Can Buddhism and Consumerism Harmonize?

A Review of the Psychological Evidence

Tim Kasser, Ph.D.

Knox College
 Two dozen centuries ago, the Buddha became enlightened in India, and his

teachings quickly spread throughout the Himalayas, through China and Korea into Japan,

and south through the rain forests into Thailand and the rest of South East Asia. Around

fifty years ago, Buddhist ideas also began to be introduced successfully throughout

Europe and the Americas.

Over the last century, humanity has witnessed the spread of a new kind of belief

system that emerged mostly in Western Europe and the United States. Like other

“religions” this new doctrine has its priests and places of worship, and has its beliefs

about what a meaningful life is and how to get it. This new religion is consumerism, its

priests are the marketers and advertising agencies, its places of worship are the malls and

Internet sales sites, and its beliefs are that happiness and success come from attaining

wealth and buying the goods and services available in the marketplace. Consumerism

has been fantastically successful in converting people, in spreading quickly to almost

every corner of the globe, and in colonizing humans’ minds, environments, and social

institutions.

As Buddhism spread, it encountered a variety of existing belief systems that

people had already been practicing, and it has since had newer belief systems come into

locales where it already existed. In many respects, Buddhism has quite successfully

merged with these other systems, joining with Confucianism and Taoism in China, with

Shintoism in Japan, with Cao Dai in Vietnam, and with New Age beliefs in the West to

form interesting new religious complexes that seem to work together well. The question

I’d like to raise in this talk is how well Buddhism and consumerism can harmonize with
each other. Are they compatible, fitting together nicely and reinforcing each other? Or

can they exist peacefully side-by-side without affecting each other? Or, are the two sets

of belief systems fundamentally at odds with each other because they value different

outcomes and suggest that one should follow fundamentally different paths in life?

As a psychologist, I try to answer these questions by using the scientific method,

by measuring different variables as validly as I can, by collecting data from a variety of

types of samples of people, and by using a variety of statistical techniques to understand

how the variables of interest relate to each other. Happily, it seems to me that Buddhism

and the scientific method are two belief systems that are more or less compatible, so

hopefully this enterprise will be of interest to you. Towards this end, before telling you

about some of the studies psychologists have done relevant to these questions, I want to

make sure that everyone understands what I mean by consumerism and how it is typically

measured.

Belief systems concern what is important in life, the values and goals that

organize one’s life, and how one should spend the time we have here on Earth. The

particular set of beliefs known as consumerism suggests that what is most important in

life is to work hard so as to make a good deal of money that can then be spent in the

marketplace in order to purchase the goods and services that one desires. Consumerism

suggests as well that a happy, meaningful, and successful life occurs when a person is

wealthy, owns many possessions, and owns possessions that convey status and that

appeal to others in one’s social surround (Kasser & Kanner, 2004). Psychologists can

measure the extent to which people believe in the tenets of consumerism through a
variety of strategies, but two types of strategies have proven particularly effective and

useful.

The first and simplest strategy for assessing people’s consumerism relies on

surveys (Belk, 1985; Richins & Dawson, 1992). Here, study participants rate how much

they agree or disagree with statements that are typical of the consumerist mindset. For

example, some typical items used on established surveys are “I like a lot of luxury in my

life,” “My life would be better if I owned certain things I don’t have,” and “I like to own

things that impress people.” To the extent study participants agree, rather than disagree,

with such statements, they are thought to score higher in materialistic or consumerist

beliefs.

The second, more complex, strategy, is the values method (Kasser & Ryan, 1996).

Here, study participants rate the personal importance of a variety of different goals or

aspirations that they might have in life. These include a broad range of aims such as

affiliation (having good family and friends), hedonism (having a lot of sensual pleasure),

and spirituality (understanding basic existential questions), as well as aims quite relevant

to consumerist beliefs. These aims include desires for financial success (e.g., “You will

have many expensive possessions”), having an attractive image (e.g., “You will achieve

the look you’ve been after”) and being popular and well-known (e.g., “You will be

admired by many people”). Studies show that these three “extrinsic” goals cluster

together as one group; that is, people who tend to think financial success goals are

important also tend to see image and popularity goals as important too (Grouzet et al.,

2005). This values method assesses how much someone has taken on the beliefs of

consumer society by computing the “relative centrality” of these extrinsic goals to the
person. Essentially this tells us how important consumerist goals are relative to all the

other goals or aspirations for which the person might strive; conceptually, this is like the

percentage of a person’s value system that is occupied by these materialistic, consumerist

goals.

Psychologists have used these and other methods to collect data relevant to three

different outcomes that I believe can help answer the question of whether Buddhism and

consumerism are compatible belief systems. Specifically, studies have investigated how

the consumerist belief system is associated with people’s personal suffering, with their

levels of compassion, and with the extent to which people treat living things with respect.

