Impact of Islamic Religiosity On Materialistic Values in Turkey

Journal of Islamic Marketing
Impact of Islamic religiosity on materialistic values in Turkey

Burcu İlter, Gul Bayraktaroglu, İlayda İpek,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Burcu İlter, Gul Bayraktaroglu, İlayda İpek, "Impact of Islamic religiosity on materialistic values in Turkey", Journal of Islamic
Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-12-2015-0092
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-12-2015-0092
Downloaded on: 02 October 2017, At: 15:38 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 17 times since 2017*
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 15:38 02 October 2017 (PT)
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:401304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Impact of Islamic religiosity on materialistic values in Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to test Islamic religiosity scale’s reliability, validity,
and to evaluate the impact of Islamic religiosity on materialism in Turkey.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a quantitative research method, a self-administered

survey was distributed to the students of two faculties -Faculty of Theology and Faculty of
Business- of the same university in Izmir, Turkey. 400 questionnaires for each faculty were
distributed and a total of 529 completed questionnaires -326 from Faculty of Theology, 203
from Faculty of Business- were returned. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were
conducted via SPSS and AMOS.
Findings – Islamic religiosity and materialism has been found to be negatively correlated
which supports the existing literature. However, not all the dimensions of Islamic religiosity
(behavioral religiosity, spiritual religiosity, and necessity of religion) had this negative effect
on materialism (possession-defined success, acquisition centrality, and acquisition as the
pursuit of happiness). Negative influence of “behavioral religiosity” on all three dimensions
of materialism was observed. However, “spirituality” dimension of religiosity was found to
have a positive impact, while the “necessity of religion” had no significant impact on the
dimensions of materialism.
Research limitations/implications – Sample consisting of undergraduate students might

limit the generalizability of the findings to Turkish Islamic population in general. This study
is one of the first attempts to test Islamic religiosity scale which needs to be further analyzed
and developed.
Originality/value – The present study will contribute to the literature by testing an Islamic
religiosity scale developed by a Turkish researcher. Besides, this is the only study undertaken
on the impact of Islamic religiosity on materialism using an Islamic religiosity scale.
Keywords – Islamic Religiosity, Religiosity, Materialism, Turkey
Paper type - Research paper

Introduction
Religion is an important cultural factor, and one of the most universal and influential
social institutions that have significant influence on people’s attitudes, values and behaviors at
both the individual and societal levels. Religion is “a set of beliefs that are taught since
childhood, and people gradually commit to the religion as they have greater understandings
towards its teachings” (Shah et al., 2011, p. 84). A concept related to religion is religiosity.
Religiosity is a central determinant regarding values and human convictions in general, as
well as consumer beliefs in particular (Vitell and Paolillo, 2003). Religiosity is defined as
“one’s belief in God and a commitment to act according to God’s principles” (Bakar et al.,
2013, p. 232). Religiosity within a marketing context concerns how moral standards may
guide or dictate consumer behavior, and how individuals may symbolize religion by their
consumption decisions. Despite the important influence of religion and religiosity on
consumer behavior, empirical research on this topic started to gain importance after the 1990s
(Bakar et al., 2013, p. 232). Besides, Muslim contexts have recently gained interest from
academics and business practitioners from all over the world (Wilson, 2012; Wilson et al.,
2013). “This rise of attention can be explained by the increasing economic, political, and
cultural power of Muslims in Muslim-majority and minority countries as well as the
emergence of a new middle class of Muslim consumers striving to strike a balance between
their Islamic values and the marketplace offerings of the global consumer” (Sandikci, 2011;
Sobh et al., 2012; Alserhan, 2010 as cited in Wilson et al., 2013; Wilson and Liu, 2010). In
many Muslim countries like Turkey, “large segments of ultramodern and empowered Muslim
consumers keen to take part in global consumer culture, yet striving to remain faithful to their
Islamic values in their everyday practice” have emerged (Sandikci and Ger, 2011; Alserhan,
2010; Wong, 2007 as cited in Wilson et al., 2013).
Another concept, materialism, has been recognized as being primarily cultural in
origin (Ogden and Cheng, 2011). Materialism concern about over-emphasis on material
possessions goes back to many years but gained importance with the growth of the modern
consumer culture. The interest in materialism appears to arise from its connection to a reduced
sense of well-being, despite the expectation of those who value material possessions to lead to
a good life (Belk, 1985).
Turkey is a country where 95-99 percent of the population is considered to be Muslim
(Cukur et al., 2004; Esmer, 2012). However, Turkey has a mixed cultural heritage stemming
from old Ottoman Empire which hosted a lot of different cultures from different geographies
ranging from Asia to Europe, from Middle East to Africa. Hence, this cultural mosaic and
having a secular governing system might distinguish Turkey from other Muslim countries in
terms of religiosity. On the contrary, the increasing trend toward Islam in the world and the
effect of thirteen years of governance by the moderate Islamist party might have influenced
degree of religiosity and adoption of religious lifestyle in Turkey. According to the findings of
a research report, 81% of the Turks were found to consider themselves religious (Esmer,
2012). These contradicting developments might cause different results than what the
researchers have expected considering the existing literature. Building on the foregoing, the
present study tries to shed light on the influence of Islamic religiosity on materialism in
Turkey.
Literature Review
Materialism
Materialism “refers to how important material goods are to a person’s life”. It is the
importance a person places on material possessions as a means to attain happiness. There are
different but similar materialism definitions in the fields of economic psychology and
consumer research. Ward and Wackman (1971, p. 422) define the concept as ‘‘an orientation
which views material goods and money as being important for personal happiness and social
progress’’. At the highest levels of materialism, such possessions assume a central place in a
person’s life and are believed to provide the greatest sources of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction. He has labeled materialism as ‘‘the dominant consumer ideology and the most
significant macro development in modern consumer behavior’’.
Richins and Dawson (1992) explain materialism as a personal value that gives
importance to owning material possessions and classify it into three categories: centrality
(possessions play central role in life), happiness (possessions linked to well-being), and
success (judged by possessions). Under this configuration, first dimension proposes that
materialists are expected to place possessions and acquisitions at the center of their lives. For
the materialist, consumption at high level serves as a lifestyle and as a means to orienting
behavior. The second dimension –happiness- refers to the belief that owning the desirable
possessions entails well-being. Acquisition as the pursuit of happiness, suggests that the
difference between high materialists and low materialists is the difference between priority
given to acquisitions over personal relationships, experience, achievement, etc. The third
dimension suggests that people high on materialism define material well-being as evidence of
success and social status. Material objects gain social meaning not only because they have
instrumental use in our daily lives but also because they function as symbols of identity and
self-expression (Richins and Dawson, 1992).
In the literature, similar concepts to materialism have been discussed. For instance,
Wilson and Hollensen (2013) describe a term ‘‘floating world’’ which resembles a
materialistic world. Floating world –a translation of the Japanese word ukiyo- is a symbol of
urban pleasure seeking lifestyle. Ironically, in Japanese this word also means ‘sorrowful
world’. The authors state that the floating world as a phenomenon is present around the
modern world, particularly, in developed societies, and it is similar to the materialism
phenomenon. Whether urban life is ‘pleasure seeking’ or ‘sorrowful’ with respect to
consumption is open to discussion.

Research on materialism generally portrays it as a negative consumer characteristic.
For example, Belk (1985) asserts that consumers’ obsession with material goods are
encouraged by envy, non-generosity, and possessiveness. Bakar et al. (2013) states that
materialism may lead to negative behavior such as being possessive and unethical in order to
obtain material goods. Further, actually, materialistic devotion to material needs and desires
as a way of life may lead to a neglect or even total rejection of spiritual matters (Richins and
Dawson, 1992). From a macro point of view, materialism may degrade quality of life and the
environment due to people’s never ending search for material possessions (Muncy and
Eastman, 1998).
Cultural, historical and individual differences in materialistic tendencies are said to
exist due to variances in religion, policy, geography, traditions, language, and economics
(Torlak and Koc, 2007). This finding is consistent with Sangkhawasi and Johri’s (2007) study
which suggests that materialism differs from one country to another as a result of the different
social and economic conditions as well as the unique characteristics of the population each
country has. Besides, materialistic values of individuals within the same culture may also
differ.
Religiosity
Whether religion influences a consumer’s behavior or not is a function of how

