Belk and Richins as giving importance/being attached to worldly possessions. He proposed three measures to quantify materialistic traits, namely – possessiveness inclination and tendency to retain control of one’s possession), non-generosity (unwillingness to give possessions to or share possessions with others) and envy (interpersonal attitude involving displeasure and ill-will at the superiority of (another person) in happiness, success, reputation, or the possession of anything desirable). [Globalization does lead to change in consumer behavior]
Richins and Dawson, 1992, p. 308) conceptualizes materialism as a consumer value and considers it to be “A set of centrally held beliefs about the importance of possessions in one’s life”
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
Materialism is considered as a preoccupation with money and possessions (Belk, 1985;
Rossiter, 1980) and the idea that personal wealth and material possessions are the key to success
and well-being (Fournier & Richins, 1991). [Moniek Buijzen & Patti M. Valkenburg, 2003]
Materialism is a value held by an individual, which embodies the importance one attaches to material possessions (THE EFFECT OF ROLE MODEL INFLUENCE ON ADOLESCENTS’ MATERIALISM AND MARKETPLACE KNOWLEDGE)
Originally developed by Richins and Dawson (1992), the materialism scale utilized currently traditionally has 18 Likert-type items and three established dimensions-cen- trality (seven items), happiness (five items), and success (six items). Centrality addresses the extent to which someone places possessions and their acquisition at the center of his or her life, happiness concerns the notion that possessions and their acquisition are essential for well-being and satis- faction in life, and success measures whether or not someone judges his or her own and others’ success by the number and quality of accumulated possessions. Higher scores on each of the dimensions/items are associated with higher levels of materialism (ADOLESCENT AUTONOMY AND THE IMPACT OF FAMILY STRUCTURE ON MATERIALISM AND COMPULSIVE BUYING)
Two multi-dimensional scales to measure materialism have recently been developed in consumer research. Belk’s (1985; see also Ellis, 1991) three-dimensional scale operationalized materialism in terms of envy (ill will at the success of another person), possessiveness (the tendency to control one’s own possessions), and nongenerosity (an unwillingness to share). Richins and Dawson (1992) conceptualized materialism as a consumer value with three components: centrality (acquisition centrality), happiness (acquisition as the pursuit of happi ness), and success (possession-defined success). (Materialism and Consumer Ethics: An Exploratory Study)
Obviously, besides cultural and historical differences in the tendency toward materialism, there are also in-dividual differences in the manifestations of material-ism. (Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World)
One of the foremost issues involving materialism that needs to be addressed is whether materialism is a pos-itive or a negative trait. (Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World)
Belk (1984b), for in-stance, found significant negative correlations between measures of envy, nongenerosity, and possessiveness and measures of satisfaction and happiness in life.
materialism will have a major impact in America, there is even greater demand in Asia and Europe for expensive cars, jewels, and vacations.( Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World)
Materialism can be viewed in terms of three broad theoretical frameworks: “(1) Biological: the acquisitive instinct; (2) Individual-centered: the functions possessions fulfill for individuals; and (3) Social constructionism possessions as material symbols of identity” (Dittmar and Pepper 1994, p. 23 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATUS CONSUMPTION AND MATERIALISM: A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF CHINESE, MEXICAN, AND AMERICAN STUDENTS
“the importance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions.” Materialists “judge their own and others’ success by the number and quality of possessions accumulated” (THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATUS CONSUMPTION AND MATERIALISM: A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF CHINESE, MEXICAN, AND AMERICAN STUDENTS)
The importance a consumer attaches to worldly posses-sions. At the highest levels of materialism, such posses-sions assume a central place in a person’s life and are believed to provide the greatest sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. (Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World)
Given this widespread concern with materialism, it is im-portantt o understandth e socializationp rocess thatl eads peo-ple to become more or less materialistic (Larsen, Sirgy, & Wright, 1999). Richins defines materialism as a personal value stressing the importance of owning material possessions. Richins divides materialism into three parts: centrality, happiness, and successA fourth trait, preservation, was addedi n subsequentc ross-culturals tudies of the materialism scale (Ger & Belk, 1996). Preservation is a tendency to make experiencest angiblet hroughs ouvenirsa ndp hotographs. Be-cause of its focus on materialism as a system of personality traits, Belk’s construct will be referred to as personality mate-rialism. (Personality and Values Based Materialism: Their Relationship and Origins)
Personal values materialism. Personal values mate-rialism was measured using the materialism scale of Richins and Dawson (1992). This measure consists of three subscales: (a) acquisition centrality, (b) happiness, and (c) success. (Personality and Values Based Materialism: Their Relationship and Origins)
Personality materialism. Personality materialism was measured using Ger and Belk’s (1996) revised material-ism scale. Theirc ross-culturals tudyo n materialismm odified and expanded some scale items from Belk’s (1985) original materialism scale. The modified personality materialism scale includes four subscales: (a) possessiveness, (b) nongenerosity, (c) envy, and (d) preservation (Personality and Values Based Materialism: Their Relationship and Origins)
An orientation which views material goods and money as important for personal happiness and social progress” (Ward and Wackman, 1971, p. 422). [Can economic socialization and maternal values predict materialistic attitudes in adolescents?]