Suffering

The Buddha meditated beneath the Bodhi tree to understand what causes suffering

in life, or why people are unhappy. He discovered some very important solutions to this

problem that have been utilized quite successfully by millions of people ever since. If

Buddhism is interested in reducing people’s suffering, then the empirical research on

consumerism suggests Buddhism and consumerism do not fit together nicely, for multiple

studies now show that to the extent people take on consumerist beliefs, the more they

report high levels of personal suffering. Said differently, the research documents that

people experience lower psychological well-being to the extent they believe in the

messages of consumer society and organize their lives and goals around becoming

wealthy, obtaining possessions, looking good, and enhancing their status (see Kasser,

2002).

These studies show, for example, that to the extent people believe materialistic

goals are important in life, they report higher levels of depression and anxiety, two of the
most common psychological disorders around the world. Headaches, stomachaches, and

backaches are also higher in people with strong materialistic values. When scientists ask

their subjects to keep diaries of the emotions they experience every day, people who

strongly endorse the beliefs and goals of consumerism report stronger, more frequent

experiences of unpleasant emotions such as anger, frustration, sadness, anxiety, and

worry. Materialistic values are also associated with using more drugs such as alcohol,

tobacco, and other mind-altering substances; perhaps people take these drugs to distract

themselves from their suffering.

Consumerist beliefs are not only associated with higher levels of suffering, but

also with lower levels of happiness. For example, people report feeling less vital or alive

when they endorse such beliefs. They are also less satisfied with their lives and, when

asked to complete diaries of their emotional experience, report fewer pleasant emotions

such as being happy, pleased, joyous, and content.

It is important to note that these scientific findings about the negative associations

between consumerist beliefs and people’s well-being have been found in a variety of

settings and for a variety of types of people. For example, similar results have been

reported in samples from North America, Europe, and Asia. Studies with children as

young as 10 and adults in their 70s have also found that consumerist beliefs correlate

with unhappiness. And among business students and entrepreneurs, whose professions

might lead them to care more about wealth and possessions, those who are especially

focused on such goals report lower levels of well-being than those who pursue business

with less of a materialistic mindset.

 In sum, the set of beliefs central to consumerism seems to promote, rather than to

reduce, personal suffering.

Compassion

Compassion and the path of the Bodhisattva and Kuan Eim are revered in

Buddhism, and like most religions, Buddhism has its form of the Golden Rule, telling its

adherents to “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful” (UdanaVarga

5:18). As such, Buddhists are encouraged to attain merit by doing good deeds for others

and by contributing to the sangha. Once again, empirical research suggests that

consumerism may not be compatible with these outcomes, for to the extent people take

on the values and beliefs of consumerism, they are less likely to behave in ways that

promote the well-being of other people, and they may actually behave in ways that hurt

others.

For example, cross-cultural research on values and goals consistently

demonstrates that materialistic aims typically stand in opposition to the kinds of values

that promote good interpersonal relationships (Grouzet et al., 2005; Schwartz, 1992). For

example, materialistic values tend to oppose values such as being “helpful” and “loyal,”

obtaining “true friendship” and “mature love,” and having close, committed relationships.

Across various cultures, materialistic values and goals also typically oppose aims such as

working for “social justice” and “equality,” and trying to make the world a better place.

A strong focus on money and possessions also seems to increase the likelihood of

“objectifying” other people (see Kasser, Vansteenkiste, & Deckop, 2006). That is,

consumerist beliefs apparently increase the likelihood that other people are treated as

objects to be manipulated in the pursuit of one’s goals, rather than as unique, subjective
individuals with their own desires, experiences, and needs. This tendency towards

objectification can be seen in some of the attitudes empirically associated with strong

endorsement of consumerist values, including lower empathy, more manipulative

tendencies, and a stronger likelihood of being socially dominant and prejudicial.

Materialistic individuals also report engaging in fewer pro-social and more anti-social

activities, including questionable ethical behaviors in business settings. Finally, a few

studies suggest that when placed in resource dilemma games, materialistic values are

associated with being less generous and with acting in more competitive and less

cooperative ways.

Some experiments in the U.S. even suggest that activating consumerist values by

making people think about money and possessions may cause them to be less likely to

engage in friendly, helpful, cooperative acts. For example, in one series of studies by

Vohs, Mead, & Goode (2006), U.S. college students were randomly assigned to create

sentences out of money-related words or out of neutral words. Later, they were presented

with opportunities to behave in a more generous or selfish manner. The findings showed

that those students who had thoughts of money activated in their minds (by unscrambling

money-related sentences) spent less time helping an experimenter pick up pencils that

had been dropped and less time helping a confused person who asked for help. When

rewarded for being in the study with a small bit of money, they also donated less of it to

charity.

This body of literature suggests that the beliefs of consumerism work against

healthy, compassionate human interactions.

Respect for all living things

 Buddhists recognize that their compassion should not be limited to Homo sapiens,

but should extend to all sentient beings and to nature as a whole. One expression of this

belief is in the Buddhist tradition of vegetarianism. Once again, however, the empirical

research shows that the values and beliefs of consumerism are diametrically opposed to

this respect for living things, but instead drive humans to consume and pollute in ways

that are fundamentally damaging Earth’s eco-system and pushing many species to the

brink of extinction.