intensely religious the person is not just by one’s religious affiliation (Wilkes et al., 1986;
Swimberghe et al., 2011). The intensity of one’s religious beliefs is termed as religiosity.
Religiosity has been described as “the degree to which followers of one religion accept the
major beliefs and practices of that religion” (Yousaf and Shaukat Malik, 2013; Delener,
1990a). According to Delener (1990b), religiosity is a dominant cultural driver and an
important antecedent to a consumer’s behavior. There have been many attempts to measure
religiosity; however, there is no generally accepted approach to assessing one’s commitment
to his or her religion (Muhamad and Mizerski, 2010; Karami et al., 2014; Khraim, 2010).
Initially, religiosity was thought to be a single dimensional construct measured only by
a person’s attendance to a religious center and his/her contribution to that sect (Mokhlis,
2009). However, many researchers established the multi-dimensionality of the construct,
arguing that a single dimensional measure of religiosity is inadequate for any meaningful
interpretation (Bergan and McConatha, 2001). Among those, Allport’s (1950), notion of
intrinsic (e.g., praying in private) and extrinsic religiosity (e.g., a display of owning religious
books) is among the most important empirical works in the area of religiosity (as cited in
Kennedy and Lawton, 1998). Intrinsic religiosity explains religion as a framework to
understand life and is a personal commitment to the beliefs and practices of a religion
(Allport, 1950 as cited in Kennedy and Lawton, 1998; Vitell et al., 2005; King and Crowther,
2004; Weaver and Agle, 2002). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that people high in intrinsic
religiosity are indeed more religious and ethically inclined (Vitell and Paolillo, 2003; Vitell et
al., 2005). King and Crowther (2004) have mentioned intrinsically religious people as true
and pure believers who view their practice of religion as a goal in itself. Similarly, Weaver
and Agle (2002) state that intrinsically religious people view the beliefs and practices as ends
in themselves. On the other hand, extrinsically religious people view the religious practices
instrumentally to achieve social and personal objectives. Thus, in the case of extrinsic
religiosity, religion is a means to other ends and, can be traded off or negotiated away in the
face of conflicting demands.
The religious experience questionnaire (REQ) developed by Edwards (1986 as cited in
King and Crowther, 2004) was conceptualized to measure personal religious experience. The
author is attempting to measure an individual’s personal affective relationship with God
through differentiating between the affective, experiential, and cognitive dimensions of belief
in a religious system. The construct is conceptualized to comprise concepts such as a sense of
being heard, cared for, and forgiven by God, as well as a sense of God’s presence and of
being saved.. Also, others suggested a tri-component (cognitive, behavioral, experimental)
model of religiosity: cognitive component describes religious attitudes or beliefs, the
behavioral component addresses a person’s church/religious institutional attendance and
prayers and the experimental component addresses the need of mystical experiences (Caird,
1987; Zulkufly et al., 2008; Mukhtar and Mohsin Butt, 2012).
There are many attempts to conceptualize religiosity; however, most of them are based
on religiosity within one culture, especially the United States; and are confined to the
Christian community. Researchers have also made attempts to develop scales to be used
across faiths and denominations. Although, the relative usefulness of faith neutral versus faith
specific measures of religiosity is not clear, the development of faith specific measures would
appear to be more desirable since some differences exist between faiths (King and Crowter,
2004, p. 98). Some of the existing religiosity scales used for Christians may contain some
concepts and items that could be applicable to Muslims, as a whole, these scales are culture-
bound and unsuitable for measuring religiosity among Muslims (Khraim, 2010). For example,
Shah et al. (2011) state that practice of Islam includes a set of behaviors expected of Muslims.
A Muslim who has knowledge of Islam, high sense of its realization, and a strong confession
of its truth with tongue and assent of it by heart, is believed to have good practice of the
Islamic teachings. Hence, a scale capable of measuring Islamic religiosity should cover
performing religious duties consistently and cautiously.
There are many faith specific conceptualizations and scale development attempts in
Islamic world like Taai (1985), who identified two dimensions as beliefs and practices;
Albehairi and Demerdash (1988) offer intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity -like in the Allport’s
(1950 as cited in Kennedy and Lawton, 1998) study-; Alsanie (1989) suggests about a one-
dimensional approach; Albelaikhi (1997) conceptualizes under three dimensions -belief,
attitudes, and practice- and Khraim (2010) states that three dimensions -seeking religious
education, Islamic current issue, and sensitive products- yield the best combination of
dimensions to measure Islamic religiosity. His study takes practical behavior into
consideration. Shah et al. (2011) assume that religious behaviors reflect the religious
commitment, hence uses eight item scale to measure the extent of religiosity. Shukor and
Jamal (2013) offer a unidimensional construct consisting of five items to measure Islamic
religiosity.
In addition to the religiosity scale development attempts in Islamic world, there are
some Turkish writers’ attempts to develop religiosity scales like Mutlu (1989) who is the
frontier. Köktaş (1993) suggests a five dimensional construct (belief, religious practice,
religious experience, religious knowledge, impact). Uysal (1995) offers a similar scale to
Köktaş's (1993) scale (as cited in Köroğlu, 2012), while Yapıcı (2002) developed a dogmatic
one. Çoştu (2009) has attempted to develop a religiosity scale to measure normative and
popular religious attitudes as an object of religious orientation. Ok's (2011) scale named as
Ok- Religious Attitude Scale, consists of four subscales: cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and
relational.
Religiosity and Materialism
Religions influence the emphasis placed on material life. They guide consumers in
developing attitudes toward owning and using goods and services (Shah et al., 2011). Two
related characteristics common across major religions are (1) the emphasis on collectivism,
placing the betterment of others before self, and (2) lowering the importance of worldly
possessions and success to uphold spiritual aspirations, and the preservation of traditional
laws and beliefs (Cukur et al., 2004). Throughout history, major religions have viewed
material passion as morally unacceptable (Belk et al., 2003), promoting instead the virtues of
giving, sharing, and sacrificing. This is also valid for Islamic religion. Islamic law, known as
shari’ah, is a code that prescribes and governs the duties, morals and behavior of all Muslims,
collectively and individually, in all aspects of life. Shari’ah describes the values that Muslims
should hold, including truth, honesty, social and collective obligations and responsibilities, the
role of men and women, and the role of buying and selling (Al-Olayan and Karande, 2000).
The Islamic faith focuses on perfecting morality and higher value prioritization. This
contradicts with the personality traits associated with materialism like envy, lack of
generosity, greed and jealousy (Adib and El-Bassiouny, 2012). Also, in the Quranic verse, Al
Isra’:26-27, Allah commands Muslims not to consume or spend extravagantly, but to spend in
the way of Allah (Shah et al., 2011).
On the other hand, marketing practices also try to shape behavior. Wilson and Liu
(2009 as cited in Wilson and Hollensen, 2013; Wilson and Liu, 2011) observe that brands are
“created with the intention by their owners, of encouraging consumption, patronage and the
formation of a relationship. With their increase in importance, some brands have both
individually and collectively managed to attain ‘god-like’ statuses”. It reveals a contradictory
situation where the dominance of religious values is compressed, while materialistic values
become prominent.
As mentioned above, motives underlying materialism (e.g., self-promotion) conflicts
with those that underlie religious values (e.g., spirituality, selflessness, humility). Also,
empirical studies report an inverse relationship between religiosity and materialism (Belk
1985; Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002; Bakar et al., 2013). Religious people regard lavish
products and expensive clothing as a materialistic approach to life and thus against the laws of
God. Moreover, research suggests that purchasing decisions and materialistic values can differ
with respect to the extent of consumer’s adherence to a particular faith (Delener, 1990a;
Wong et al., 2003, Rahadian, 2008; Muhamad and Mizerski, 2010; Yousaf and Shaukat
Malik, 2013).
While theory suggests that religiosity and materialism are opposite in nature, the
findings for the second generation Koreans living in Canada imply that for some individuals
these dispositions may be compatible (Cleveland and Chang, 2009). Yet another study
examining the association between religiosity and materialism, could not find significant
relationship between the two constructs. In other words, the relationship between materialism
and religiosity remains unclear making it an interesting area for research (Adib and El-
Bassiouny, 2012).
In the extant literature, there are a few studies conducted in Turkey on the relationship
between Islamic religiosity and materialism (e.g., Erdoğan et al., 2014; Tiltay and Torlak,
2011). Tiltay and Torlak (2011) have found contradicting results in relation to the association
between the dimensions of materialism and intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity dimensions. Erdoğan
et al. (2014) conducted another study, which aimed to investigate the attitudes of consumers
with materialistic tendencies and religious values towards cause-related marketing activities,
and the scholars have found a negative correlation between religious values and materialism.
In both of the researches, religiosity scale developed by Allport and Ross (1967) was
used. Though it is a widely accepted scale, it may not be a good predictor of Islamic
religiosity. For instance, religious service attendance is asked to both men and women in
Allport and Ross (1967) scale whereas it is not an obligation for women to attend mosques to
pray in Islam. Thus, there is a need to use an Islamic religiosity scale in order to get a valid
and reliable understanding of Islamic religiosity. Hence, the present study is expected to
contribute to the related Turkish literature by testing an Islamic religiosity scale. By using this
scale, it is aimed to test the relationship by considering the impact of Islamic religiosity on
materialistic tendencies.
Methodology
Hypotheses Development and Conceptual Framework
The strength and nature of one’s religious beliefs can affect the person’s consumption
behaviors (Fournier, 1998; Mokhlis, 2006; Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002). In the literature,
the association between materialism and religiosity has been mainly found to be negative by
many foreign researchers (El-Bassiouny et al., 2008; Shah et al., 2011; Belk, 1985; Burroughs
and Rindfleisch, 2002; Bakar et al., 2013; Assadi, 2003; Delener, 1990a; Rahadian, 2008;
Muhamad and Mizerski, 2010; Wong et al., 2003) and by a Turkish researcher Erdoğan et al.
(2014). Material objects can become an obstacle in actualizing spiritual well-being
(Kavanaough, 1991; Smith, 1991; Zimmer, 1993).
Islam is a religion believed to have very strong influences on Muslim society
(Kavoossi, 2000). It has also been observed that Muslims’ consumption behaviors are framed
by the teachings and ground rules of Islam (e.g., Rehman and Shabbir, 2010; Sandikci, 2011).
According to the Islam Holy Book, Quran, Islamic religion forbids extravagance, over-
spending, and waste. As mentioned in the Book, God said ‘‘eat and drink, but waste not by
extravagance’’ [(Al A’araf (Norms) 31] (Ali, 2002). This teaching was emphasized also by
the Prophet Muhammad, as he once said that God dislikes those who gossip, waste money,
and ask for too much. Hence, it is also expected that in Islamic religion, there will be a
negative impact of religiosity on materialism. Thus, H1 is proposed as:
H1: Islamic religiosity is negatively related to materialism.
In addition, the study aims to understand which sub-dimensions of materialism

