 0.52) and co-viewing (mean value = 2.73, SD = 0.54). Internet parental mediation was measured through an 18-item scale adapted from Livingstone and Helsper (2008), based on four constructs, namely interaction restrictions (mean value = 1.64, SD = 0.74), active co-use (mean value = 1.77, SD = 0.63), monitoring (mean value = 1.71, SD = 0.60) and indulgence restrictions (mean value = 1.76, SD = 0.59). Responses were measured on four-point scale ranging from 1 = ‘never’ to 4 = ‘often’.

The preliminary draft of questionnaire was pretested through conducting personal interviews with 30 students. This aided in making questionnaire more appropriate and after incorporating necessary changes, the final questionnaire was prepared. The questionnaire closed by asking students to share their demographic information. SPSS 19.0 has been used to analyse the data using descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations), hierarchical regression analysis and independent sample t-test.

Data Analysis and Findings

In order to investigate whether materialism, that is, material success, material happiness and material centrality (dependent variables), is influenced by TV exposure (independent variable for Models 1, 2 and 3) and Internet indulgence (independent variable for Models 4, 5 and 6), hierarchical regression analyses have been applied. However, it has been found from previous literature that demographic characteristics of children (age and gender) and family variables (socioeconomic status, parent–child consumer communication) can inculcate materialism in young media users (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2003; Chan, 2005; Gu & Hung, 2009; Jiang & Chia, 2009; Young, 1990). Therefore, these variables (child and family) should be firstly controlled to examine the influence of TV exposure and Internet indulgence on materialism (material success, material happiness and material centrality). Instead of socioeconomic status, the present study used pocket money of media users to reflect socioeconomic status of users as personal data for pocket money are easy to interpret and may better indicate materialistic attitude than family income. Thus, control variables are age, gender, pocket money of respondents, parental mediation and family communication patterns, namely concept-oriented communication style and socio-oriented style of communication.

Thereafter, hierarchal regression analysis was applied to assess the net impact of TV exposure and Internet indulgence on materialism (material success, material happiness and material centrality) along with child and family variables. Six hierarchical regression analyses were conducted stepwise for TV exposure and Internet indulgence as independent variables. In each hierarchical regression model, all control variables (child and family variables) were entered in the first step and the main independent variable, that is, TV exposure in case of Models 1, 2 and 3 and Internet indulgence in case of Models 4, 5 and 6 has been entered along with these variables in the second step. Parental mediation in Models 1, 2 and 3 comprises active mediation, restrictive mediation and co-viewing, whereas interaction restrictions, active co-use, monitoring and indulgence restrictions have been taken in Models 4, 5 and 6. The results are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Materialism (Television exposure)

	Model 1 Material Success	Model 2 Material Happiness	Model 3 Material Centrality
Step 1
Child variables
Age	0.122* (0.116*)	0.103* (0.095)	0.116* (0.107*)
Gender	0.240* (0.251*)	0.208* (0.225*)	0.185* (0.205*)
Pocket money	0.013 (0.017)	0.035 (0.041)	0.078 (0.085)
Family variables
Active mediation	0.013 (0.020)	−0.050 (−0.039)	−0.056 (−0.042)
Restrictive mediation	0.457* (0.461*)	0.423* (0.430*)	0.356* (0.364*)
Co-viewing	−0.340* (−0.353*)	−0.299 (−0.319*)	−0.249 (−0.272)
Concept-oriented communication	−0.107* (−0.105*)	−0.053 (−0.050)	−0.051 (−0.048)
Socio-oriented communication	−0.070 (−0.075)	−0.043 (−0.050)	−0.038 (−0.045)
R ²	0.121	0.082	0.073
Step 2
TV exposure	0.065*	0.100***	0.117***
R² change	0.004*	0.009***	0.013***
Total R²	0.125	0.091	0.086

Source: Authors’ own calculations.

Notes: Cell values without brackets are standardized multiple regression weights reflecting the relation between the predictor and the dependent variable while controlling for all of variables entered. Cell values in brackets reflect the relation in the first step of analysis. ***significant at 1 per cent, **significant at 5 per cent and *significant at 10 per cent.