For example, the cross-cultural research of Schwartz (1992) reveals that to the

extent people value aims such as wealth and status, they tend to care less about values

such as “protecting the environment,” “attaining unity with nature,” and having “a world

of beauty.” A study in Australia (Saunders and Munro, 2000) also documented that a

strong consumer orientation is associated with less love for and feelings of connection

with all living things. What’s more, the values of wealth and status have also been

associated with worse environmental attitudes in a recent study of almost 1000

undergraduates from Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, India, New Zealand, and

Russia (Schultz, Gouveia, Cameron, Tankha, Schmuck, & Franek, 2005).

These values and beliefs of consumer society are also associated with behaving in

less ecologically sustainable ways. Both Richins & Dawson (1992) and Brown & Kasser

(2005) have found in samples of American adults that people are less likely to engage in

ecologically-friendly behaviors such as riding one’s bike, reusing paper, buying second-

hand, and recycling when they strongly value materialistic goals. These findings have

also been replicated in samples of U.S. and U.K. adolescents (Gatersleben, Meadows,

Abrahamse, & Jackson, 2008; Kasser, 2005). What’s more, Brown & Kasser (2005)
found in a sample of 400 American adults that those who cared more about extrinsic,

materialistic values used significantly more of the Earth’s resources in order to support

their lifestyle choices around transportation, housing, and food. That is, caring about the

aims of consumer society was associated with driving and flying more (and using public

transportation or bicycles less), living in bigger (rather than smaller) homes, and eating a

good deal of meat and exotic foods (rather than practicing vegetarianism and eating

locally-grown foods).

Another layer of support for the claim that materialistic values play a role in

ecological destruction comes from research using social dilemma games. Sheldon &

McGregor (2000) assessed college students’ values and then assigned them to play a

“forest-management game” in which subjects were asked to imagine that they were in

charge of a company that would be harvesting timber from a state forest. Sheldon &

McGregor found that people strongly oriented towards consumer values were more likely

to make larger bids for cutting down the forest. What’s more, if they were in groups with

others who shared their values, these groups were especially likely to decimate their

forest relatively quickly.

In sum, this body of research shows that the values of consumer society contribute

to ecological destruction rather than support the health of all living things.

A philosophy for responding to consumerism

Because I understand Buddhism as attempting to reduce suffering, to promote

compassion, and to protect all living things, I conclude from these data that consumerism

and Buddhism may be difficult to reconcile with each other, and may even be relatively

incompatible systems of beliefs and values. It seems likely, then, that to the extent that
consumerism becomes more dominant in a Buddhist nation, it will work to undermine the

beliefs and outcomes core to Buddhism. I must also add that because consumerism has

many powerful nations, muti-national corporations, and pan-governmental institutions

supporting it with billions and billions of dollars, consumerism is likely to take a strong

hold of society and of people’s minds.

If a culture desires to respond to the encroachment of consumerism, from my

perspective, there are two basic strategies that can be used. The first strategy is to

identify the factors that promote consumerism and then to remove those factors. The

second strategy is to identify the set of beliefs and values that stand in opposition to

consumerism, and to encourage those alternative beliefs and values. These two strategies

can often work together hand in hand. Next I briefly review some information about the

causes of consumerist beliefs and the values that stand in opposition to these beliefs

before showing how these strategies can be put into practice.

Causes of consumerist values

Kasser, Ryan, Couchman, & Sheldon (2004) integrated the literature on the

causes of materialistic values by suggesting that there are two primary pathways by

which such values are acquired: Social modeling and insecurity.

Social modeling involves the extent to which individuals are exposed to people or

messages in their environment suggesting that money, possessions, image, and status are

important aims to strive for in life. The empirical evidence clearly documents that people

have higher levels of consumerist beliefs to the extent that their parents, friends, and

peers also espouse such values (Ahuvia & Wong, 2002; Banerjee & Dittmar, 2008;

Kasser, Ryan, Zax, & Sameroff, 1995). Television, that font of advertising messages
proclaiming the worth of “the goods life,” also plays a strong role in encouraging these

values, as documented by numerous studies (Cheung & Chan, 1996; Kasser & Ryan,

2001; Rahtz, Sirgy, & Meadow, 1989; Schor, 2004). Exposure to advertising in school

has also been documented as promoting stronger materialistic concerns (Brand &

Greenberg, 1994).

The second pathway towards materialism and consumerism is through feelings of

insecurity. A variety of studies suggest that people orient towards consumerist values

when they experience threats to their survival, their safety and security, and their

perceived likelihood of getting their psychological needs met. For example, people are

more likely to be materialistic when they grow up in a family with a cold, controlling

mother, when their parents divorce, and/or when they experience poverty (Rindfleisch,

Burroughs, & Denton, 1997; Cohen & Cohen, 1996; Kasser, Ryan, Zax, & Sameroff,

1995). Some experiments even support a causal role of insecurity in creating

materialistic concerns, as making people consider economic hardship, poor interpersonal

relationships, and their own death leads individuals to care more about materialistic aims

(Kasser & Sheldon, 2000; Sheldon & Kasser, 2008). Thus, it seems that a typical human

tendency is to become concerned about acquisition in the face of situations that promote

insecurity.

