Materialism and psychosocial maladjustment: What accounts for the relation?

xiv, 144 p. : ill. A print copy of this thesis is available through the UO Libraries. Search the library catalog for the location and call number.This dissertation examined what may account for materialism's relations with psychosocial maladjustment (PM). Materialism is a multi-faceted construct that may differentially involve behavioral tendencies or beliefs and values. Facets of materialism involving beliefs/values are embedded in Unmitigated Self-Interest (USI), a multi-faceted worldview orientation broader than materialism. Study 1 explored whether facets of materialism had distinct patterns of correlations with different aspects of PM and whether relations between facets of materialism and aspects of PM are restricted to facets of materialism alone or are due to broader effects of USI. Study 2 examined whether facet(s) of USI beyond materialist beliefs/values were also associated with PM. Study 3 used longitudinal analyses to examine temporal relations among materialism, USI, and various aspects of PM, examining whether facets of materialism or/and USI were antecedents and/or consequents of PM. In Study 1, undergraduate participants ( n = 839) completed measures of USI, PM indicators, and seven facets of materialism. Multiple regressions indicated that each facet of materialism demonstrated a distinct pattern of correlations with aspects of PM, suggesting that it is useful to treat each facet as a separate construct. Hierarchical regressions indicated that beyond materialist beliefs/values, USI uniquely contributed to PM. In Study 2, members of a community sample ( n =610) completed a 13-facet USI scale and various PM indicators. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that beyond materialist beliefs/values, Machiavellianism and hedonism were likely to be associated with PM. In Study 3, members of a community sample ( n =610) completed measures of facets of materialism, USI, and PM indicators at two time points. Results indicated that relations between materialism and PM are generally bi-directional. However, somewhat more support existed for materialism as antecedent to rather than consequent of PM. Moreover, relations between materialist values/beliefs as the antecedent and PM as the consequent appeared to be partially accounted for by USI. which contributed additional predictiveness of PM. Furthermore, relations between USI and PM appeared to be unidirectional: USI was found to be the antecedent rather than the consequent of PM. Implications for future research are discussed.Committee in charge: Gerard Saucier, Chairperson, Psychology; Holly Arrow, Member, Psychology; Warren Holmes, Member, Psychology; Lynn Kahle, Outside Member, Marketin

Patterns of thinking in militant extremism

Recurrent features of the thinking pattern (or mind-set) of violent militant extremists are delineated, discussed, and related to previous research and theory. We examined extremist groups from a diverse range of continents, cultures, and political and religious orientations. We compared statements by (and, to some degree, statements about) these groups and formulated 16 themes common to the militant-extremist mind-set. Among these themes are perceptions of a crisis involving violations of posited sacred values, along with justifications for the use of violence to remediate such problems. There are indications that such themes are not infrequent in the general population. For example, research participants failed to strongly disassociate themselves from the sentiments and framings found in the fanatical items, which undercuts the notion that militant-extremist thinking represents bizarre ideation. Militant-extremist thinking appears to represent a major, aggressive form of fanaticism affected by both dispositional and situational factors. Key themes in this thinking pattern might fit together to construct a potentially compelling narrative, which may be a key part of the ideological appeal of salient militant-extremist groups

Cross-cultural differences in a global "survey of world views"

We know that there are cross-cultural differences on psychological variables, such as individualism/collectivism. But it has not been clear which of these variables show relatively the greatest differences. The Survey of World Views project operated from the premise that such issues are best addressed in a diverse sampling of countries representing a majority of the world’s population, with a very large range of item-content. Data was collected online from 8,883 individuals (almost entirely college students based on local publicizing efforts) in 33 countries that constitute over 2/3 of the world’s population, using items drawn from measures of nearly 50 variables. This report focuses on the broadest patterns evident in item data. The largest differences were not on those contents most frequently emphasized in cross-cultural psychology (e.g., values, social axioms, cultural tightness), but instead on contents involving religion, regularity-norm behaviors, family roles and living arrangements, and ethnonationalism. Content not often studied cross-culturally (e.g., materialism, Machiavellianism, isms dimensions, moral foundations) demonstrated moderate-magnitude differences. Further studies are needed to refine such conclusions, but indications are that cross-cultural psychology may benefit from casting a wider net in terms of the psychological variables of focus

Cross-Cultural Differences in a Global "Survey of World Views"

Saucier G, Kenner J, Iurino K, et al. Cross-Cultural Differences in a Global "Survey of World Views". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2015;46(1):53-70.We know that there are cross-cultural differences in psychological variables, such as individualism/collectivism. But it has not been clear which of these variables show relatively the greatest differences. The Survey of World Views project operated from the premise that such issues are best addressed in a diverse sampling of countries representing a majority of the world's population, with a very large range of item-content. Data were collected online from 8,883 individuals (almost entirely college students based on local publicizing efforts) in 33 countries that constitute more than two third of the world's population, using items drawn from measures of nearly 50 variables. This report focuses on the broadest patterns evident in item data. The largest differences were not in those contents most frequently emphasized in cross-cultural psychology (e.g., values, social axioms, cultural tightness), but instead in contents involving religion, regularity-norm behaviors, family roles and living arrangements, and ethnonationalism. Content not often studied cross-culturally (e.g., materialism, Machiavellianism, isms dimensions, moral foundations) demonstrated moderate-magnitude differences. Further studies are needed to refine such conclusions, but indications are that cross-cultural psychology may benefit from casting a wider net in terms of the psychological variables of focus