Table 2.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Materialism (Internet indulgence)

	Model 4 Material Success	Model 5 Material Happiness	Model 6 Material Centrality
Step 1
Child variables
Age	0.109* (0.102*)	0.092 (0.084)	0.110* (0.101*)
Gender	0.234* (0.229*)	0.201* (0.196*)	0.178* (0.172*)
Pocket money	0.011 (0.001)	0.032 (0.018)	0.077** (0.062*)
Family variables
Interaction restrictions	0.095 (0.115)	0.044 (0.068)	0.030 (0.056)
Active co-use	−0.452 (−0.469*)	−0.452 (−0.473*)	−0.442 (−0.464)
Monitoring	0.758* (0.711*)	0.704* (−0.646)	0.696* (0.635)
Indulgence restrictions	−0.112 (−0.066)	−0.080 (−0.024)	−0.094 (−0.034)
Concept-oriented communication	−0.093* (−0.089)	−0.044 (−0.039)	−0.043 (−0.037)
Socio-oriented communication	−0.051 (−0.056)	−0.030 (−0.035)	−0.028 (−0.033)
R ²	0.172	0.110	0.100
Step 2
Internet indulgence	0.102***	0.123***	0.130***
R² change	0.010***	0.012***	0.016***
Total R²	0.182	0.122	0.116

Source: Authors’ own calculations.

Table 1 reveals that in Models 1, 2 and 3 and in first step of the block, all the control variables (child and family) accounted for 12.1, 8.2 and 7.3 per cent of variance in inculcating material success, material happiness and material centrality among respondents, where F (8,705) = 12.086, p < 0.01; F (8,705) = 7.830, p < 0.01; and F (8,705) = 6.950, p < 0.01. In the second step, there is significant increase in variance explained in inculcating material success, material happiness and material centrality among respondents due to TV exposure as it adds 0.4, 0.9 and 1.3 per cent to explained variance leading to F (9, 704) = 5.392, p < 0.01; F (9, 704) = 2.648, p < 0.01; and F (9, 704) = 7.361, p < 0.01.

On the other hand, in Models 4, 5 and 6, it has been seen that in the first step of block, all the control variables, that is, child as well as family variables, accounted for 17.2, 11.0 and 10.0 per cent of variance in inculcating materialism success, material happiness and material centrality among respondents, where F (9,704) = 16.279, p < 0.01; F (9,704) = 9.629, p < 0.01 and F (9,704) = 8.723, p < 0.01, respectively. In the second step, there is significant increase in variance explained in inculcating material success, material happiness and material centrality among respondents due to TV exposure as it adds 1.0, 1.4 and 1.6 per cent to explained variance leading to F (10, 703) = 15.659, p < 0.01; F (10, 703) = 9.953, p < 0.01; and F (10, 703) = 9.265, p < 0.01. The results are presented in Table 2. It reflects that respondents’ exposure to TV and indulgence in online activities have significant impact on creating desires to having and buying expensive items.

Thereafter, in order to investigate whether the level of materialism (material success, material happiness and material centrality) among youngsters differs on the basis of child and family variables, independent sample t-test has been employed. The results in this regard are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

t-Values for Measuring Material Success, Material Happiness and Material Centrality across Child and Family Variables