To summarize, then, this literature suggests that a first approach to decreasing the

influence of consumerism is to address the features of our world that promote this belief

system. Substantial data suggest that to be effective, strategies must be developed to: a)

decrease the extent to which such consumerist, materialistic values are modeled in

society; and b) increase feelings of personal security among members of society.

Alternative values to consumerism

Cross-cultural research on how people’s goals and values are organized in their

minds helps in the identification of the aims that might provide an antidote to

consumerism. The seminal work of Schwartz (1992), as well as research by my

colleagues (Grouzet et al., 2005), consistently documents that most people experience

certain values and goals as psychologically consistent with each other but other goals and

values as in conflict with each other. The consistency between or conflict among goal

types can be visually represented in a “circumplex” structure, which results from

statistical procedures that place consistent goals next to each other and conflictual goals

opposite from each other in a circular arrangement. Figure 1 presents the circumplex

Grouzet et al. (2005) developed on the basis of data collected from over 1800 individuals

in 15 cultures (Grouzet et al., 2005).

-----------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

-----------------------------

Although Figure 1 presents a good deal of information, here I would like to draw

readers’ attention to two aspects of this circumplex relevant to the argument being

developed here. First, examination of the west and south-west portions of the circumplex

shows that the materialistic aims of financial success, image, and popularity cluster

together as a consistent set of goals, for they lie relatively nearby each other; thus, people

who tend to care about wealth also tend to care about image and status, and vice versa.

Second, Figure 1 shows the values and goals that most people experience as being in

opposition to these consumeristic aims. Specifically, one can see in the northeast and
east portions of the circumplex a cluster of three goals: Self-acceptance (i.e., liking one’s

self and feeling free), Affiliation (i.e., creating positive relationships with family and

friends) and Community Feeling (i.e., attempting to improve the state of the broader

world). We call these the “intrinsic goals,” as, theoretically, they are intrinsically

satisfying to pursue in and of themselves because they satisfy inherent psychological

needs (see Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Deci & Ryan, 2000), in contrast to the “extrinsic” goals

of consumerism, which are typically means to some other end and typically distract from

the satisfaction of needs.

Thus, this circumplex, like others (see Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Schwartz,

1992), suggests that if we are looking for an antidote to consumerism, the intrinsic values

of self-acceptance, affiliation, and community feeling are worthy of further consideration,

for they stand in psychological opposition to materialism. Said differently, because

intrinsic values are psychologically in conflict with materialistic values, enhancing how

much people care about intrinsic values should decrease their concern for materialistic

values.

It seems to me that Buddhism is quite compatible with these intrinsic goals. As

has already been discussed, Buddhism attempts to promote a sense of compassion for

other humans and for other living things, aims inherent in the intrinsic goals of affiliation

and community feeling. The intrinsic goal of self-acceptance also seems consistent with

Buddhism, for it concerns accepting one’s self as one is, seeking self-knowledge and

understanding, and pursuing one’s own interests.

What’s more, abundant research also shows that intrinsic goals are positively

associated with personal, social, and ecological well-being (see Kasser, 2006). That is,
the more that people report caring about aims such as self-acceptance, affiliation, and

community feeling, the more they report feeling vital, happy, and satisfied with life, and

the less they are depressed, anxious, substance abusing, etc. Further, people oriented

towards intrinsic values are more empathic, more cooperative, and more likely to engage

in the kinds of pro-social, generous behaviors that promote good will and the well-being

of others. Finally, intrinsic values are also associated with behaving in less greedy ways

during resource-dilemma games, with engaging in more positive ecological behaviors,

and with having lower ecological footprints, all of which will benefit the well-being of all

living things, presently and in the future.

Ways Forward

As noted above, this body of research suggests a conceptually simple philosophy

for engaging the belief system of consumerism: Remove the factors that cause people to

pursue consumerist goals (i.e., social modeling and insecurity) and encourage people to

internalize and pursue the values and goals that stand in opposition to materialism (i.e.,

intrinsic goals). In addition to being conceptually simple, this basic formula is flexible

enough to be relevant to a variety of different avenues for intervention. Below I discuss

four strategies that I hope might have particular appeal to Buddhist nations and cultures.

Mindfulness. The fundamental practice of Buddhism is of course meditation,

which helps individuals attain “mindfulness.” The topic of mindfulness has received

increasing scientific attention in the West, as an increasing number of research projects

demonstrate its utility in helping people suffering from various types of physical and

psychological pains. Psychologists still disagree about exactly how to define and

measure mindfulness, but for my purposes here, I will rely on Brown and Ryan’s (2003)
definition as “a receptive attention to and awareness of present events and experience.”

Mindful awareness is a state of mind in which people are open to what they are

experiencing in the present, without judging it as good or bad, and without thinking about

the past or the future. Mindfulness is something available to all people, but some people

are more mindful, on average, than others, allowing psychologists to compare how

people differing in mindfulness also differ along other aspects of life.