proposed by Richins and Dawson (1992) and religiosity are associated. The first dimension of
materialism which is “acquisition centrality” proposes that materialists are expected to place
possessions and acquisitions at the center of their lives. Daun (1983) describes materialism as
a life-style in which a high level of material consumption functions as a goal and serves as a
set of plans. Materialism thus lends meaning to life and provides an aim for daily endeavors.
Materialists worship things, and the pursuit of possessions takes the place of religion in
structuring their lives and orienting their behaviors (Richins and Dawson, 1992).
The reasons that religions criticize excessive consumption are varied, but they can be
synthesized in some basic motivations (Belk, 1983). First, the attention toward worldly
possessions diverts an individual from his/her spiritual duties. Second, materialism can lead
individuals to engage in immoral behavior, such as theft or fraud, to satisfy their greedy
desires. Third, materialism can encourage conspicuous consumption that promotes envy and
social inequality; and thus, disturbs social harmony. Furthermore, Islam posits that what we
find in the world does not belong to us; rather, it belongs to Allah. In Quran (Surah Đsra: Ayah
64), satan is expected to provoke expectations leading to overconsumption. People will
become blind and confused about what is sin and what is permissible (helal). However,
prodigality is not accepted by Islam since the religion expects people to behave prudently.
Goods, possessions, money are tools which God gives to a Muslim to be transferred to the
ones who need them. So the mistake in materialism is to consider the tool as a goal (Topbaş,
2012). Prophet Muhammed says:
“Living simple is part of faith”
“Eat, drink, wear without prodigality”
“Eating whatever you desire is absolutely prodigality” (which signals to obesity and priggishness)
Hence, it can be expected that Islamic religiosity is negatively associated with

acquisition centrality. Thus, we propose:
H1a: Islamic religiosity is negatively related to centrality dimension of materialism.
The second dimension of materialism which is “acquisition as the pursuit of

happiness” assumes that possessions and their acquisition are so central to materialists
because they view these as essential to their satisfaction and well-being in life. Belk (1984:
291) notes that "at the highest levels of materialism possessions assume a central place in a
person's life and are believed to provide the greatest sources of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction." Ward and Wackman (1971, p. 426) describe materialism as "an orientation
emphasizing possessions and money for personal happiness and social progress." While most
individuals are probably involved to some extent in the pursuit of happiness, it is the pursuit
of happiness through acquisition rather than through other means (such as personal
relationships, experiences, or achievements) that distinguishes materialism. Materialism,
getting richer, having more and more do not guarantee satisfaction and happiness.
Psychological disorders are not observed much in societies which have material
impossibilities. However, in societies that have material wealth, more people experience
depression and psychological illnesses (Topbaş, 2012, p. 43).
According to Islamic thought, happiness comes through spiritual closeness to Allah
rather than through possessions. Muslims believe that the afterlife brings the true happiness
and they intend for it (Wilson and Hollensen, 2013). Objects are created by Allah to serve
humans to contribute to the perfection of life but not for extravagant usage. Prophet
Muhammed is a role model for Muslims with his behaviors. For instance, he used to quit his
meals without being full. Hence, in Islamic learning, even for basic needs excessive
consumption is forbidden. It can be expected that Islamic religiosity is negatively associated
with acquisition as the pursuit of happiness. Depending on these facts, the below sub-
hypothesis is developed:
H1b: Islamic religiosity is negatively related to happiness dimension of materialism.

The last dimension of materialism which is “possession-defined success” proposes
that materialists tend to judge their own and others' success by the number and quality of
possessions accumulated. Materialistic people value possessions "for the money they cost
rather than by the satisfactions they yield” (Richins and Dawsons, 1992). Materialists view
themselves as successful to the extent they can possess products that project desired images
for themselves.
In Islamic thought, there are emotions, ethics and virtue. Sharing goods, helping
people who need help is a requirement in Islam. Materialism, on the other hand, accepts every
mean that leads people to success and encourages personal success. However, contrary to
materialism, Islam makes people to evaluate themselves and their behavior by making them
ask “Where and how did I earn? Where and how did I spend/consume?” (Topbaş, 2012).
We propose that possession defined success dimension and religiosity would be
negatively associated since ‘modesty’ constitutes a pivotal part of Islamic consumption
discourse. The amount of income earned should not have a great impact on Muslims’
consumption patterns. Islam calls upon human beings to avoid extravagance and organize
their lifestyles according to the average economic level of their society so that the poor do not
feel inferior. (Kahf, 1996; Kalantari, 2008 cited in Jafari and Süerdem, 2012). Besides, the
will to show success through possessions creates a competitive environment in which the rich
and the achiever is always appreciated (the means whether ethical or not is not important, all
the means are justified), while the poor and the unsuccessful are beaten and looked down on.
Selfishness is encouraged and people are directed to unethical means to win the game. All
these attempts are against Islamic thought. Thus, we propose the given sub-hypothesis:
H1c: Islamic religiosity is negatively related to success dimension of materialism.
The conceptual framework of this research focuses on the development of a model to

measure the impact of Islamic religiosity on materialism. The links between religiosity and
dimensions of materialism are shown in Figure 1.
…Insert Figure 1 about here…
Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
In the literature, a vast number of religiosity scales were available. However, the
problem was that there was no agreed upon scale whose reliability and validity were approved
in Islamic religiosity. Hence, before designing the final scale, several scales –both originally
developed to test Islamic religiosity or adapted from Christian religiosity scales were tested
for reliability on a sample of 150 university students using convenience sampling. The scales
tested were taken from the following researchers: A single item self rating scale (used by
Abdel-Khalek, 2007), the adapted version of Allport and Ross (1967) religiosity scale, Çoştu
(2009)’s “approach to religion by the normative and popular religious orientation scale” (only
the normative dimension was considered since it fits the purpose of the study1), and Ok's
(2011) religiosity scale. At the end, Çoştu's (2009) normative religiosity dimension got the
highest reliability (alpha=0.872). This scale consists of 30 questions composing of items
regarding general attitudes toward Islam and rules and obligations of Islam, which is
somewhat similar to the first two dimensions of the Caird's (1987) three-dimensional
religiosity scale (cognitive-focuses on religious attitudes or beliefs-; behavioral -measures