The popular notion of materialism equates materialism with conspicuous consumption, in which product satisfaction is derived from audience reaction rather than utility in use. Not only are materialists viewed as “driven” to consume more, but they are also seen to focus on the consumption of “status goods’ (Fournier and Richins, 1991; Mason, 1981) or unique consumer products (Lynn and Harris, 1997). The popular notion of materialism also associates materialism with excessive status consciousness, condescension, envy, disregard of others and of social issues, self-centeredness, a lack of principles, possessiveness, insecurity, and interpersonal detachment (Fournier and Richins, 1991)
Materialism has been referred to as ”[t]he importance ascribed to the ownership and acquisition of material goods in achieving major life goals or desired state” (Richins & Dawson, 1992). In their research, Richins and Dawson (1992) and Richins, Mick, and Monroe (2004) proposed that individuals differ in the extent to which they display three different material values: success, centrality, and happiness. The definition of success is based on the assumption that people define both their own accomplishments, and the accomplishments of others, in terms of their possessions. Consequently, a failure to acquire possessions is seen as a failure to meet this ideal of success. Secondly, individuals who are low in materialism have an internal sense of self and central to their character may include meeting goals, pursuing hobbies, and building relationships with others. In contrast, those who are rated high in Materialism has been referred to as ”[t]he importance ascribed to the ownership and acquisition of material goods in achieving
major life goals or desired state” (Richins & Dawson, 1992). In their research, Richins and Dawson (1992) and Richins, Mick, and Monroe (2004) proposed that individuals differ in the extent to which they display three different material values: success, centrality,
and happiness. The definition of success is based on the assumption that people define both their own accomplishments, and the accomplishments of others, in terms of their possessions. Consequently, a failure to acquire possessions is seen as a failure to meet this ideal of success. Secondly, individuals who are low in materialism have an internal sense of self and central to their character may include meeting goals, pursuing hobbies, and building relationships with others. In contrast, those who are rated high in materialism define what is central to their life based on their possessions. The last domain of materialism, happiness, refers to the belief that possessions and their acquisition lead to happiness and life satisfaction (Richins & Dawson, 1992). [Material values are largely in the family: A twin study of genetic and environmental contributions to materialism]
Status symbol of products
One of the marketing strategies blamed for promoting materialism is actually concerned with the marketing of status products – conveying products as “status symbols” that signal a “high position” in society. However, a few empirical evidences examine this conjecture particularly in the South East Asian context. Thus, it is interesting to study how status brand strategy promotes materialism. [Impact of status brand strategy on materialism in Thailand]
Vigneron and Johnson (2004) studied the nature of perception about status products and found five primary factors. First factor, perceived conspicuousness refers to the status products that are considered as a signal of wealth because of expensive prices. Second factor, perceived uniqueness refers to the status products that can be owned only by a specific group of consumers, not by everyone. Third factor, perceived quality derived from the extreme care or the technical superiority when products are manufactured and or delivered. Fourth factor, perceived hedonism is the emotional desire that represents subjective intangible benefits such as aesthetics. Fifth factor, perceived extended self means that the status products can convey the owners’ identity by associating the symbolic meanings into the products.