I’ve already noted the empirical evidence showing that mindfulness can be used

in the treatment of various psychological and physical problems. A couple of studies also

suggest it might serve to reduce the hold of consumerism on people’s minds as well. For

example, in the same study of 400 Americans described above, Brown & Kasser (2005)

found that more mindful people cared less about the consumerist, materialistic values of

money, image, and status. Three other studies have recently found that, regardless of

their actual financial situation, undergraduates and adults who were more mindful

experienced less of a gap between their current financial situation and their desired

financial situation (Brown, Kasser, Linley, Ryan, & Orzech, 2008); in other words,

mindful people are able to “want what they have” rather than following the dictates of

consumer society with its unending suggestions for greater desire. Brown et al. (2008)

also studied individuals undergoing instruction in mindfulness meditation, and found that

to the extent people increased in mindfulness, the discrepancy between their financial

desires and their actual financial state decreased. Said differently, becoming more

mindful may have helped people be more satisfied with their current financial status and

less desirous of “more and more stuff.”

 Although the actual processes that explain these findings remain unknown, some

theoretical work about the benefits of mindfulness suggest it fits well with the overall

strategies for resisting consumerism described above (see Brown, Ryan, & Creswell,

2007). First, some suggest that mindfulness may reduce insecurity by helping people feel

a sense of fulfillment as they appreciate the moments they openly experience (Rosenberg,

2004) and by reducing people’s concerns with their ego and the suffering this illusion

causes (Rosch, 2007). Second, mindfulness might help individuals be less susceptible to

the advertising messages that attempt to sway them towards consumerism by helping

them see through advertisers’ attempts to connect happiness and consumption (Levesque

& Brown, 2007; Rosenberg, 2004). Third, Brown & Kasser (2005) found that not only

did mindful people care less about consumerist goals, but they also cared more about

intrinsic values, probably because mindful practice in and of itself helps people to realize

that intrinsic values are ultimately more fulfilling than are the values of consumerism.

Whatever the processes involved, it seems clear that mindfulness may be a useful

strategy for resisting consumerism. Given Buddhists’ long experience teaching about and

enhancing this open state of mind, an especially promising avenue for responding to

consumerism is to consider means of helping more people feel more mindful more often.

Death Meditations. As noted earlier, one source of support for the idea that

feelings of insecurity motivate consumerist beliefs is that several studies have shown that

raising thoughts of one’s own personal death can cause people to orient more towards

consumerism. For example, compared to thinking about neutral topics or topics relevant

to pain, thinking about one’s own death causes more excitement about the prospect of

finding a $20 bill (Solomon & Arndt, 1999), more positive ratings of high status products
(such as a Lexus automobile or a Rolex watch; Mandel & Heine, 1999), higher

expectations about one’s financial worth 15 years in the future (Kasser & Sheldon, 2000),

and a general shift towards consumerist values and away from intrinsic values (Sheldon

& Kasser, 2008).

In most of these studies, participants were asked to briefly reflect on their own

death, and a large body of research suggests that the typical response of most people in

such situations is to quickly defend against death thoughts, pushing them out of

awareness and attempting to find other ways to convince one’s self that one is a good

person and that one’s beliefs are important and valuable (see Greenberg, Koole, &

Pyszczynski, 2004). As Buddhists well know, however, such defensiveness is not the

only possible response to thinking about one’s inevitable demise. Buddhists have long

encouraged meditations about death as ways to reinforce the concept of impermanence,

both of any particular moment and of the ego itself.

Indeed, some evidence suggests that sustained reflection about one’s own death

can not only stop people from acting in more consumerist ways, but can help shift them

towards intrinsic goals. Two recent sets of experiments have documented that “virtual”

death experiences lead people to care less about extrinsic, materialistic goals and more

about intrinsic goals. In one study, people scoring high in materialism who were asked to

deeply imagine their own death and reflect on the meaning it held for their life later

behaved in a more generous, less greedy fashion than did materialistic individuals who

thought about neutral topics (Cozzolino, Staples, Meyers, & Samboceti, 2004). In

another experiment, sustained reflection on one’s death over six days helped maintain the

intrinsic values of intrinsically oriented people, while daily reminders of one’s death
helped more materialistic people become more intrinsically oriented (Lykins, Segerstrom,

Averill, Evans, & Kemeny, 2007).

These findings suggest that if people are presented with reminders of their

inevitable demise, they become insecure and grasp after possessions and wealth as ways

to bolster their fragile ego. It seems that this reaction to insecurity can be forestalled if

people are guided to respond to the fact of their eventual death in a way that gives it a

larger meaning, and if they sustain such meditations on death; doing so seems to help

people shift towards the intrinsic goals that provide greater happiness, compassion, and

ecological sustainability. Although further empirical exploration is clearly required to

explore how different types of death meditations can confront insecurity, these findings

suggest substantial promise for the use of Buddhist attitudes and practices towards death

as ways of resisting the influence of consumerism.