that seek to evaluate church attendance or private prayer-; experiential -query that relates to
mystical experiences). Moreover, choosing a scale developed by a Turkish researcher helps
eliminate translation mistakes.
After selecting the religiosity scale, the final questionnaire consisting of three parts
was developed. At the beginning of the questionnaire, a question was added asking the
religious affiliation of the respondent. If the answer is given as Muslim, the respondent is
asked to continue the questionnaire.
In the first part, religiosity was measured by 30 items taken from the work of Çoştu
(2009). Second part consisted of materialism scale taken from Richins and Dawson (1992).
Richins and Dawson’s (1992) materialism scale is the most widely used instrument to
measure individual materialism (Karabati and Cemalcilar, 2010). It consists of 18 items which
are categorized under three sub-dimensions: success (six items), centrality (seven items),
happiness (five items). Both of the religiosity and materialism items were measured using a
five point Likert scale ranging from 1=I do not agree at all to 5=I completely agree. The third
part consists of six demographic questions.
The prepared questionnaire was first tested on 30 academicians to evaluate the
understandability. Depending on the responses, one item from the religiosity scale was
deleted since it was not found to be directly related to Islamic religiosity. Also, two questions
1
There is no consensus among experts as to the number of dimensions that make up the religiosity construct.
Religious scholars and sociologists do not agree on whether adequate measures of individual religiosity can be
developed and therefore such measures are subjectively devised by researchers to fit their research objectives.
Thus, the content and number of religious dimensions vary considerably and may depend on the nature of the
research, purpose and context (Khraim, 2010).
were developed from one item which was double barreled. The rest of the questionnaire had
minor corrections related to wording. In total, the religiosity scale consisted of 30 items.
Sampling
Young consumers represent a large population in Turkey, and in the last decade an
increase in the number of people who have started to live according to Islamic teachings can
easily be observed. However, in terms of religiosity and how people live their religion, there
are two extremely opposing sides in Turkey. One group prefers to live according to Islamic
teachings, and undertake all the responsibilities (fasting, clothing, namaz, etc.). The other
group, though they consider themselves to be Muslims, does not strictly obey the behavioral
measures of the religion. Thus, purposive convenience sampling was used in order to reach
students who might have different degrees of religiosity. To reach a sample, which consists of
a balanced mixed of respondents coming from different educational backgrounds regarding
religious education (theology and business), students of two faculties -Faculty of Theology
and Faculty of Business- of the same university in Izmir, Turkey were targeted. 400
questionnaires for each faculty were distributed to all classes in the first week of May 2015.
Total of 529 completed questionnaires -326 from Faculty of Theology, 203 from Faculty of
Business- were returned.
Data Analysis
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were utilized to test the reliability and
validity of the scales via SPSS and AMOS statistics programs. AMOS was used in order to
test the associations of the constructs.
Findings
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Referring to Table 1, the sample consists of two faculties’ students. 62% of the
respondents are from Faculty of Theology and 38% from Faculty of Business. Students are
generally from the third grade followed by the second grade students. The gender distribution
of the sample is close to each other. When the ages are considered, the first grade students
who are expected to be about 18-19 years old are very few and students who are 23 to 25
years of age make up approximately 31% of the sample. However, students at this age are
supposed to be graduated from the university. Hence, it can be revealed that either students
enter these departments rather late or it is hard to graduate from these departments. 65% of the
sample states that they are from moderate income families.
…Insert Table 1 about here…
Reliability and Validity of the Religiosity Scale
Exploratory Factor Analysis
To run the exploratory factor analysis of the religiosity scale, KMO and Barlett’s Test
is conducted. KMO coefficient is 0.969 and the significance level of Barlett’s Test is very
high (0.000).
30 items of the normative religiosity scale were grouped using principal component
factor analysis with varimax rotation and 28 of the items were loaded under four factors
explaining 69,083% of the total variance (Table 2). The two items that were eliminated from
the original scale are: “I don't believe in invisible objects like an angel.” and “I try to correct
my wrong religious attitudes and behaviors.”
The first factor containing 12 items is named as “spirituality”. This factor is a very
important factor to explain religiosity in Islam since it explains 28% of the variance. It
consists of items trying to understand respondents’ beliefs in Allah, Quran, and angels.
The second factor which is named “behavioral religiosity” contains 12 items which
are related to behavioral duties of Islamic religion like praying five times a day regularly,
fasting during Ramadan, etc. This factor is as important as the first factor since it explains
26% of the variance –almost the same percentage with that of the first factor.
The third factor contains 3 items which are related to the necessity of religious rules
and respect to religion. Hence, the factor is named as “necessity of religion”. This factor
explains only 9% of the variance.
Only one item “I try to direct people to goodness and draw them away from evil” is
loaded on the forth factor named “directing others”. This may be due to the item being
perceived as somewhat double barreled. The main reason for this item being the only item
loading on a separate factor is that it is the only item that deals with the social perspective of
religion. The other items are religious beliefs and duties regarding only the individual. The
last factor is deleted from further analysis because it carries a single item. As Kline (2011, p.
138) says “CFA models with factors that have only two indicators are more prone to problems
in the analysis. It is better to have at least three to four indicators per factor to prevent such
problems, but two indicators per factor is the minimum for identification”.
27 out of 30 items were loaded on 3 factors which was originally loaded under one
factor in Çoştu (2009)’s study. The total reliability score of the general religiosity scale is
found to be 0,966 which is very high. The Cronbach’s Alpha values of the first, second and
the third factors are 0.959; 0.944; 0.661, respectively, which are acceptable (Nunnally, 1978).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is conducted to assess uni-dimensionality and

validity of two theoretical latent constructs (religiosity and materialism). According to the fit
indices of the model (i.e., χ2=1875.332, p=.000, d.f.=576, CFI = .908, RMSEA = .065), it can
be interpreted that there is a good fit between the factor structure and data (Hair et al., 2013;
Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013).
As can be inferred from Table 4, "Religiosity" scale consists of three latent and
twenty-seven observed variables. Since it is noticed that the wordings are similar between the
items REL1 and REL2; REL18 and REL20; and REL21 and REL22, the error terms among
these items are correlated. With regard to the CFA results, standardized factor loadings
between observed and latent variables vary in the range from 0.472 to 0.914. Even though the
standardized factor loading of REL23 is below the acceptable level (i.e., 0.5) (Hair et al.,
2013), this item is not removed from the model because of its statistical significance at
p<0.05. In addition, in terms of the t-values indicating the significance of the association
between observed and latent variables, it can be supported that all the associations between
observed and latent variables are statistically significant (p<0.05).
Referring to the Cronbach alphas of the scale (0.966), which is above the cut-off point
of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978), it can be claimed that religiosity scale has an acceptable internal
consistency. Therefore, convergent validity is reasonably confirmed for this model, since all
standardized factor loadings are expected to be greater than 0.5 and all p-values are
statistically significant.
Validity and reliability of the Islamic religiosity scale used in this study was not
confirmed in sufficient number of previous studies. Besides, developing an Islamic religiosity
scale is a new attempt compared to Christian religiosity. Hence, exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses are conducted to test the uni-dimensionality of the normative religiosity scale
adopted from Çoştu (2009). The test results set forth three dimensional structures for the
normative scale. Hence, there is a need to revise the previously set hypothesis according to the
new dimensions found.
Reliability and Validity of the Materialism Scale
Exploratory factor analysis for Richins and Dawson’s (1992) materialism scale is not
conducted since this scale has been tested extensively in many other studies (Banarjee and
McKeage, 1994; Richins, 2004). It has been discussed in the literature whether this scale
gives better results with 3, 6, 9, 15 or 18 items. No matter how many items are used, the scale
was found to be three dimensional (Richins, 2004). Richins (2004) reassessed the materialism
value scale. He found deficiencies in the 18-item scale and he recommended using a 15-item
version. Possible nine, six, and three item versions of the scale were also tested. Nine item
version had better indicators compared to other short forms. The nine-item scale held the
same three dimensional structure as the long form and had acceptable levels of reliability and
validity.
Development of short versions of marketing measurement scales are recommended by
a number of researchers (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Netemeyer et al., 2002). Hence,
18-, 15-, 9-, 6- and 3- item materialism scales are tested in this study through confirmatory
factor analysis. CFA test results (see Table 5) showed that the nine item materialism scale had
better indices than the others which supports Richins' (2004) findings.
Materialism scale includes three latent and nine observed variables. With regard to the
CFA results, standardized factor loadings between observed and latent variables vary in the
range from 0.441 to 0.873. Even though the standardized factor loadings of the item MAT11
is below the acceptable level (i.e., 0.5) (Hair et al., 2013), this item is not removed from the
model because of its statistical significance at p<0.05. In addition, in terms of the t-values
indicating the significance of the association between observed and latent variables, it can be
supported that all the associations between observed and latent variables are statistically
significant (p<0.05). Materialism scale has an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach
alpha = 0.806) and convergent validity is confirmed for this model.
New Research Framework and Revision of the Hypotheses
The factor analysis of religiosity scale put forward three dimensions: Spirituality,
behavioral religiosity and necessity of religion. In fact a similar kind of diversification like the
first two dimensions (spirituality and behavioral religiosity) could also be seen in some
previous studies undertaken in Turkey (Köktaş, 1993). Spirituality dimension considers
beliefs in Allah (existence, his knowing everything about what we do), Quaran, angels,
destiny, judgment day, life after death, etc. In Islam, believing in Allah, his Holy Books, his
prophets, angels, and life after death are the main requirements of Islamic Faith. This
dimension appearing as the first and the most important dimension in the religiosity scale is
meaningful since to be considered as a Muslim these beliefs should be present. A Muslim is