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. Material values are investigated under the concept of materialism which is broadly defined as ”a set of centrally held beliefs about the importance of possessions in one’s life” (Richins & Dawson, 1992). [Values, materialism, and well-being: A study with Turkish university students]
Material possessions gain social meaning not only because they have instrumental use in sustaining and developing our daily lives but also because they function as symbols of identity, personality and self-expression. (Richins & Dawson, 1992) [Values, materialism, and well-being: A study with Turkish university students]
Although studies consistently have shown that compulsive buying and materialism are highly correlated (e.g., Dittmar, 2005a; Ridgway et al., 2008), researchers have also noted that females are more likely than males to engage in compulsive buying (e.g., Dittmar, 2005a; Shoham and Brencic, 2003). [Antecedents of materialism and compulsive buying]
Behavior of materialistic people
Fournier and Richins (1991) suggest that high materialism consumers pursue and obtain possessions in order to achieve a valued goal (e.g., self-affirmation). Therefore, when purchasing an item deemed a splurge purchase, high-materialism consumers should be more likely than low-materialism consumers to buy something that is readily visible to others in order to signal and affirm their own high-status and success. Richins (1994) suggests that highmaterialism consumers may value the pursuit of the acquisition more than the actual use of the good and, in addition, may also value goods for their ability to communicate success to others, as opposed to provide pleasure and enjoyment to the consumer. [Splurge purchases and materialism]
Individuals have a drive to evaluate their own opinions and abilities, which they satisfy by comparing themselves to others (write about social comparison) [Images of Success and the Preference for Luxury Brands]
Psychoanalysts have also discussed the motives behind two close correlates of materialism, namely envy and extravagance. The earliest sources of envy and adult attitudes toward property and meanness have been traced to the infant’s dissatisfaction with its relation with its mother (Klein, 1988), to sibling rivalry (Schoeck, 1969), or to an insecure mothering relationship (Winnicott, 1975). Extravagance, on the other hand, is related to neurotic states (Abraham, 1942). According to Bloom (1991), extravagance “is interpreted as a defiance against repressive influences. It may be the only gratification available to an otherwise repressed and immature person, fixated in early infantile anality” (p. 438). [Can economic socialization and maternal values predict materialistic attitudes in adolescents?]
In Goldberg and Gorn’s (1978) experiment, materialism was operationalized as a preference for toys over friends.[ The effects of television advertising on materialism, parent-child conflict, and unhappiness]
Material possessions gain social meaning not only because they have instrumental use in sustaining and developing our daily lives but also because they function as symbols of identity, personality and self-expression (Burroughs, Drews, & Hallman, 1991; Dittmar, 1992; Dittmar & Pepper, 1994; Kamptner, 1991). It has been argued, however, that post-industrial society
places a mistakenly broad emphasis on possessions by equating them with happiness (Belk, 1985; Fromm, 1976/1999). Recently, there is a growing concern that importance attached to material possessions, or materialism, is distracting individuals, especially the youth, from self-development and communal responsibilities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). Critiques of contemporary consumer society attack marketing and advertising, accusing such activities of pushing persons’ expectations high towards what may be called ‘affluenza’ (de Graaf, Wann, & Naylor, 2005), a mode of psychological discomfort resulting from felt deprivation and pursuit of more. It is suggested that materialism may get accentuated as consumer markets grow
toward a global model for social organization (Ahuvia & Wong, 2002; Haller, 2002). [Values, materialism, and well-being: A study with Turkishuniversity students]
Materialism and unhappiness
For instance, it has been argued that materialistic people consider objects as an important means to gain happiness (Sirgy, 1998). When the products fail to yield the promised state of happiness, disappointment, and unhappiness will follow (Richins, 1991). A second mediated hypothesis states that parental denial of children’s purchase requests causes unhappiness (path 3c). It is assumed that greater exposure to advertising causes children to make more purchase requests to their parents. When children do not receive the requested products, they may become disappointed, dissatisfied, and hence, unhappy (Atkin, 1980; Goldberg & Gorn, 1978; Sheikh &
Moleski, 1977). [An integrated model of consumer materialism: Can economic socialization and maternal values predict materialistic attitudes in adolescents?]
