The latter is the theme of US psychologist Tim Kasser’s High Price of
Materialism. It collates ten years of psychological research that shows why we
should speak of the ‘Easterlin Logic’ rather than ‘paradox.’ Kasser provides rich
sociological evidence on the other claim that the choice of particular satisfiers
impacts psychological and social development and thus future-need perception and
well-being. He does so by investigating how materialistic values relate to
well-being. The questions he seeks to answer are the following: “What happens to
our well-being when our desires and goals to attain wealth and accumulate possessions become prominent? What happens to our internal experience and interpersonal relationship when we adopt the messages of consumer culture as personal
beliefs? What happens to the quality of our lives when we value materialism?”
(Kasser 2002: 4)
Values research is an important strand of psychology and in itself shows that not
all humans are materialistically wired. Box 3.1 provides a brief overview of how in
some research designs values have become an explicit component, next to questions
of epistemology, ontology and methodology.
Box 3.1 Values research—axiological aspects of scientific paradigms
Psychologists have found a relatively high commonality of basic value orientation varieties across cultures and age groups and have grouped them into
ten meta-categories that subsume several single value statements and aspirations or goals for life to which people holding these values would ascribe.
In all cultures one finds the following: universalism, benevolence, tradition,
conformity, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and
self-direction.
Individuals and cultures show different value sets with typical patterns of
correlation and non-correlation between some of these meta-categories. It is
unlikely, for example, that people with a high score in universalism will also
have a high score in power, whereas benevolence and self-direction will
typically rank highly together. These settings influence people’s aspirations,
judgments and behavior in a given context and the categories are applied
when seeking to understand differences in decision-making and support of
certain political or economic ideas and proposals. Approaches like that of the
Global Scenario Group presented here, base their stories for potential
developments on the assessments of sets of values and how these might
influence the decisions people take, in, for example, policies and
consumption.
For a wider discussion and a map of the typical category correlations and
single values within them, see the Common Cause Handbook of the British
Public Interest Research Centre (PIRC). It also includes instructions on how
to work with value change for improved well-being and sustainability.
3.1 How Mainstream Economics Views Human Needs and Their Satisfaction
73
Materialism. It collates ten years of psychological research that shows why we
should speak of the ‘Easterlin Logic’ rather than ‘paradox.’ Kasser provides rich
sociological evidence on the other claim that the choice of particular satisfiers
impacts psychological and social development and thus future-need perception and
well-being. He does so by investigating how materialistic values relate to
well-being. The questions he seeks to answer are the following: “What happens to
our well-being when our desires and goals to attain wealth and accumulate possessions become prominent? What happens to our internal experience and interpersonal relationship when we adopt the messages of consumer culture as personal
beliefs? What happens to the quality of our lives when we value materialism?”
(Kasser 2002: 4)
Values research is an important strand of psychology and in itself shows that not
all humans are materialistically wired. Box 3.1 provides a brief overview of how in
some research designs values have become an explicit component, next to questions
of epistemology, ontology and methodology.
Box 3.1 Values research—axiological aspects of scientific paradigms
Psychologists have found a relatively high commonality of basic value orientation varieties across cultures and age groups and have grouped them into
ten meta-categories that subsume several single value statements and aspirations or goals for life to which people holding these values would ascribe.
In all cultures one finds the following: universalism, benevolence, tradition,
conformity, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and
self-direction.
Individuals and cultures show different value sets with typical patterns of
correlation and non-correlation between some of these meta-categories. It is
unlikely, for example, that people with a high score in universalism will also
have a high score in power, whereas benevolence and self-direction will
typically rank highly together. These settings influence people’s aspirations,
judgments and behavior in a given context and the categories are applied
when seeking to understand differences in decision-making and support of
certain political or economic ideas and proposals. Approaches like that of the
Global Scenario Group presented here, base their stories for potential
developments on the assessments of sets of values and how these might
influence the decisions people take, in, for example, policies and
consumption.
For a wider discussion and a map of the typical category correlations and
single values within them, see the Common Cause Handbook of the British
Public Interest Research Centre (PIRC). It also includes instructions on how
to work with value change for improved well-being and sustainability.
3.1 How Mainstream Economics Views Human Needs and Their Satisfaction
73