Child and Family Variables	Material Success		Material Happiness		Material Centrality
	Mean (SD)	t-Value	Mean (SD)	t-Value	Mean (SD)	t-Value
Age
15–19	2.00 (0.75)	0.464	2.30 (0.60)	0.590	2.36 (0.57)	0.186
20–24	2.04 (0.73)		2.33 (0.61)		2.41 (0.56)
Gender
Male	2.19 (0.73)	0.000***	2.44 (0.60)	0.000***	2.49 (0.56)	0.000***
Female	1.83 (0.70)		2.12 (0.58)		2.27 (0.55)
Pocket money
<500	2.01 (0.74)	0.297	2.30 (0.61)	0.125	2.36 (0.58)	0.017**
>500	2.08 (0.73)		2.39 (0.57)		2.50 (0.52)
Concept-oriented communication
Low	2.13 (0.70)	0.000***	2.37 (0.58)	0.029**	2.43 (0.54)	0.044**
High	1.92 (0.76)		2.27 (0.62)		2.35 (0.59)
Socio-oriented communication
Low	2.09 (0.73)	0.035**	2.35 (0.62)	0.222	2.41 (0.59)	0.273
High	1.97 (0.74)		2.29 (0.59)		2.37 (0.55)
Active mediation
Low	1.97 (0.70)	0.106	2.30 (0.57)	0.555	2.38 (0.54)	0.708
High	2.06 (0.76)		2.33 (0.63)		2.40 (0.59)
Restrictive mediation
Low	1.96 (0.71)	0.026**	2.29 (0.58)	0.274	2.37 (0.55)	0.257
High	2.08 (0.76)		2.34 (0.62)		2.40 (0.59)
Co-viewing
Low	2.01 (0.71)	0.539	2.32 (0.57)	0.888	2.40 (0.53)	0.639
High	2.04 (0.76)		2.34 (0.63)		2.38 (0.60)
Interaction restrictions
Low	1.89 (0.70)	0.000***	2.24 (0.59)	0.000***	2.33 (0.56)	0.000***
High	2.25 (0.75)		2.45 (0.60)		2.49 (0.57)
Active co-use
Low	1.92 (0.71)	0.000***	2.26 (0.60)	0.001***	2.34 (0.56)	0.008***
High	2.19 (0.75)		2.42 (0.59)		2.46 (0.57)
Monitoring
Low	1.91 (0.71)	0.000***	2.25 (0.59)	0.000***	2.34 (0.56)	0.003***
High	2.21 (0.75)		2.43 (0.61)		2.47 (0.57)
Indulgence restrictions
Low	1.91 (0.71)	0.000***	2.26 (0.60)	0.000***	2.34 (0.56)	0.011**
High	2.19 (0.74)		2.42 (0.59)		2.45 (0.57)

Source: Authors’ own calculations.

Notes: **Significant at 5 per cent; ***Significant at 1 per cent.

Assessment of Materialism Dimensions across Child and Family Variables

Upon cross-classifying youth responses across age categories, the findings reveal insignificant differences across younger (15–19 years) and older (20–24 years) children with respect to material success, material happiness and material centrality. Conversely, Table 3 explicates that statistically significant differences exist between male and female children for material success, material happiness and material centrality at 1 per cent level of significance. Male children reported to be more materialistic than their female counterparts. The table also reveals that pocket money of children significantly influences the level of material centrality at 5 per cent level of significance. Children who reported to get pocket money more than 500 INR valued possessions and money as they believed them to be central of their life. Further, significant differences have been seen between families using high and low concept-oriented style of communication with respect to material success (at 1% level of significance), material happiness and material centrality (at 5% level of significance). Children in whose families low concept-oriented communication is a norm give more value to possessions that can bring happiness and at the same time find material possessions to be indictors of success in life and central to their life too. Similarly, statistically significant differences (at 5% level of significance) have been observed with respect to ‘socio-oriented communication’. This reveals that children from families where low socio-oriented communication is followed accord more value to material success. These children believed that expensive, material and exclusive possessions are signs of their success. Further, statistically significant differences (5% level of significance) have been seen between families using high and low restrictive mediation with regard to material success. It states that children whose parents impose more restrictions regarding time and content of television viewing valued material success more. It hereby means that such children evaluate their success by magnitude of material possessions. As far as Internet parental mediation strategies (interaction restrictions, active co-use, monitoring and indulgence restrictions) are concerned, statistically significant differences (at 1% level of significance) have been explicated with respect to material success, material happiness and material centrality, respectively. It means that parents use high degree of either strategy to regulate Internet use of their children, and it does not lead to reduce materialism among children rather it increases.

Thereafter, control variables (child and family) have been taken as moderator variables to understand the relationship between TV exposure and Internet indulgence and materialism, respectively. For the purpose of analysis, composite score of materialism has been taken by combining the constructs—material success, material happiness and material centrality. In order to explore the moderating effects of child and family variables on the relationship between TV exposure and materialism and Internet indulgence and materialism, eight and nine additional sets of regression analyses with materialism (dependent variable) have been conducted, respectively. In each set of analyses, three principal predictors have been entered: (a) TV exposure/Internet indulgence, (b) one of the child and family variable and (c) product term of TV exposure/Internet indulgence and that socio-demographic variable. A two-way interaction between TV exposure/Internet indulgence and other socio-demographic variable if found to be significant indeed moderated the relationship between TV exposure and materialism and Internet indulgence and materialism (Aiken & West, 1991). The analyses yielded no significant interaction effects for child variables, indicating that the relationships between TV exposure and materialism and Internet indulgence and materialism did not vary for younger and older young viewers, boys and girls and high and low pocket money children. Also, no significant interactions effects of family variables emerged in the relationship between TV exposure and materialism. However, socio-oriented style of family communication is found to significantly moderate the relationship between Internet indulgence and materialism. The results in this regard are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Internet Indulgence with Materialism as Dependent Variable (Socio-oriented family communication as moderator)

Step	β at entry	R2	R2 Change
1. Internet indulgence	−0.002	0.000	0.000
2. Socio-oriented family communication	0.869*	0.756	0.756*
3. Internet indulgence × socio-oriented family communication	0.036**	0.757	0.001**

Source: Authors’ own calculations.