Another explanation for the direct advertising-unhappiness relationship has to do with the way in which products and brands are depicted in commercials. By using special camera and editing techniques (e.g., close-ups, moving images of toys that are unable to move by themselves), commercials can create unrealistic expectations regarding the performance and quality of products. It is assumed that young children are not yet capable of seeing these techniques as representations that are not entirely consistent with reality.
After the purchase, when the product does not meet the child’s expectations, the child becomes frustrated, dissatisfied, and unhappy (Atkin, 1980; Robertson, Rossiter, & Ward, 1985; Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977). [An integrated model of consumer materialism: Can economic socialization and maternal values predict materialistic attitudes in adolescents?]
Some scholars argue that materialistic people may appear to be less satisfied because they tend to set higher standards for their lives (Goldberg et al., 2003; Shaw, Leung, &Wallendorf, 2004). [Values, materialism, and well-being: A study with Turkish university students]
high levels of materialism are associated with low life satisfaction, low self-esteem, and poor interpersonal relationships (e.g. Kasser, 2002; Richins and Dawson, 1992). Ryan and Dziurawiec (2001) show that individuals high in materialism are less satisfied with their “life as a whole” and with specific “life domains” than are those low in materialism. Dittmar and Pepper (1994) investigate the socio-cultural influence of materialism on how people form social perceptions. They find that highly materialistic people show a strong tendency to judge others by the number and quality of their material goods.
Materialism is mostly considered unfavorable. Consumers who have a high materialism level are more likely to be selfcentered and less likely to perform pro-environmental activities (Tilikidou and Delistavrou, 2004). More materialistic people tend to have less satisfaction in life (Keng et al., 2000). Materialism level negatively correlates with ethical standards (Muncy and Eastman, 1998). Materialists focus on gaining possessions while ignoring other activities and people surrounding them (Richins and Dawson, 1992 cited in Muncy and Eastman, 1998). These findings imply that materialists pay more attention to earning and spending money and suffer from life-work imbalance thereby endangering their personal safety; they act unethically
affecting social safety. Similarly, Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) widely researched 19 published studies relating to materialism and subjective well-being and their findings significantly support the view that the higher materialistic individuals have lower well-being. Tatzel (2002) also found similar inverse relationship between materialism and well-being.
Antecedents of materialism
In the literature, there have been a number of attempts to identify the antecedents of materialistic attitudes, in terms of demographics, psychosocial factors, and also in terms of value orientations. One frequently studied demographic factor has been gender, which resulted in mixed results. In two different studies with primary to secondary school children, boys were found to be more materialistic than girls (Flouri, 2004; Goldberg et al., 2003). Kasser and Ryan (1993) showed that males placed greater importance on financial success than women. In a comparative study of undergraduate samples from three countries, Eastman, Fredenberger, Campbell, and Calvert (1997) revealed that males were more materialistic than females in the Chinese sample but they found no gender differences in Mexico and the USA. Other studies of teens, undergraduate
students, and youth revealed no significant gender differences in materialism (e.g. Christopher, Lasane, Troisi, & Park, 2007; Schaefer, Hermans, & Parker, 2004; Watson, 1998). Christopher, Marek, et al. (2004) studied another demographic factor, socioeconomic status, and found no correlation between materialism and participant SES, whereas Goldberg et al. (2003) have shown that more materialistic youths tended to be from families with lower income. Whether materialism among lower income groups acts as a motivator or a frustrator is still unclear (La Barbera & Gurhan, 1997). Research that approaches materialism from a psychosocial perspective, on the other hand, provides relatively consistent results. Evidence suggests that materialism is motivated by self-doubt (Chang & Arkin, 2002) and also by fear of negative
evaluation or social disapproval (Christopher & Schlenker, 2004). Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Denton (1997) argue that for the materialist, possessions serve as surrogates for inadequate interpersonal relationships. In an investigation of the effects of family structure on materialism, Roberts, Manolis, and Tanner (2006) have revealed that parental divorce increased the likelihood that adolescents associate happiness with materialism. Although the conclusions are limited in number, these findings suggest that individual’s relationship with his/her immediate environment might be better predictors of materialism than demographics such as age and gender. A third potential group of antecedents is values, major variables used as predictors in many domains of cross-cultural research. In this study, we emphasize value precursors of materialism, following the assertion that there is need for additional research on materialism with respect to other values such as family and community values (Gardarsdottir, Jankovic, & Dittmar, 2008). Materialism is usually seen as a defining element of the so-called Western culture (Eckersley, 2006) which
is typically more individualistic than collectivistic. If individualism is a factor associated with greater materialism, then it must follow that a collectivistic orientation will have an inverse relationship with materialism. It should be noted, however, that the above argument is more relevant for vertical individualism than for a broad, stereotypical definition of individualism.