Voluntary Simplicity. My understanding is that Buddhist monks and nuns vow to

live without concern for material wealth and possessions. This suggests that, at base, the

recognition that the best means of following Buddhism is to live in the world without

becoming caught up in a striving for wealth and accumulation. The Western secular

movement most similar to this aspect of Buddhism is called “Voluntary Simplicity.” This

term is used to refer to a lifestyle pursued by about 10-15% of Americans who make a

voluntary decision to reject a life based on the cycle of work-spend-work-some-more and

instead to focus on “inner riches.” Qualitative interviews (Elgin, 1993; Pierce, 2000), for

example, suggest that many who identify as Voluntary Simplifiers choose to disengage

from a life based around long work hours and high levels of consumption so that they

may instead focus on their own personal growth, family, volunteer activity, and
spirituality. In essence, it seems that Voluntary Simplifiers seem to care about intrinsic

values, not the values of consumerism.

Brown & Kasser (2005) conducted one of the first quantitative scientific studies

on VS by comparing a sample of 200 self-identified Voluntary Simplifiers to a group of

200 mainstream Americans matched on gender, age, and geographic area. Several

interesting differences between the groups emerged. First, the VS group was much more

likely than the mainstream group to report engaging in positive environmental behaviors

and to be living in ways that decreased their ecological footprints. Second, compared to

the mainstream group, the VS group reported significantly higher levels of life

satisfaction and a greater balance of pleasant than unpleasant emotion in their daily lives.

Third, Brown and Kasser found that the greater happiness and sustainability of the

Voluntary Simplifiers could be largely explained by their value orientation. Specifically,

the VS group was more strongly oriented towards intrinsic goals and much less oriented

towards the goals and values of consumerism than were the mainstream Americans.

Thus, it seems that VS helps individuals remove themselves from the pressures of

consumerism and instead live the intrinsic values that promote happiness, compassion,

and sustainability. As such, these findings suggest that a concerted public education

effort designed to change social perceptions about what “the good life” is and what

“simplicity” means may help encourage more people to pursue this lifestyle. If

educational materials could be developed and distributed about the VS lifestyle, it seems

likely that some reasonable percentage of individuals might be interested to know that VS

is associated with the values and outcomes quite supportive of Buddhism. Another

educational approach might be to create large numbers of community-sponsored

Simplicity Circles (Andrews, 1998), which are small groups that meet frequently to

provide members with information about and support for living in more materially-

simple ways.

Buddhist Economics. The purpose of an economic system is to create the means

by which products and services are produced and distributed so as to meet the material

needs of people. Different types of economic systems pursue this goal in different ways.

As E. F. Schumacher (1973/1999) noted in his famous essay, many practices of Western

economies are fundamentally at odds with what a Buddhist perspective would suggest is

the best means of meeting the material needs of people. Specifically, the forms of

corporate capitalism common in many Western nations have largely pursued a path of

maximizing consumption in order to increase profits for corporations and tax revenue for

governments. Schumacher argues, in contrast, that Buddhism, with its focus on the

“middle way,” would aim for “sufficient” consumption to provide meaningful work and

pleasant but not extravagant products for as many people as possible. What’s more,

according to Schumacher, Buddhism’s focus on compassion and respect for living things

would require an economic system to operate within ecological limits, rather than

rapaciously taking advantage of whatever resources are cheapest and available, as occur

in Western forms of corporate capitalism.

A remarkably different set of policies and institutions are required of an economic

system designed to maximize consumption than of an economic system designed to

minimize suffering, maximize compassion, and sustain an environment for all living

things, for they require fundamentally different sets of beliefs and values. Time and

space limitations prevent a full discourse on how the analysis I’ve been developing here
suggests changes in economic policies and institutions, but I’ll briefly sketch out two

areas for consideration.

A first approach worth pursuing involves the revision of national indicators of

progress. Currently, the dominant indicators used to demonstrate the success of a nation

include how its stock market is doing, where consumer confidence is this month, and,

primarily, the Gross Domestic Product of a nation. There are many problems with these

definitions of progress. First, they are primarily about materialistic values, and thus

reinforce social norms that “what matters most is wealth and consumption.” Second,

increases in GDP often translate into less social equality, as seen in the U.S., China, and

elsewhere over the last decades; inequality, in turn, breeds the kinds of feelings of

insecurity and invidious social comparison that research shows increase materialistic

values. Third, as is well-known, measures of GDP are calculations of all the economic

activities that take place in a nation, including those directly in conflict with many

intrinsic values. To take an environmental example, a company may find that its profits

are higher if it manufactures a product in a way that pollutes a nearby river than if it uses

cleaner methods. If the pollution poisons the fish in the river, further increases in overall

GDP may result when people get sick from eating fish in the river (i.e., hospital costs)

and even if they die (i.e., funeral costs). If the company is eventually forced by the

community to clean up the river and an environmental engineering firm is paid to do so,

national GDP goes up further still.

In the recognition that GDP is a flawed measure of progress that is based solely

on materialistic values, a variety of alternative indicators have been proposed. These

include Redefining Progress’ Genuine Progress Indicator, the country of Bhutan’s Gross
National Happiness measures, and the new economic foundation’s Happy Planet Index.

