Materialistic People Liked Less by Peers Than 'Experiential' People

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414130832.htm

ScienceDaily (Apr. 16, 2010) — People who pursue happiness through material possessions are liked less by their peers than people who pursue happiness through life experiences, according to a new study led by University of Colorado at Boulder psychology Professor Leaf Van Boven.


Van Boven has spent a decade studying the social costs and benefits of pursuing happiness through the acquisition of life experiences such as traveling and going to concerts versus the purchase of material possessions like fancy cars and jewelry.
"We have found that material possessions don't provide as much enduring happiness as the pursuit of life experiences," Van Boven said.
The "take home" message in his most recent study, which appears in this month's edition of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, is that not only will investing in material possessions make us less happy than investing in life experiences, but that it often makes us less popular among our peers as well.

"The mistake we can sometimes make is believing that pursuing material possessions will gain us status and admiration while also improving our social relationships," Van Boven said. "In fact, it seems to have exactly the opposite effect. This is really problematic because we know that having quality social relationships is one of the best predictors of happiness, health and well-being.

"So for many of us we should rethink these decisions that we might make in terms of pursuing material possessions versus life experiences," he said. "Trying to have a happier life by the acquisition of material possessions is probably not a very wise decision."

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

No doubt no doubt :) Van Boven has done some great tilting at the windmill of Murkan materialism. Just google him for more science on the suckiness of materialism :)

...Expedia.com, Ticketmaster, and the National Bureau of Tourism. :evilgrin:

...between materialism as an explanatory framework and materialism as greedy acquisitiveness, and enjoying the world through experiences as opposed to thinking things are just as you experience them.

Materialism takes many forms, but it's pursuit has nothing to teach us beyond the fact that materialism is evil. Regardless of what gives rise to materialism the end results are the same...

Experientialism (sp?) on the other hand could arise from either the "noblest" or "basest" motivations, but will likely harm the environment less and stands a much better chance at fostering understanding between people of different cultures/economic backgrounds, at sparking innovation, improving health, etc, etc, etc. Either way it's a better use of resources than counting coup with cheap plastic crap, and it really doesn't matter from where it arises. It is, after all, our actions that define us as individuals and as a society. Seeking to change people's motivations/thoughts/feelings/rewards/cost-benefit analysis/etc are simply different approaches to changing people's actions.

Raising "awareness" is likely one of the least effective methods of changing behavior. Rationalization is mightier than awareness 9 times out of 10.

...of "materialism" in different contexts, you just heaped on more talk of bad, bad, bad materialism, in a way that seems to say you either don't understand or don't care to consider any differences in meaning.

Yes or no: Do you understand that, say, the kind of materialism that explains the human mind as a biochemical phenomenon has nothing to do with the kind of materialism that means wanting to acquire yachts and gold-plated dog dishes and a fifth summer home?

Or perhaps you're gratuitously blurring the differences, trying to suggest that one leads to the other, and that people have to go all mystical lest they plunder the planet and exploit the working class?

I think that I was direct enough for you to know what I was saying, and they certainly aren't new ideas.

The kind of innate materialism that drives us to seek that which we need to survive and thrive is either a separate beast, or the same one that has been perverted by our isolated and propagandized minds. Either way I would argue that all people are driven to compare themselves to others, and we would all be better off if we compared ourselves by our ACTIONS and EXPERIENCES instead of by how new and shiny our useless crap is... or by how well we turn a phrase.

Now if you want to discuss where I stand on the "nature of consciousness", and whether or not the mind arises from matter or ether... I think that this is the wrong thread and the wrong forum. There's a dedicated woo-woo forum somewhere on this site for such discussions.