Triandis and Gelfand (1998) define vertical individualism (VI) as persons’ motivation to become distinguished and acquire status, in competition with others. This is different from horizontal individualism (HI), which is an individual motivation to become unique and self-reliant but not necessarily emphasizing competition. These conceptualizations are based on Schwartz’s model (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990), the one we are using in this study, and they represent two different versions of openness values, combined either with self-enhancement values (VI) or with self-transcendence values (HI). Using a similar typology, Kilbourne, Grunhagen, and Foley (2005) tested the hypothesis that self-enhancement and openness values should be positively related to materialism values because of their emphasis on wealth, inequality and variety.
Analyzing data from university students in the USA, Canada, and Germany, the researchers have revealed that materialism can be best explained by self-enhancement values. The authors conclude that materialism is not just a pursuit of selfgratification but also a demonstration of mastery and control. In a recent study in Turkey, respondents scoring high on individuation
(the notion of autonomy akin to self-direction among Schwartz’s openness values) were found to be less materialistic, especially in the success dimension (Turan, 2007). Evidence also shows that materialistic individuals score high on sensation seeking but not necessarily high on openness to experience (Troisi, Christopher, & Marek, 2006). In summary, the link between individualism and materialism is not fully verified, at least for the autonomy aspect of individualism. Collectivism is a complex concept that involves embeddedness with the in-group, conformity to social norms, a sense of security, and respect for tradition. Evidence suggests that the hypothesized negative influence from collectivism onto materialism may not be well-founded either. It has been suggested that collectivistic societies may too exhibit higher levels of
materialism when the self is understood to include one’s family, and when ownership is perceived to provide status for the whole family (Ger & Belk, 1990). In the above-mentioned study by Turan (2007), those who showed more collectivistic orientation than individuation were found to score low on the happiness dimension of materialism but high on acquisition
centrality. A study on Korean immigrants in Canada has suggested that traditionalistic dispositions may be compatible with a materialistic orientation (Cleveland & Chang, 2009). It has been claimed in the Korean-Canadians case that the relationship between collectivism and materialism is mediated by acculturative stress. Turkey is also categorized as a relatively collectivist culture (Hofstede, 1980/2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). [Values, materialism, and well-being: A study with Turkish university students]
Segmented Materialism
materialism in adolescents is positively related to peer influence and is negatively related to satisfaction with one’s mother, religious service attendance, and economic socialization. [An integrated model of consumer materialism: Can economic socialization and maternal values predict materialistic attitudes in adolescents?]
Feelings associated with materialistic people
A total of 13 feelings were assessed and these included seven negative feelings (i.e., annoyed, irritated, frustrated, sad, disgusted, nervous, guilty) and six positive feelings (i.e., happy, hopeful, pleased, good, confident, impressed). Items were taken from the literature (Grace and O’Cass, 2004). [Splurge purchases and materialism]
Chaplin and John (2007) observe a negative relationship between self-esteem and materialism in adolescence, and they demonstrate that bolstering self-esteem significantly reduces measured levels of materialism among experimental subjects.[ Antecedents of materialism and compulsive buying]
Family and Materialism
Moore-Shay and Berchmans (1996) studied the role of the family environment in the development of shared consumption values and found that conflict between parents and children about consumption issues emerged as a key indicator of children’s materialistic tendencies and optimism, associated positively with a child’s level of materialism, and negatively with their general feeling of optimism, whereas children’s perceptions of their parents as incompetent financial managers significantly predicted children’s level of materialism. Rindfleisch et al. (1996) also explored the role of family structure in the development of materialistic attitudes and found that young adults reared in disrupted families (i.e., divorced families) exhibited higher levels of materialism than those reared in intact families. They showed that family disruption can have both direct and indirect influences in the development of materialistic attitudes in children. Directly, it may influence materialism because it prematurely expands children’s consumption roles and responsibilities and because it is associated with lack of positive reinforcers, such as parental guidance and adequate material support. Indirectly, young adults who have faced stressful life changes earlier in their lives often experience feelings of insecurity, “which they try to assuage by claiming ‘possession’ of persons or objects they can control” (Rindfleisch et al., 1997, p. 313). Taking this thesis several steps forward, Burroughs and Rindfleisch (1997) proposed that children and young adults may develop an enhanced level of materialism as a way of coping with the stresses associated with family disruption, suggesting that perhaps children from disrupted households may come to rely on certain “special” possessions to reduce stress by bridging the physical gap between themselves and an absentee parent. [An integrated model of consumer materialism: Can economic socialization and maternal values predict materialistic attitudes in adolescents?]