expected to fulfill the other responsibilities of the religion.
Behavioral religiosity dimension is related to behavioral or ritualistic duties of
Islamic religion like praying five times a day regularly, fasting during Ramadan, etc. Islam
has made it obligatory for believers to worship. Believers are obliged to worship to earn the
mercy and forgiveness of Allah in Islam. Motivation to fulfill the duties of Islam emerges
from the sense that it makes people feel closer to Allah and a sense of protection from the
wrath of Allah (Şahin, 1999, p. 9). So if a person is fulfilling his/her religious duties, his/her
degree of religiosity might be expected to increase, since the person devotes more time and
energy in accomplishing the duties of Islam.
Necessity of religion dimension offers an overall attitude of Muslim respondents
towards religion. In other words, three items categorized under this dimension signifies the
degree of how important the individual finds religion and religious rules for their daily lives.
However, this dimension can be considered as the least important factor among the other two
since it does not have a high explanatory power (9%) and covers only three items.
Belief in Allah is the fundamental of religious belief. The starting point in religious
belief is to accept and to approve. In other words, the principals mentioned in religion should
be accepted as the truth. So the spiritual religiosity dimension consists of those issues. Besides
acceptance an approval of these principles obedience and conformity to Allah’s commands
and expected behaviors should be performed. Hence religions do not only include beliefs or
acceptance of religious rules but to behave as informed to him/her by Allah. (Peker, 2008, pp.
74-75; Kayıklık, 2006, p. 136; Hökelekli, 2005, p. 74; Glock, 1962, p. 259, 261)
Since spirituality dimension is related to acceptance and approval of the religious
principles, it could be expected that this dimension has a negative impact on all three
dimensions of materialism. Thus, we propose:
H1: Spirituality dimension of religiosity is negatively related to success

dimension of materialism.
H2: Spirituality dimension of religiosity is negatively related to centrality
H3: Spirituality dimension of religiosity is negatively related to happiness
Behavioral religiosity dimension is also thought to be negatively associated to all the

dimensions of materialism. Behavioral religiosity requires higher devotion in religious
commitment compared to the spiritual religiosity. Performing those commitments elaborately,
strengthens self-control. A Muslim who can control himself/herself has the power to resist to
the attractiveness of possessions. Thus, we propose:
H4: Behavioral religiosity is negatively related to success dimension of

materialism.
H5: Behavioral religiosity is negatively related to centrality dimension of
materialism.
H6: Behavioral religiosity is negatively related to happiness dimension of
materialism.
The last dimension “necessity of religion” is regarding whether an individual finds

religion necessary to guide his/her life. Islam is a religion believed to have very strong
influence on Muslim society in all areas of life (Kavoossi, 2000; Lawrence, 1998). So if a
person believes in the necessity of religion, he/she also accepts religious teachings about how
to live his/her life. Thus, since Islam forbids extravagance, over-spending, and waste the
person who believes in the necessity of religion is expected to have negative attitudes toward
materialism. Thus, we propose:
H7: Necessity of religion dimension is negatively related to success dimension

of materialism.
H8: Necessity of religion dimension is negatively related to centrality
H9: Necessity of religion dimension is negatively related to happiness
The new conceptual framework of this research is restructured and given in Figure 2.
…Insert Figure 2 about here…
Hypothesis Testing
First of all, the model fit indices (i.e., χ2=1875.332, p=.000, d.f.=576, CFI = .908,
RMSEA = .065) indicate a good fit between the data and structural model (Hair et al., 2013;
Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013). In accordance with the satisfactory fit of the model, the
standardized regression coefficients of the structural model are examined to test the
hypotheses. As can be seen from Table 6, behavioral religiosity dimension has a significant
negative impact on all of the materialism dimensions. Thus, H4, H5, and H6 are supported.
Besides the significance, the impact can be considered rather strong. On the other hand, H1,
H2 and H3 are not supported, since their impact is positive although the results show that there
is a significant influence on the dimensions considered (Except H2). However, no significant
results were found related to the third dimension of religiosity (Necessity of religion). Hence,
H7, H8 and H9 are not supported. However, when the impact of religiosity on materialism is
considered as a whole, a significant negative impact of religiosity on materialism is observed.
This finding supports Hmain but this influence is not very strong.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In this study, the impact of the dimensions of Islamic religiosity on materialism was
tested. There are several reasons to investigate this impact. First of all, there is a lack of usage
of Islamic religiosity scale in the test of the relationship between religiosity and materialism
in Turkey. Rather, religiosity scales adapted from Christian religiosity scales were used which
may not directly reflect Islamic religiosity. So, the present study will contribute to the
literature by testing an Islamic religiosity scale developed by a Turkish researcher.
The second reason is that there is a growing religious segment both in the world and
in Turkey. Muslims make up the quarter of world’s population and also it is the fastest
growing religion -through births and conversions. Islamic finance, insurance, halal food and
pharmaceutical products, entertainment, tourism and fashion industries are growing day by
day (Wilson and Hollensen, 2013; Wilson et al., 2013). Besides in Turkey, the media claims
that the ownership of capital has moved from the secular group to the Islamist portion of the
population. This change has been observed to influence the lifestyles and consumption
patterns of this group. They tend to purchase more luxurious and branded products. This study
also wants to test the validity of this claim and this observation.
To find a religiosity scale that fits best to Turkish context, the reliability of several
scales originally developed to test Islamic religiosity or adapted from Christian religiosity
scales were tested and Çoştu’s (2009) normative religiosity scale was found to have the
highest reliability (alpha=0.872).
In the literature, there is a general acceptance of religiosity being negatively correlated
to materialism (Belk 1985; Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002; Bakar et al., 2013; Assadi,
2003; Delener, 1990a; Rahadian, 2008; Muhamad and Mizerski, 2010; Yousaf and Shaukat
Malik, 2013; Wong et al., 2003; Erdoğan et al., 2014), which is supported by our findings,
too. When this impact of Islamic religiosity was tested for the dimensions of materialism,
contradicting results were found. Even though consumption patterns of many Muslims may be
outwardly similar to other consumer segments, they may intrinsically symbolize a different
group (Wilson et al., 2013). As people’s religious beliefs, values, behaviors strengthen, they
are expected to give less importance to material possessions. This general acceptance was
only supported for “behavioral religiosity” dimension. “Spirituality” dimension was found to
have a positive correlation, while the “necessity of religion” dimension was found to have no
significant impact on materialism at all. Similar contradicting results were also observed in
previous literature (Cleveland and Chang, 2009; Adib and El-Bassiouny, 2012; Tiltay and
Torlak, 2011).
Spirituality dimension of religiosity covers the items related to the beliefs about Allah,
religion, Quran, etc. Behavioral religiosity; on the other hand, requires physical commitment
which a person has to sacrifice from his/her time, energy, etc. For example, performing the
namaz, fasting during the Ramadan month are some of the items under the behavioral
religiosity dimension, which shows that the worshipper needs to show some effort to be
behaviorally religious. To be considered a Muslim, an individual should believe in the
existence of Allah, the prophet Muhammad, Quran and angels, however the degree of
religiosity is expected to increase as the person devotes more time and energy in
accomplishing the duties of Islam.
Although spirituality dimension was explaining 26% of the variation in religiosity and
it was the most important factor, spirituality dimension might not be a very strong indicator of
the depth of the religious ties of an individual. Every Muslim is expected to have these beliefs
which are prerequisites to be considered as a Muslim. However, as people start to sacrifice
from himself/herself by praying (performing the namaz), fasting, etc., the religiosity of the
individual is expected to increase. This also may increase the ability to resist materialistic
offers which might be considered as extravagant and wasteful. That might be the reason why
behavioral religiosity dimension was found to be the only dimension that had a negative
impact on the dimensions of materialism. On the other hand, spirituality dimension was found
to have a positive impact on materialism which was not expected. This might be due to the
fact that spirituality dimension of religiosity is the prerequisite of religion. Thus, if you are
born as a Muslim in Turkey, this religious teaching is given to you in family and social life, so
most of the Muslims accept those principles without questioning, however they may act the
opposite of what Quran says, since they may not have a proper understanding of these
religious teachings. Hence, they might have materialistic tendencies. In addition, this
unexpected result can be due to subcultures, student sample, and secular governance in
Turkey which is different from other Muslim countries.
Third religiosity dimension “necessity of religion” had a negative impact on all of the
materialism dimensions, however this impact was statistically insignificant. This might be due
to the limited number of items under this dimension. Hence, it can be recommended to
improve this religiosity dimension. In addition, the fourth dimension - directing others -which
had a single item, was deleted from the original study and is recommended to be developed
and improved in the related future studies.
In a comprehensive research undertaken by Esmer (2012) in Turkey, religiosity scores
were found to be higher for women than men, elders than youth, and rural than urban.
Besides, it is found that as education increases, the religiosity scores tend to decrease. Hence,
the sample of this study being composed of young university students living in the third
biggest city of Turkey might have reduced the religiosity scores causing rejection of the
hypotheses for two dimensions of religiosity (spirituality and necessity).
In a qualitative research conducted in Romania, Turkey, the USA, France, and
Denmark; Ger and Belk (1999) revealed that materialism loses its negative connotations when
persons’ consumption is perceived to help achieve goals such as self-improvement, personal
control, altruism, and worldly progress. These goals largely represent growth needs that
enhance well-being and psychological functioning of individuals (Sagiv and Schwartz, 2000).
That might be the reason why spiritual religiosity had a significant positive impact on
materialistic values. Thus, it might be recommended that in future studies motivation for self-
improvement, personal control, altruism, and worldly progress variables should be tested as a
moderator in between religiosity and materialism. Another reason for this finding would be as
Hawkins et al. (1980) suggests different consumption processes might be more related to
social class or ethnic variations than religion; and thus, in further research social class or
ethnic variations should also be controlled.
The sample of this study was selected in order to reach a diverse range of people
regarding religiosity levels by distributing questionnaires to theology and business faculty
students. However, since this is a student sample, this might limit the generalizability of the
findings. In addition, the young population’s engagement with the social hyper
communication, interactivity, and situational cultural hybridization (Wilson, 2012, Wilson
and Liu, 2012, Wilson et al., 2013) might have influenced the findings. This segment of the
population might be described as “romantics who were once great, but now live in the shadow
of the enlightened West” (Wilson et al., 2013). Furthermore, the respondents being from
schools located in the Aegean region of Turkey might also have influenced the findings, since
a region of a country can reflect a separate sub-culture which carries different characteristics
than the general national culture. The Aegean region being close to Europe and Greece can be
also influenced by European culture. Hence, as Rohner (1984; as cited in Wilson et al., 2013)
discusses the concept of nation, he states that the ‘boundary setting has become more about
political expediency, rather than to separate neighboring societies’. Thus, analyzing separable
sub-cultures linked to national identity, rather than simply nationality, becomes more
important in understanding the Muslims (Wilson et. al. 2013). Besides, Muslim consumer
behavior is largely a cultural construct; and thus, the grouping of Muslims into smaller
homogenous segments (Wilson and Liu, 2011) is important in social studies regarding
Muslims.
So, it is recommended to undertake a similar research with a more representative
sample in different contexts. Besides, the discussion on “what underpins a collective faith and
meeting of minds, where there exist intricate variables of culture, ethnicity, schools of
thought, transnationalism, and interpretations behind the meanings and drivers of conspicuous
consumption” (Wilson et al., 2013) makes the subject more complicating. A qualitative study
might offer more useful insights to the subject.
References
Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2007), "Religiosity, happiness, health, and psychopathology in a