Others, like Diener & Seligman (2004) and Layard (2005) have suggested direct

measurements of citizens’ subjective well-being. While each of these indicators has its

own particular computational formulas and assumptions, common to them all is that

materialistic aims are no longer privileged and other values (typically intrinsic ones) are

injected into the calculations. If nations were to adopt such measures alongside, or

instead of GDP, and if such measures were then publicized with as much fervor as the

national stock market index and the GDP currently are, citizens and politicians alike

might come to place less importance on materialistic pursuits and instead care more about

intrinsic values. Further, citizens might begin to insist that government officials begin

developing policies and laws that maximize these alternative indicators, which would in

turn take the focus off consumerism and instead switch it towards the intrinsic values that

promote well-being.

The second approach that comes form a Buddhist perspective on economics

concerns advertising. Humans live in cultures with increasingly ubiquitous commercial

advertising, which should be understood as the best-funded, most sophisticated

propaganda campaign ever employed in human history, with millions of dollars spent

yearly to pay researchers to investigate how to “press the buy button” and billions of

dollars more spent to pay for-profit media corporations to deliver these messages to

children, adolescents, and adults. Advertising messages that inculcate the belief that

people’s worth is dependent on what they own now appear in almost every possible

media venue, and, through developments in stealth marketing, are even covertly placed in
songs, books, and conversations people have with friends and strangers (Schor, 2004;

Walker, 2004).

As noted above, a variety of studies document that the more people are exposed to

television, the more they espouse the values and beliefs of consumer society. What’s

more, research suggests that even very brief, assumedly unconscious exposure to the idea

of money and wealth can activate motivational processes that interfere with

compassionate behavior (Vohs et al., 2006). Additionally, the infiltration of advertising

into more and more aspects of our world creates a set of social norms that make it

acceptable and, indeed admirable, to believe that “high levels of consumption are

normal,” that “everyone purchases a lot,” and that “good people buy stuff.” As such,

advertisements create and frequently activate the extrinsic, materialistic goals reflected in

the circumplex model presented in Figure 1, and thus not only increase the likelihood that

people care about such materialistic aims in life and act in value-relevant ways (i.e., by

consuming and working long hours), but weaken the intrinsic portions of one’s

motivational system.

For these reasons, I propose that an economic system organized around Buddhist

principles would want to limit advertising. This could be done, for example, by

following the lead of some localities that have already removed all outdoor

advertisements (including billboards on highways and business signs over a certain size)

and all advertising in public spaces (including subways, buses, and schools); by doing so,

people would no longer be forced to view advertising as they went about their daily lives

and thus would be less likely to have those aspects of their value and goal system

activated. Banning all forms of marketing to children under the age of 12 would also be a
particularly forceful policy to pursue, as it would end the practice of preying on youth

whose cognitive development makes it difficult for them to understand persuasive intent

and whose identities are still in the process of formation. Another important policy

would be to tax all expenses that businesses spend on marketing and advertising; in my

nation, these expenses are actually deductions! By taxing advertising, businesses would

have less incentive and more of a disincentive to advertise, and a norm would be

established that advertising is a kind of pollution that should be taxed. The revenue from

these taxes could then be used to fund non-commercial media and educational projects

that promote intrinsically oriented-values, ecologically-sustainable activities, and a more

materially simple lifestyle.

Conclusion

No change of system or machinery can avert those causes of social

malaise which consist in the egotism, greed, or quarrelsomeness of human
nature. What it can do is to create an environment in which those are not
the qualities that are encouraged…It can offer [people] an end on which to
fix their minds. And, as their minds are, so in the long run, their practical
activity will be – R. H. Tawney (from Schumacher, 1973/1999, p. 221).

The psychological evidence suggests that the social system of consumerism is one that

does indeed encourage the egotism, greed, and quarrelsomeness that contribute to

personal suffering, lower compassion, and greater damage to other living things.

Buddhism, in contrast, is a proven means of discouraging such qualities and helping

people “fix their minds” on much higher ends, ends that will benefit their own well-

being, the well-being of other people, and the well-being of other species of living things.
 References

Ahuvia, A. C., & Wong, N. Y. (2002). Personality and values based materialism:

Their relationship and origins. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 389-402.

Andrews, C. (1998). The circle of simplicity. New York: Harper Collins.

Banerjee, R., & Dittmar, H. (2008). Individual differences in children’s

materialism: The role of peer relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

34, 17-31.

Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world.

Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 265-280.

Brand, J. E., & Greenberg, B. S. (1994). Commercials in the classroom: The

impact of Channel One advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34, 18-21.

Brown, K.W. & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being

compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research,

74, 349-368.

Brown, K.W., Kasser, T., Linley, P. A., Ryan, R. M., Orzech, K. (2008). When

what one has is enough: Mindfulness, financial desire discrepancy, and subjective well-

being. Manuscript under review.

Brown, K.W. & Ryan, R.M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness

and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

84, 822-848.

Brown, K.W., Ryan, R.M., & Creswell, J.D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical

foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211-237.
 Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2000). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting

values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 348-370.