Notes: * and ** p-value significant at 1 per cent and 5 per cent level of significance, respectively.

From Table 4, it is seen that Internet indulgence does not explain significant amount of materialism in young Internet users (step 1, R2 = 0.000, p = 0.948). Socio-oriented family communication style added to the equation in step 2 explained a significant amount of variance (R2 change = 0.756, p < 0.01). Additionally, the interaction between Internet indulgence and socio-oriented family communication on materialism is significant (step 3, R2 change = 0.001, p < 0.05). It implies that young Internet users who use Internet more frequently and belong to families where socio-oriented communication is the norm are found to be more materialistic.

Conclusions and Implications

The present study uses three dimensions of materialism, namely material success, material happiness and material centrality, defined by Opree et al. (2011) and validated by Soni and Behal (2015) in India to investigate the level of materialism in young Indian media users.

Comparison of the effect of TV exposure and Internet indulgence along with control variables (child and family) on materialism (material success, material happiness and material centrality) revealed that both television and Internet stimulate materialistic values in young media users, when effects of child and family variables are controlled. Young viewers who watch television more frequently exhibit stronger materialistic values than those who watch television less. This can be attributed to the fact that depictions in television are designed to arouse desire for owning and buying things in the viewers’ mind which can otherwise be dormant. This finding is in line with previous research (Chan & Cai, 2009; Harmon, 2001) and it suggests that young viewers acquire consumption norms from depictions on television. Similarly, significant association between Internet indulgence and materialism while controlling for the effects of child and family variables corroborates the findings obtained by Bush and Gilbert (2002) reported that students who indulge heavily in using Internet were found to be more materialistic than those who used it less frequently. But out of the three constructs of materialism—material success, material happiness and material centrality—the effect of media (TV and Internet) is prominently reflected on material centrality as the magnitude of change in R2 is greater in Model 3 and Model 6. But, Internet indulgence (Model 6) in online activities makes highest change in R2 in centrality construct, due to which it can be concluded that children who heavily indulge in online activities consider acquisition of material possessions as a primary goal and place lot of value on possessions and money in life. The results of control variables (child and family) depict significant associations with three constructs of materialism. Male viewers found to be more materialistic on each dimension of MVS-c than their female counterparts. Previous studies have also depicted gender to be a significant predictor of materialism and concluded that males are more associated with materialism than females (Browne & Kaldenburg, 1997; Ryan & Dziurawiec, 2001). Higher pocket money is associated with material centrality. However, previous research has shown mixed findings regarding relationship between constructs of materialism and income (Roberts & Clement, 2007; Ryan & Dziurawiec, 2001). But the present study confirms that higher pocket money makes children more concerned and central towards material possessions in their well-being. Further, children who are raised in families following high concept-oriented communication are found to be less materialistic. But Chan and Prendergast (2007) suggested that family communication has no impact on children’s materialistic attitudes as they hardly consult their family members while making product purchase decisions. But, Indian parenting style is perceived to be typically permissive by college students (Barnhart, Raval, Jansari, & Raval, 2013) in which parents tend to provide few rules and often consider themselves as a friend of their child than acting as a parental figure. So, discussions and interactions with children about consumption patterns are more effective. At the same time, socio-oriented communication also has potential to reduce materialism particularly with respect to material success. Following explicit commands by parents about consumption patterns leads children to value material success less. The present study confirms that restrictions on television exposure cannot be effectively used to alleviate materialism (material success) in youth. This is so because older children (who have reached adolescence) do not readily accept parental views about advertising (Bahar Ozdogan & Hakan Altintas, 2010). Similarly parents can actively co-use Internet or monitor Internet use by children. They can also install filtering and monitoring software and check the sites visited by them in order to shield them from undesirable influence of Internet use. This is true also because of age of respondents used in the sample (15–24 years) as Barnhart et al. (2013) reported that Indian college students consider permissive parenting as more effective and helpful. This suggests that parents should use media actively themselves and should not let media be used by young users unsupervised.