although early studies of consumer socialization have found that certain family communication environments promote the development of materialistic values (e.g., Moschis, 1985), there has been limited investigation of such influences outside the United States (Ryan and Dziurawiec, 2001).[Antecedents of materialism and compulsive buying]
Recent studies (Roberts et al., 2003; Rindfleisch et al., 1997) have linked the development of materialistic values and compulsive
behaviors in adolescence to family disruption events, such as divorce and the separation of parents, both directly as well as indirectly via family stressors. Numerous studies have demonstrated that family disruptions are stressful to children and impair their
self-esteem (e.g., Hill et al., 2001), and low self-esteem is a strong predictor of materialism (Chaplin and John, 2007; Belk, 1988).
Thus, the stress perspective of the life course model would predict that disruptive family events experienced during adolescence will
lead to increases in the prevalence of materialism (Hypothesis 1a) and compulsive buying (Hypothesis 1b) later in life. Furthermore,
the stress perspective suggests that the perceived stressfulness of these disruptive family events predict stronger materialistic values(Hypothesis 2a) and compulsive buying patterns (Hypothesis 2b) in early adulthood. [Antecedents of materialism and compulsive buying]
Peer group and Materialism
Materialism in particular seems to be associated with peer influence (e.g., Achenreiner, 1997;
Schroeder and Dugal, 1995), positive attitudes toward advertising (Yoon, 1995), and decreased
religiosity (e.g., Thornton, 1989). [An integrated model of consumer materialism: Can economic socialization and maternal values predict materialistic attitudes in adolescents?]
Mediating Role in materialism
money plays a huge sociological role on the social and cultural interactions of a society. [how do attitudes toward money impact vanity and materialism? – the case of young Chinese consumers]
Roberts and Jones (2001) did not directly measure materialism, but they do find that positive attitudes toward money as a tool of power and prestige (status) increases compulsive shopping, and that credit cards promote this association. Watson (2003) shows that highly materialistic people tend to have more favorable attitudes toward
borrowing money, to high credit card balances, to paying finance charges, and using installment credit, than their less materialistic counterparts. [Materialistic, brand engaged and status consuming consumers and clothing behaviors]
Advertising
Advertising also promotes a relationship between success, attractiveness, and happiness through the attainment of possessions (Pollay, 1986). [Material values are largely in the family: A twin study of genetic and environmental contributions to materialism]
Social Effects of advertising
Sandage and Leckenby (1980) argue that attitudes toward advertising in general tend to be more positive than attitudes toward actual advertisements, and that consumers are more critical towards the social effects rather than the economic effects of advertising. Beliefs and attitudes toward advertising have been predominantly investigated in developed market economies (Ford et al., 1990; Mittal, 1994). [Personal uses and perceived social and economic effects of advertising in Bulgaria and Romania]
Cultural Effects of advertising
Considering the influence of these global flows, Craig et al. (2009) observe that in today’s world, cultural products and lifestyles from the developed world are spreading across developing countries. This is the result of contact through traditional media such as TV and films, as well as through new media such as the internet, electronic social networking, blogs, etc. (Craig et al., 2009). This phenomenon, according to Craig et al. (2009), is changi