probability sample of Muslim adolescents", Mental Health, Religion and Culture, Vol. 10 No.
6, pp. 571-583.
Adib, H. and El-Bassiouny, N. (2012), "Materialism in young consumers: An investigation of

family communication patterns and parental mediation practices in Egypt", Journal of Islamic
Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 255-282.
Albehairi, A. and Demerdash, A. (1988), Religious Orientation Scale, 2nd edition, Cairo,
Egypt.
Albelaikhi, A, A. (1997), "Development of a Muslim religiosity scale", Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Rhode Island.
Ali, A. Y. (2002), Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary, 4th U.S. edition, New
York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc.
Al-Olayan, F. S. and Karande, K. (2000), "A content analysis of magazine advertisements

from the United States and the Arab world", Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 69-82.
Allport, G. W. and Ross, J. M. (1967), "Personal religious orientation and prejudice", Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 432.
Alsanie, S. I. (1989), "Relationship between level of religiosity and criminal behavior",

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Imam Ibn Suad Islamic University, Saudi Arabia.
Assadi, D. (2003), "Do religions influence customer behaviour? Confronting religious rules
and marketing concepts", Cahiers du CEREN, Vol. 5, pp. 2-13.
Bakar, A., Lee R., and Hazarina Hashim, N. (2013), "Parsing religiosity, guilt and materialism
on consumer ethics", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 232-244.
Banarjee, B. and McKeage, K. (1994), "How green is my value: Exploring the relationship
between environmentalism and materialism", Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp.
147-147.
Belk, Russell W. (1983), "Worldly possessions: Issues and criticisms," in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 10, ed. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research, pp. 514-519.
Belk, Russell W. (1984), "Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism:

Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness," in Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 11, ed. Thomas Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp.
291-297.
Belk, R.W. (1985), "Materialism: Trait aspects of living in a material world", Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 265-80.
Belk R.W., Ger G. and Askegaard, S. (2003), "The fire of desire: A multisided inquiry into
consumer passion", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 326–351.
Bergan, A. and McConatha, J.T. (2001), "Religiosity and life satisfaction", Activities,
Adaptation & Aging, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 23-34.
Burroughs, J.E. and Rindfleisch, A. (2002), "Materialism and well-being: A conflicting value
perspective", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 348-370.
Caird, D. (1987), "Religiosity and personality: Are mystics introverted, neurotic, or

psychotic?", British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 345-346.
Cherrier, H., Rahman, K., Mady, T., and Lee, D. (2009), "The globalization of Arab world:
Impacts on consumers’ level of materialism and vanity", World, Vol. 1 No.1, pp. 82-94.
Cleveland, M. and Chang, W. (2009), "Migration and materialism: The roles of ethnic
identity, religiosity, and generation", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 963–
971.
Çoştu, Y. (2009), "Approach to religion by the normative and popular: “A test on the religious
orientation scale”", Hitit University Divinity Faculty Journal, Vol. 8 No. 15, pp. 119-139.
Cukur, C. S., De Guzman, M. R. T. and Carlo, G. (2004), "Religiosity, values, and horizontal
and vertical individualism–collectivism: A study of Turkey, the United States, and the
Philippines", The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 144 No. 6, pp. 613–634.
Daun, A. (1983), "The materialistic life-style: Some socio psychological aspects," in
Consumer Behavior and Environmental Quality, ed. Liisa Uusitalo, New York: St. Martin's,
pp. 6-16.
Delener, N. (1990a), "An examination of the religious influences as predictors of consumer

innovativeness", Journal of Mid West Marketing, Vol. 5, pp. 167-178.
Delener, N. (1990b), "The effects of religious factors on perceived risk in durable goods
purchase decisions", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 27-38.
El‐Bassiouny, N., Taher, A. and Abou‐Aish, E.M. (2008), "The importance of character
education for tweens as consumers: a conceptual model with prospects for future research",
Journal of Research in Character Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 37‐61.
Erdoğan, B. Z., Torun, T. and Gönüllüoğlu, S. (2014), "Effects of materialism and religious
values on attitudes toward cause-related marketing", Social Business, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 153-
168.
Esmer, Y. (2012), "Turkey values atlas 2012", available at:

https://www.academia.edu/9620697/T%C3%BCrkiye_De%C4%9Ferler_Atlas%C4%B1_201
2 (accessed on 15 November 2015).
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in

consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73.
Ger, G., and Belk, R. W. (1999), "Accounting for materialism in four cultures", Journal of
Material Culture, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 183–204.
Glock, C.Y. (1962), "On the Dimensions of Religion" within the Religion Sociology, pp. 252-
274, Ankara: Vadi Publication House.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E. (2013), Multivariate Data
Analysis: Pearson New International Edition, Pearson Higher Ed.
Hawkins, D., Kenneth A. C., and Roger J. B. (1980), Consumer Behavior: Implications for
Marketing Strategy, Dallas, Texas: Business Publications.
Hökelekli, H. (2005), Psychology of Religion, Ankara: Turkish Religious Foundation

Publications.
Jafari, A. and Süerdem A. (2012), "An analysis of material consumption culture in the
Muslim world", Marketing Theory, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 61–79
Kahf, M. (1996), ‘The Demand Side or Consumer Behaviour’, in Principles of Islamic

Economics. Kuala Lampur: International Islamic University, Malaysia.
Karabati, S. and Cemalcilar Z. (2010), "Values, materialism, and well-being: A study with
Turkish university students", Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 624–633.
Karami, M., Olfati, O. and Dubinsky, A. J. (2014), "Influence of religiosity on retail

salespeople’s ethical perceptions: The case in Iran", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 5 No.
1, pp. 144-172.
Kavanaough, J. F. (1991), Following Christ in a Consumer Society: The Spirituality of

Cultural Resistance, Orbis Books: Maryknoll, NY.
Kavoossi, M. (2000), The Globalization of Business and the Middle East: Opportunities and
Constraints. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Kayıklık, H. (2006), Individuals, Religion, and Religiousness in a Changing World, within the
Socio-Psychology of Religiousness, Adana: Karahan Publishing House.
Kennedy, E. J. and Lawton, L. (1998), "Religiousness and business ethics", Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 163-175.
Khraim, H. (2010), "Measuring religiosity in consumer research from Islamic perspective",

Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 52-78.
King, J. E. and Crowther, M. R. (2004), "The measurement of religiosity and spirituality:

Examples and issues from psychology", Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 83-101.
Kline, R. B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.), New
York, NY: Guilford.
Köktaş, M. E. (1993), Religious Life in Turkey - The Sample of Đzmir, Đstanbul: Đşaret
Yayınları.
Köroğlu, C. Z. (2012), "Analyzing the religious life in Turkey: A holistic approach",

Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Đlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2.
Lindridge, A. (2005), "Religiosity and the construction of a cultural-consumption identity,"
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 142-151.
Mokhlis, S. (2006), “The effects of religiosity on shopping orientations: An exploratory study

in Malaysia”, Journal of the American Academy of Business, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.64-74
Mokhlis, S. (2009), "Relevancy and measurement of religiosity in consumer behaviour

research", International Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 75-84.
Muhamad, N. and Mizerski, D. (2010), "The constructs mediating religions’ influence on

buyers and consumers", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 124-135.
Mukhtar, A. and Mohsin Butt, M. (2012), "Intention to choose Halal products: The role of
religiosity", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 108-120.
Muncy, J. A. and Eastman, J. K. (1998), "Materialism and consumer ethics: An exploratory

study", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 137–145.
Mutlu, K. (1989), "The religiosity scale: The discussion of methodology in sociology",

Islamic Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 194-199.
Netemeyer, R. G., Pullig, C., and Bearden W. O. (2002), "Observations on some key
psychometric properties of paper-and-pencil measures," in Advances in Business Marketing
and Purchasing: Essays by Distinguished Scholars, Vol. 11, ed. A. G. Woodside and E. M.
Moore, New York; Elsevier Science, 115-38.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory (2nd edition b.), Newyork: McGraw-Hill.
Ogden, H. and Cheng, S. (2011), "Cultural dimensions and materialism: Comparing Canada
and China", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 431-447.
Ok, Ü. (2011), "Religious attitude scale: Scale development and validation", Uluslararası
Đnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 528-549.
Okumuş, E. (2008), "Turkey-religiosity and the PRA", The Muslim World, Vol. 98 No. 2-3,
pp. 345-362.
Peker, H. (2008), Psychology of Religion, Đstanbul: Çamlıca Publications.

Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. (1994), "An examination of the psychometric
properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership
scales", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 5, pp. 702.
Rahadian, M. (2008), "The effects of decision-making styles on consumers’ perceptions: The

moderating effects of religiosity and type of products", National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan, IMBA Program.
Rehman, A. U. and Shahbaz Shabbir, M. (2010), “The relationship between religiosity and
new product adoption”, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 63-69.
Richins, M. L. (2004), "The material values scale: Measurement properties and development
of a short form", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 209-219.
Richins, M. L., and Dawson, S. (1992), "A consumer values orientation for materialism and
its measurement: Scale development and validation", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 303.
Sagiv, L., and Schwartz, S. H. (2000), "Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct
relations and congruity effects", European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp.
177–198.
Sandikci, Ö. (2011), “Researching Islamic marketing: Past and future perspectives”, Journal
of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 246-258
Sangkhawasi, T. and Johri L. M. (2007), "Impact of status brand strategy on materialism in

Thailand." Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 275-282.
Shah, A. S., Mohd R. and Hisham B. (2011), "Is religiosity an important determinant on
Muslim consumer behaviour in Malaysia?", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp.
83-96.
Şahin, A. (1999), “A Comparative Research on the Dimensions of Religious Life of the

Students of Divinity: Medicine and Engineering Faculties”, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, Đzmir.
Shukor, S. A. and Jamal A. (2013), "Developing scales for measuring religiosity in the
context of consumer research", Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp.
69-74.
Smith, H. (1991), The World’s Religions. Harper San Francisco: San Francisco.
Swimberghe, K., Flurry, L. A. and Parker, J. M. (2011), "Consumer religiosity: Consequences

for consumer activism in the United States", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp.
453-467.
Taai, N. M. (1985), Religious Behavior Scale, Kuwait: Arrobyaan Publishing.
Tabachnick, B.G., and Fidell, L.S. (2013), Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th Edition Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Tiltay, M. A. and Torlak, Ö. (2011), "The relationship between materialistic attitude,

religious values, brand loyalty and consumer ethics", Đş Ahlakı Dergisi, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 93-
130.
Topbaş, O. N. (2012), Exam of Muslims via Money, Đstanbul: Erkam Publishing Co.
Torlak, O. and Koc, U. (2007), "Materialistic attitude as an antecedent of organizational

citizenship behavior", Management Research News, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 581-596.
Vitell, S. J. and Paolillo, J. G. (2003), "Consumer ethics: The role of religiosity", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 151–162.
Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. and Singh, J. J. (2005), "Religiosity and consumer ethics", Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 175-181.
Ward, S. and Wackman D. (1971), "Family and media influences on adolescent consumer
learning," American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 415-427.
Weaver, G. R. and Agle, B. R. (2002), "Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A

symbolic interactionist perspective", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 77-
97.
Wilkes, R. E., Burnett, J. J. and Howell, R. D. (1986), "On the meaning and measurement of
religiosity in consumer research", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 14 No.
1, pp. 47-56.
Wilson, J. A. (2012), "Looking at Islamic marketing, branding and Muslim consumer
behavior beyond the 7P's: The call for supportive course content and more P's please",
Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 212-216.
Wilson, J. A., Belk, R. W., Bamossy, G. J., Sandikci, Ö., Kartajaya, H., Sobh, R., Liu, J. and
Scott, L. (2013), "Crescent marketing, Muslim geographies and brand Islam: Reflections from
the JIMA Senior Advisory Board", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 22-50.
Wilson, J. A. and Hollensen, S. (2013), "Assessing the implications on performance when

aligning customer lifetime value calculations with religious faith groups and after lifetime
values–a Socratic elenchus approach", International Journal of Business Performance
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 67-94.
Wilson, J. A. and Liu, J. (2011), "The challenges of Islamic branding: Navigating emotions
and halal", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 28-42.
Wong, N., Rindfleisch A., and Burroughs J. E. (2003), "Do reverse-worded items confound
measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of material value scale", Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 72–91.
Yapıcı, A. (2002), "Different images of religious life and dogmatic religion", Çukurova
University Journal of Faculty of Divinity, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 75‐117.
Yousaf, S. and Shaukat Malik, M. (2013), "Evaluating the influences of religiosity and
product involvement level on the consumers", Journal of Islamic Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp.
163-186.
Zulkufly, R., Chai, L.T., and Lung, C.K. (2008), "Religiosity as a predictor of consumer
ethical behavior: A comparative study between public and private university students in
Malaysia”, Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, Vol. 3, pp. 43‐56.
Zimmer, H. (1993), Buddahood. In The Ways of Religion (2nd ed.), Eastman, R. (ed). Oxford
University Press. New York, pp. 65-73.
Appendix 1. - Religiosity Scale
Items Operationalization
ITEM1 I believe in the existence of Allah
ITEM2 I believe that Allah knows everything, we have said and done
ITEM3 When I commit a sin, I ask forgiveness from Allah
ITEM4 I don't believe in invisible objects like an angel*
ITEM5 I believe that all of those explained in the Quran is true and valid in every era
ITEM6 I find it meaningless if people endure some difficulties for the sake of their religion*
ITEM7 I spend Kandil (a holy night) nights mainly with religious activities (like worships,
listening to Quran or Islamic ceremony) slightly different from the other days
ITEM8 I regularly pray five times a day
ITEM9 I try to correct my wrong religious attitudes and behaviors
ITEM10 I do nonobligatory worships

ITEM11 I believe in destiny, and that good and evil come from Allah
ITEM12 I fast during Ramadan
ITEM13 I find religious rules boring*
ITEM14 I believe in life after death (hell and heaven)
ITEM15 I think that some of the provisions in the Quran does not fit into our era*
ITEM16 I would like to go on a pilgrimage if my financial situation permits
ITEM17 I think religious beliefs are not necessary*
ITEM18 I feel uneasy when I do not act according to my faith.
ITEM19 I do not drink because my religion forbids it
ITEM20 I do not gamble because my religion forbids it
ITEM21 I feel an obligation to fulfill religious rules
ITEM22 I believe that religious rules don’t have any contribution to daily life*
ITEM23 I respect religious values
ITEM24 I hope Allah will mercy me on the judgment day
ITEM25 I believe that Prophet Muhammed is the messenger of Allah
ITEM26 I think that Islam makes my life more meaningful and purposeful
ITEM27 I try to be consistent and balanced in my religious attitudes and behaviors
ITEM28 I try to explain my religion to others
ITEM29 I pray
ITEM30 I try to direct people to goodness and draw them away from evil
*An asterisk indicates reverse scored items
Appendix 2. - Nine Item Materialism Scale
Construct Factors Items Operationalization

Materialism Success MAT1 I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes
MAT4 The things I own say a lot about how well I’m doing in life
MAT5 I like to own things that impress people
Centrality MAT8 I try to keep my life simple, as far as possessions are concerned*
MAT11 Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure
MAT12 I like a lot of luxury in my life
Happiness MAT15 My life would be better if I owned certain things I don’t have
MAT17 I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things
MAT18 It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I can’t afford to buy all
the things I’d like
*An asterisk indicates reverse scored items
Figure 1: Research Framework
Centrality
Islamic
Happiness
Religiosity
Success
Materialism
Figure 2: Revised Research Framework
Spirituality Centrality
Behavioral
Happiness
Religiosity
Necessity of
Success
Religion
Islamic Religiosity Materialism