Moderation analysis reveals significant interaction of Internet indulgence and socio-oriented family communication in predicting materialism in young media users. This implies that young users who belong to high socio-oriented families and surf Internet more often are more materialistic. It is attributed to the fact that young users who surf Internet more frequently are more heavily exposed to online products/services. On the other hand, when parents do not interfere in Internet usage of their wards, desires of owning and buying those products/services which arise in their minds go unchecked which make them more materialistic. Thus, at this point the role of parents becomes more crucial about supervision of media habits of children (by imposing time and content restrictions).

The study has demonstrated clear connection between media exposure and materialism. Materialism is seen to lead to unhappiness (Opree et al., 2011), resentment, compulsive buying (Otero-López, Pol, Bolaño, & Mariño, 2010), poor school performance (Goldberg, Gorn, Peracchio, & Bamossy, 2003) and life dissatisfaction (Ryan & Dziurawiec, 2001). In earlier studies, mass media is witnessed to be a prominent cause of inculcating materialism but in the era of information technology, Internet is equally contributing towards materialism in youth (depicted through study’s findings). There are few suggestions to the leaders in the media industry who frame media content that they should not develop its content which may be described as materialistic. It means that youth refrains from creating mental associations between consumption of material possessions and social prestige/status. Because of the highest influence of media on material centrality, the leaders in the media industry should be more involved in scrutinizing the content and encourage their clients to develop more socially responsible depictions in media. Moreover, leaders should promote media content in such a way that would not create impressions that having material possessions are the most important/central goal in life.

Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research

The present study is based on data from three cities of Punjab only, so generalizability of findings is somewhat limited. Therefore, study can be replicated in metro cites to make results generalizable. Data have been collected through survey method and responses were gauged through self-reports of respondents, so chances of personal bias cannot be ruled out. In future, multiple methods (such as both observational and survey approach) can be used to reiterate the study. The present study is confined to compare the level of materialism due to TV exposure and Internet indulgence only. Future research can be extending to other media such as the more penetrated print media and rapidly emerging mobile media.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Appendix 1.

Material Value Scale for Children (MVS-c)—EFA and CFA

Label	Constructs Indicators	Mean Value (SD)	Factor Loading	Standardized Regression Weight	CR (AVE)
Material Success (percentage of variance explained = 24.35; eigenvalue = 6.13; a = 0.885)
S14	Do you like friends who have a lot of money more than other friends who do not have?	1.96 (0.92)	0.853	0.87
S15	Do you like friends who have expensive clothes more than other friends who do not have?	1.93 (0.89)	0.829	0.83
S17	Do you like friends who have a lot of things more than other friends who do not have?	1.96 (0.91)	0.824	0.78	0.887 (0.569)
S13	Do you like friends who have expensive things more than other friends who do not have?	2.06 (0.93)	0.770	0.76
S18	Do you think other friends like you more if you have many expensive things?	2.11 (0.97)	0.696	0.61
S16	Do you think other friends like you more if you have expensive brands?	2.13 (0.94)	0.695	0.64
Material Happiness (percentage of variance explained = 19.28; eigenvalue = 2.54; a = 0.835)
S9	Would you be happier if you could buy more clothes that are expensive?	2.68 (0.93)	0.794	0.81
S10	Would you be happier if you could buy more brands that are expensive?	2.76 (0.93)	0.793	0.82
S11	Would you be happier if you owned more things?	2.86 (0.89)	0.759	0.64	0.838 (0.512)
S8	Does having a lot of money make you happy?	2.77 (0.99)	0.711	0.65
S7	Do buying expensive things make you happy?	2.60 (0.96)	0.597	0.63
Material Centrality (percentage of variance explained = 19.07; eigenvalue = 1.36; a = 0.835)
S3	Do you think it is important to own expensive clothes?	2.55 (0.85)	0.839	0.86
S4	Do you think it is important to own expensive brands?	2.47 (0.90)	0.769	0.83
S1	Do you think it is important to own expensive things?	2.54 (0.86)	0.747	0.67	0.840 (0.517)
S2	Do you think it is important to own a lot of money?	2.78 (0.90)	0.690	0.61
S5	Do you think it is important to be able to buy a lot of things?	2.50 (0.91)	0.567	0.58

References

Achenreiner

G. B.

(1997). Materialistic values and susceptibility to influence in children. Advances in Consumer Research, 24(1), 82–88.

