Life Satisfaction, Self-Determination, and Consumption Adequacy at the Bottom of the Pyramid

Abstract

Concentration on consumption in material environments characterized by too much rather than too little creates important gaps in the understanding of how much of the earth’s population navigates the marketplace. This study investigates bottom-of-the-pyramid, or impoverished, consumers to better comprehend the relationship between societal poverty and individual life satisfaction as moderated by psychological need deprivation and described by self-determination theory. Data were gathered from more than 77,000 individuals in 51 of the world’s poorest countries. Using hierarchical linear models, results show that relatedness and autonomy improve poverty’s negative influence on life satisfaction, but only if basic life necessities are available, described as consumption adequacy. Findings illustrate that without consumption adequacy, psychological need fulfillment has little effect on the poverty–well-being relationship, emphasizing the hopelessness of individuals living in extreme poverty. Findings also suggest to researchers that impoverished consumers not only face different circumstances but actually respond to those circumstances in unique ways.

Shining light inside the tunnel: using photovoice as a strategy to define the needs for health promotion among families of low socioeconomic status

“…These basic needs have to be satisfied first before they can progress to higher-level needs, such as living a healthy life (Huitt, 2007; Van Lenthe et al, 2015). This finding is also in line with the Self-Determination Theory, where the fulfilment of the three primary psychological needs of relatedness, competence and autonomy forms the basis for people to feel satisfied with their lives and enhance their well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Martin & Hill, 2012). The participants in our study felt unable to make their decisions correspond to their basic needs, values and interests, did not feel competent to take control over their lives and lacked a sense of connection to others in their environment.…”

Bidirectional Dynamics of Materialism and Loneliness: Not Just a Vicious Cycle

“…Age was added (linear and curvilinear effects) because younger and older people appear to be somewhat lonelier than others (Cacioppo and Patrick 2008;Jylha 2004;Tornstam 1992) and more materialistic (Kasser 2002). Income and education were added because higher levels tend to improve subjective well-being (Martin and Hill 2012;Nickerson et al 2003) and perhaps reduce loneliness (Cacioppo et al 2010) and materialism (Ger and Belk 1996;Roberts and Clement 2007). Finally, relationship status, being single or not, was included as an important determinant of loneliness (Cacioppo and Patrick 2008;de Jong-Gierveld 1987) and potential factor in materialism (Lastovicka and Syrianni 2011;Rindfleisch et al 1997).…”

“…Experiencing relatedness is rewarding and positively associated with life satisfaction (Martin and Hill 2012). People experience loneliness when their need for relatedness is frustrated.…”

Sharing, Saving, and Living Well on Less: Supporting Social Connectedness to Mitigate Financial Hardship

“…Yet the scope of poverty extends far beyond a simple lack of money, into well-being, social mobility, social inclusion and psychological factors (Martin and Hill 2012). Money is present in many social transactions (Kaye et al 2014a).…”

“…Social capital and family structure, have been found to be strong predictors of upward mobility amongst the economically disadvantaged (Dillahunt 2014). For this reason, the issues of poverty and low income are argued to be deserving of a more social frame of reference in research than that which has been applied in the past (Martin and Hill 2012).…”