Table 1: Sample Profile
n % n %
Age (n=502) Grade (n=515)
(Mean=21.75)
18 9 1.8 1st 64 12.4
19 25 5.0 2nd 129 25.0
20 74 14.7 3rd 218 42.3
21 107 21.3 4th 104 20.2
22 132 26.3 Perception of income (n=490)
23 90 17.9 Very low income 12 2.4
24 37 7.4 Low income 48 9.8
25 28 5.6 Moderate income 316 64.5

Gender (n=525) High income 99 20.2
Female 284 54.1 Very high income 15 3.1
Male 241 45.9
Faculty (n=524)
Theology 326 62.0
Business 203 38.0
Table 2: Explained Variances and Eigenvalues
Factor Eigenvalue Total Variance Explained Cumulative Variance Explained

1 16,298 28,031 28,031
2 1,902 26,520 54,550
3 1,391 9,029 63,580
4 1,134 5,503 69,083

Table 3: Factor Loadings (Rotated Component Matrix)
FACTORS
ITEMS FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4
SPIRITUALITY BEHAVIORAL NECESSITY OF DIRECTING
RELIGIOSITY RELIGION OTHERS
ITEM1 .866
ITEM2 .861
ITEM3 .707
ITEM4
ITEM5 .570
ITEM6 .620
ITEM7 .609
ITEM8 .797
ITEM9
ITEM10 .619
ITEM11 .700
ITEM12 .706
ITEM13 .544
ITEM14 .702
ITEM15 .650
ITEM16 .550
ITEM17 .600
ITEM18 .511
ITEM19 .826
ITEM20 .793
ITEM21 .612
ITEM22 .777
ITEM23 .656
ITEM24 .724
ITEM25 .813
ITEM26 .673
ITEM27 .633
ITEM28 .696
ITEM29 .786
ITEM30 .766
Table 4: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Religiosity Scale
Constructs Factors Scale Standardized p- α Item Item
items loadings value mean SD
score
Religiosity Spirituality REL1 .763 *** .966 4.813 0.658
REL2 .814 *** 4.732 0.793
REL3 .785 *** 4.486 0.962
REL5 .792 *** 4.417 1.152
REL11 .838 *** 4.499 1.026
REL14 .807 *** 4.596 0.937
REL18 .742 *** 4.248 1.192
REL24 .891 *** 4.459 1.009
REL25 .881 *** 4.690 0.847
REL26 .914 *** 4.469 1.025

REL27 .834 *** 4.308 0.991
REL29 .818 *** 4.592 0.844
Behavioral REL6 .686 *** 4.256 1.206
Religiosity REL7 .769 *** 3.837 1.288
REL8 .803 *** 3.378 1.586
REL10 .718 *** 3.540 1.310
REL12 .845 *** 4.138 1.381
REL13 .689 *** 4.211 1.185
REL15 .620 *** 3.703 1.523
REL16 .796 *** 4.257 1.281
REL19 .831 *** 3.845 1.644
REL20 .813 *** 3.955 1.561
REL21 .764 *** 3.962 1.376
REL28 .841 *** 3.839 1.291
Necessity of REL17 .777 *** 4.494 1.094
Religion REL22 .627 *** 4.396 1.152
REL23 .472 *** 4.672 0.729
***All p-values are statistically significant at p<0.05
Fit statistics:χ2= 1875.332, p= .000, d.f.= 576, CFI= .908, RMSEA= .065, SD= Standard deviation
Table 5: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Nine Item Materialism Scale

Constructs Factors Scale Standardized p- α Item mean Item
items loadings value score SD
Materialism Success MAT1 .688 *** .806 2.082 1.127
MAT4 .516 *** 2.387 1.152
MAT5 .568 *** 3.039 1.256
Centrality MAT8 .603 *** 2.707 1.128
MAT11 .441 *** 3.730 1.017
MAT12 .758 *** 2.754 1.217
Happiness MAT15 .639 *** 2.919 1.174
MAT17 .873 *** 2.633 1.200
MAT18 .501 *** 2.623 1.190
Table 6: Results of the Structural Model
Hypothesis Standardized p-value Expected Hypothesis

path coefficient Sign status
H1: Spirituality → Success 0.58 *** - Not Supported
H2: Spirituality → Centrality 0.39 .009 - Not supported
H3: Spirituality → Happiness 0.64 *** - Not Supported
H4: Behavioral Religiosity → Success -0.63 *** - Supported
H5: Behavioral Religiosity → Centrality -0.64 *** - Supported

H6: Behavioral Religiosity → Happiness -0.77 *** - Supported
H7: Necessity of Religion → Success -0.16 .158 - Not Supported
H8: Necessity of Religion → Centrality -0.05 .633 - Not Supported
H9: Necessity of Religion → Happiness -0.13 .177 - Not Supported
Hmain: Religiosity → Materialism -0.25 *** - Supported
***All p-values are statistically significant at p<0.05

Fit statistics:χ2= 1875.332, p= .000, d.f.= 576, CFI= .908, RMSEA= .065

Impact of Islamic Religiosity On Materialistic Values in Turkey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Islamic Religiosity On Materialistic Values in Turkey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Islamic Marketing

Impact of Islamic religiosity on materialistic values in Turkey

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Design/methodology/approach – Using a quantitative research method, a self-administered

Research limitations/implications – Sample consisting of undergraduate students might

Keywords – Islamic Religiosity, Religiosity, Materialism, Turkey

Paper type - Research paper

consumption is open to discussion.

Whether religion influences a consumer’s behavior or not is a function of how

Religiosity and Materialism

Hypotheses Development and Conceptual Framework

H1: Islamic religiosity is negatively related to materialism.

In addition, the study aims to understand which sub-dimensions of materialism

Hence, it can be expected that Islamic religiosity is negatively associated with

H1a: Islamic religiosity is negatively related to centrality dimension of materialism.

The second dimension of materialism which is “acquisition as the pursuit of

H1b: Islamic religiosity is negatively related to happiness dimension of materialism.

H1c: Islamic religiosity is negatively related to success dimension of materialism.

The conceptual framework of this research focuses on the development of a model to

…Insert Figure 1 about here…

Questionnaire Design and Data Collection

religiosity scale (cognitive-focuses on religious attitudes or beliefs-; behavioral -measures

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

…Insert Table 1 about here…

Reliability and Validity of the Religiosity Scale

Exploratory Factor Analysis

…Insert Table 2 about here…

…Insert Table 3 about here…

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is conducted to assess uni-dimensionality and

…Insert Table 4 about here…

Reliability and Validity of the Materialism Scale

…Insert Table 5 about here…

meaningful since to be considered as a Muslim these beliefs should be present. A Muslim is

H1: Spirituality dimension of religiosity is negatively related to success

Behavioral religiosity dimension is also thought to be negatively associated to all the

H4: Behavioral religiosity is negatively related to success dimension of

The last dimension “necessity of religion” is regarding whether an individual finds

H7: Necessity of religion dimension is negatively related to success dimension

…Insert Figure 2 about here…

…Insert Table 6 about here…

Conclusion and Recommendations

Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2007), "Religiosity, happiness, health, and psychopathology in a

Adib, H. and El-Bassiouny, N. (2012), "Materialism in young consumers: An investigation of

Albelaikhi, A, A. (1997), "Development of a Muslim religiosity scale", Unpublished Doctoral

Al-Olayan, F. S. and Karande, K. (2000), "A content analysis of magazine advertisements

Alsanie, S. I. (1989), "Relationship between level of religiosity and criminal behavior",

Belk, Russell W. (1984), "Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism:

Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 265-80.

Caird, D. (1987), "Religiosity and personality: Are mystics introverted, neurotic, or

Delener, N. (1990a), "An examination of the religious influences as predictors of consumer

Esmer, Y. (2012), "Turkey values atlas 2012", available at:

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in

Hökelekli, H. (2005), Psychology of Religion, Ankara: Turkish Religious Foundation

Kahf, M. (1996), ‘The Demand Side or Consumer Behaviour’, in Principles of Islamic

Karami, M., Olfati, O. and Dubinsky, A. J. (2014), "Influence of religiosity on retail

Kavanaough, J. F. (1991), Following Christ in a Consumer Society: The Spirituality of

Kennedy, E. J. and Lawton, L. (1998), "Religiousness and business ethics", Journal of

Khraim, H. (2010), "Measuring religiosity in consumer research from Islamic perspective",

King, J. E. and Crowther, M. R. (2004), "The measurement of religiosity and spirituality:

Köroğlu, C. Z. (2012), "Analyzing the religious life in Turkey: A holistic approach",

Mokhlis, S. (2006), “The effects of religiosity on shopping orientations: An exploratory study

Mokhlis, S. (2009), "Relevancy and measurement of religiosity in consumer behaviour