Aiken

L. S.

, & West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Bahar Ozdogan

, & Hakan Altintas

(2010). Parent–adolescent interaction and the family’s effect on adolescent TV skepticism: An empirical analysis with Turkish consumers. Young Consumers, 11(1), 24–35.

Barnhart

C. M.

, Raval

V. V.

, Jansari

, & Raval

P. H.

(2013). Perceptions of parenting style among college students in India and the United States. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(5), 684–693.

Belk

R. W.

(1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 291–297.

Bijmolt

T. H.

, Claassen

, & Brus

(1998). Children’s understanding of TV advertising: Effects of age, gender, and parental influence. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21(2), 171–194.

Browne

B. A.

, & Kaldenberg

D. O.

(1997). Conceptualizing self-monitoring: Links to materialism and product involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(1), 31–44.

Buijzen

, & Valkenburg

P. M.

(2003). The unintended effects of television advertising: A parent–child survey. Communication Research, 30(5), 483–503.

Bush

V. D.

, & Gilbert

F. W.

(2002). The web as a medium: An exploratory comparison of internet users versus newspaper readers. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(1), 1–10.

10.

Chadha

(1995). The emerging consumer—A profile of Indian housewife and its implications. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd.

11.

Chaffee

S. H.

, McLeod

J. M.

, & Atkin

C. K.

(1971). Parental influences on adolescent media use. The American Behavioral Scientist, 14(3), 323–340.

12.

Chan

(2003). Materialism among Chinese children in Hong Kong. Young Consumers, 4(4), 47–61.

13.

Chan

(2005). Materialism among children in urban China. Paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising 2005 Asia Pacific Conference, June 1–4, Hong Kong.

14.

Chan

, & Cai

(2009). Influence of television advertising on adolescents in China: An urban–rural comparison. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 10(2), 133–145.

15.

Chan

, & Prendergast

(2007). Materialism and social comparison among adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(2), 213–228.

16.

Chan

, & Zhang

(2007). Living in a celebrity-mediated social world: The Chinese experience. Young Consumers, 8(2), 139–152.

17.

Chan

, Zhang

, & Wang

(2006). Materialism among adolescents in urban China. Young Consumers, 7(2), 64–77.

18.

Churchill Jr

G. A.

, & Moschis

G. P.

(1979). Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 23–35.

19.

Economic Snapshot (2011). Consumption-Indian consumers: Golden opportunity. BTS Investment Advisors Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.monterosagroup.com/tl_files/content/Publications/SICC_Dec2011.pdf

20.

Gnanasambandam

, Madgavkar

, Kaka

, Manyika

, Chui

, Bughin

, & Gomes

(2012). Online and upcoming: The internet’s impact on India. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/high%20tech/pdfs/online_and_upcoming_the_internets_impact_on_india.ashx

21.

Goldberg

M. E.

, & Gorn

G. J.

(1978). Some unintended consequences of TV advertising to children. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(1), 22–29.

22.

Goldberg

M. E.

, Gorn

G. J.

, Peracchio

L. A.

, & Bamossy

(2003). Understanding materialism among youth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 278–288.

23.

Greenberg

, & Brand

(1993). Television news and advertising in the schools: The ‘channel one’ controversy. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 143–151.

24.

F. F.

, & Hung

(2009). Materialism among adolescents in China: A historical generation perspective. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 3(2), 56–64.

25.

F. F.

, Hung

, & Tse

D. K.

(2005). Determinants for consumption materialism among late adolescents in China. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 649–650.

26.

Gupta

(2011). Globalization does lead to change in consumer behavior: An empirical evidence of impact of globalization on changing materialistic values in Indian consumers and its aftereffects. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 23(3), 251–269.

27.

Handa

, & Khare

(2013). Gender as a moderator of the relationship between materialism and fashion clothing involvement among Indian youth. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(1), 112–120.

28.

Harmon

M. D.

(2001). Affluenza: Television use and cultivation of materialism. Mass Communication & Society, 4(4), 405–418.

29.

Indiantelevision.com (2006). Kid PowerExcerpts from Indian survey. Retrieved December 15, 2013 from http://www.indiantelevision.com/marketdatabase/demographics/kidpower.htm

30.

Ipsos (2013). Global attitudes on materialism, finances and family. Retrieved from http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6359

31.