Cheung, C., & Chan, C. (1996). Television viewing and mean world value in Hong

Kong's adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 24, 351-364.

Cohen, P., & Cohen, J. (1996). Life values and adolescent mental health. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Cozzolino, P. J., Staples, A. D., Meyers, L. S., & Samboceti, J. (2004). Greed,

death, and values: From terror management to transcendence management theory.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 278-292

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:

Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-

268.

Elgin, D. (1993). Voluntary simplicity. New York: Morrow.

Gatersleben, B., Meadows, J., Abrahamse, W., & Jackson, T. (2008).

Materialistic and environmental values of young people. Unpublished manuscript.

University of Surrey, UK.

Greenberg, J., Koole, S. L., & Pyszczynski, T. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of

experimental existential psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Fernandez-Dols, J. M., Kim, Y., Lau,

S., Ryan, R. M., Saunders, S., Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of
goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 800-

816.

Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kasser, T. (2005). Frugality, generosity, and materialism in children and

adolescents. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to

flourish?: Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 357-

373). New York: Springer Science.

Kasser, T. (2006). Materialism and its alternatives. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I.

S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), A life worth living: Contributions to positive psychology (pp.

200-214). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kasser, T., Cohn, S., Kanner, A. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Some costs of

American corporate capitalism: A psychological exploration of value and goal conflicts.

Psychological Inquiry, 18, 1-22.

Kasser, T., & Kanner, A. D. (Eds.) (2004). Psychology and consumer culture:

The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream:

Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 22, 280-287.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning

and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon

(Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 116-

131). Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

 Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004).

Materialistic values: Their causes and consequences. In T. Kasser & A. D. Kanner

(Eds.), Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a materialistic

world (pp. 11-28). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M., Zax, M., & Sameroff, A. J. (1995). The relations of maternal

and social environments to late adolescents' materialistic and prosocial values. Developmental

Psychology, 31, 907-914.

Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2000). Of wealth and death: Materialism, mortality

salience, and consumption behavior. Psychological Science, 11, 348-351.

Kasser, T., Vansteenkiste, M., & Deckop, J. R. (2006). The ethical problems of a

materialistic value orientation for businesses (and some suggestions for alternatives). In J. R.

Deckop (Ed.), Human Resource Management Ethics (pp. 283-306). Greenwich, CT: Information

Age Publishing, Inc.

Levesque, C. & Brown, K.W. (2007). Mindfulness as a moderator of the effect of

implicit motivational self-concept on day-to-day behavioral motivation. Motivation and

Emotion, 31, 284-299.

Lykins, E. L. B., Segerstrom, S. C., Averill, A. J., Evans, D. R., & Kemeny, M. E.

(2007). Goal shifts following reminders of mortality: Reconciling posttraumatic growth

and terror management theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1088-

1099.

Mandel, N., & Heine, S. J. (1999). Terror management and marketing: He who

dies with the most toys wins. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 527-532.
 Pierce, L. B. (2000). Choosing simplicity: Real people finding peace and

fulfillment in a complex world. Carmel, CA: Gallagher Press.

Rahtz, D. R., Sirgy, M. J., & Meadow, H. L. (1989). The elderly audience: Correlates of

television orientation. Journal of Advertising, 18, 9-20.

Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and

its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19,

303-316.

Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Denton, F. (1997). Family structure, materialism,

and compulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 312-325.

Rosch, E. (2007). More than mindfulness: When you have a tiger by the tail, let

it eat you. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 258-264.

Rosenberg, E.L. (2004). Mindfulness and consumerism. In T. Kasser & A.D.

Kanner (Eds.), Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a

materialistic world (pp. 107-125). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Saunders, S., & Munro, D. (2000). The construction and validation of a consumer

orientation questionnaire (SCOI) designed to measure Fromm’s (1955) ‘marketing

character’ in Australia. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 219-240.

Schor, J. B., (2004). Born to buy: The commercialized child and the new

consumer culture. New York: Scribner.

Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., &

Franek, M. (2007). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and

conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 36, 457-475.

 Schmumacher, E. F. (1973/1999). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people

mattered. Point Roberts, WA: Hartley & Marks.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory

and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology, (Vol. 25) (pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2008). TITLE. Motivation and Emotion,

Sheldon, K. M., & McGregor, H. (2000). Extrinsic value orientation and the

tragedy of the commons. Journal of Personality, 68, 383-411.

Solomon, S., & Arndt, J. (1993). Cash is King: The Effect of Mortality Salience

on the Appeal of Money. Saratoga Springs, NY: Skidmore College.

Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). Psychological consequences

of money, Science, 314, 1154-1156.

Walker, R. (2004, December 5). The hidden (in plain sight) persuaders. New York

Times Magazine, 69.

Figure 1 – Circumplex model of goals – Grouzet et al., (2005)
 Self-transcendence
Spirituality

Community
Conformity

Extrinsic Intrinsic

Popularity

Image
Affiliation

Self-acceptance
Financial
success Physical health
Safety
Hedonism
Physical self