Jaiswal

, & Jaiswal

(1992). A study of child development through television. Journal of Educational Research and Education, 28(4), 144–159.

32.

Jiang

, & Chia

S. C.

(2009). The direct and indirect effects of advertising on materialism of college students in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 19(3), 319–336.

33.

Kaur

, & Singh

(2011). TV viewing practices of Indian children. International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT & Management, 1(5), 66–70.

34.

Lenka

(2014). A review on the role of media in increasing materialism among children. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133(1), 456–464.

35.

Livingstone

, & Helsper

E. J.

(2008). Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581–599.

36.

Mehra

(2008). Youth marketing target: Gen Y. Retrieved from http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/gJsf9bNntb4xR2YMoUZbvJ/Youth-Marketing--Target-Gen-Y.html

37.

Moschis

G. P.

, & Moore

R. L.

(1982). A longitudinal study of television advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 279–286.

38.

Moschis

G. P.

, Sim Ong

, Mathur

, Yamashita

, & Benmoyal-Bouzaglo

(2011). Family and television influences on materialism: A cross-cultural life-course approach. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 5(2), 124–144.

39.

Natu

(2005, December 3). Teens top internet usage survey. Retrieved from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Teens-top-Internet-usage-survey/articleshow/1316971.cms

40.

Opree

S. J.

, Buijzen

, van Reijmersdal

E. A.

, & Valkenburg

P. M.

(2011). Development and validation of the material values scale for children (MVS-c). Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 963–968.

41.

Otero-López

J. M.

, Pol

E. V.

, Bolaño

C. C.

, & Mariño

M. J. S.

(2010). Materialism, life satisfaction and addictive buying: Examining the causal relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(6), 772–776.

42.

Papathanassopoulos

, Sharon

, James

, Toril

, David

, Paul

, … Rod

(2013). Online threat, but television is still dominant: A comparative study of 11 nations’ news consumption. Journalism Practice, 7(6), 690–704.

43.

Phatak

A. B.

, & Singh

V. V.

(1986). Television and students. Journal of Indian Education, 12(3), 39–43.

44.

Richins

M. L.

(1987). Media, materialism, and human happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 14(1), 352–356.

45.

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.

46.

Rideout

V. J.

, Foehr

U. G.

, & Roberts

D. F.

(2010). Generation M [superscript 2]: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527859.pdf

47.

Roberts

J. A.

, & Clement

(2007). Materialism and satisfaction with over-all quality of life and eight life domains. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 79–92.

48.

Roy

S. K.

(2009). Internet uses and gratifications: A survey in the Indian context. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 878–886.

49.

Ryan

, & Dziurawiec

(2001). Materialism and its relationship to life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 55(2), 185–197.

50.

Sethi

, Chhikara

, & Kumari

(1997). Media preference among children: A comparative study. Journal of Indian Education, 23(3), 12–16.

51.

Shivakumar

(2013, April 17). India is set to become the youngest country by 2020q. The Hindu. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-is-set-to-become-the-youngest-country-by-2020/article4624347.ece

52.

Soni

, & Behal

(2015). Testing validity and reliability of material value scale (MVS-c) for late adolescents and young adults in India. Vision, 19(4), 349–356.

53.

Sun

, & Wu

(2011). Trait predictors of online impulsive buying tendency: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(3), 337–346.

54.

The Hindu. (2013). India is now world’s third largest Internet user after U.S., China. Retrieved July 20, 2014 from https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-is-now-worlds-third-largest-internet-user-after-us-china/article5053115.ece

55.

Valkenburg

P. M.

, Krcmar

, Peeters

A. L.

, & Marseille

N. M.

(1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: Instructive mediation, restrictive mediation and social co-viewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(1), 52–66.

56.

Wadkar

A. J.

(1998). Television viewing: A survey. Progress of Education, LXXIII(3), 63–66.

57.

Ward

, & Wackman

(1971). Family and media influences on adolescent consumer learning. The American Behavioral Scientist, 14(3), 415–427.

58.

Wiman

A. R.

(1983). Parental influence and children’s responses to television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 12(1), 12–18.

59.

(2010). Children’s materialism in urban and rural china: Media exposure, cognitive development and demographics. Journal of International Communication, 16(1), 58–74.

60.

Young

B. M.

(1990). Television advertising and children. Oxford: Clarendon Press.