Belk Materialism Scales (BELK-MAT)

Abstract

The Belk Materialism Scales (BELK-MAT), formulated by consumer behavior theorist Russell W. Belk in 1985, represent one of the foundational psychometric instruments designed to conceptualize and quantify materialism within personality and consumer psychology. Departing from macroeconomic formulations that treat materialism purely as aggregate consumption or economic orientation, Belk conceptualized materialism as a constellation of personality traits reflecting the importance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions. The original instrument comprises 24 self-report items distributed across three distinct yet theoretically interlinked subscales: Possessiveness (9 items), assessing the inclination to retain control or ownership over one’s possessions; Nongenerosity (7 items), measuring an unwillingness to share, give, or part with possessions; and Envy (8 items), indexing psychological displeasure, resentment, or covetousness triggered by the superior possessions or financial status of others. A fourth dimension, Preservation (or Tangibilization), was later identified in cross-cultural investigations by Ger and Belk (1990, 1996) to capture the tendency to materialize memories, experiences, and interpersonal connections through physical objects.

Psychometrically, the scale was initially validated across undergraduate student samples (n = 237) and broader adult populations (n = 338). Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for the aggregate 24-item composite range from 0.66 to 0.73, with individual subscale reliabilities demonstrating modest to good internal consistency: Possessiveness (α = 0.57–0.68), Nongenerosity (α = 0.58–0.72), and Envy (α = 0.64–0.80). Test-retest stability across a multi-week interval yielded coefficients of 0.87 for Possessiveness, 0.64 for Nongenerosity, and 0.70 for Envy. Criterion-related validity is robust: across multiple empirical paradigms, higher scores on the BELK-MAT significantly and consistently correlate negatively with subjective well-being, life satisfaction (r ≈ −0.24), and general happiness (r ≈ −0.26). Although subsequent psychometric instruments—most notably the Material Values Scale (MVS; Richins & Dawson, 1992)—reconceptualized materialism as an enduring value system, the BELK-MAT remains an indispensable instrument in clinical psychology, behavioral economics, and consumer culture theory when the primary theoretical objective is to isolate personality-level possessive, non-generous, and envious behavioral manifestations.

Keywords

Belk Materialism Scales, BELK-MAT, materialism, consumer psychology, possessiveness, nongenerosity, envy, extended self, subjective well-being, psychometrics, scale validation, consumer culture theory.

Authors

The scale was developed and introduced by Russell W. Belk, Ph.D., Kraft Foods Canada Chair in Marketing and Distinguished Research Professor of Consumer Behaviour at the Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada. Prior to his appointment at York University, Dr. Belk held distinguished faculty appointments at the University of Utah, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and visiting professorships worldwide. Widely acknowledged as one of the principal architects of modern consumer research and Consumer Culture Theory (CCT), Belk pioneered the integration of anthropological, psychoanalytic, and semiotic paradigms into consumer behavior research, most notably through his seminal formulation of the “Extended Self” (Belk, 1988).

Subsequent cross-cultural extensions and factor-analytic structural refinements of the scale were co-developed with Güliz Ger, Ph.D., Professor Emerita of Marketing at Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey, whose scholarship focuses on globalization, consumption patterns in emerging markets, and cultural dynamics of consumption.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Belk Materialism Scales (BELK-MAT) is to systematically assess the psychological traits that define a materialistic orientation within individual consumer personalities. Historically, social scientists struggled to differentiate between economic consumption as a rational necessity and materialism as a deep-seated personality orientation. Before Belk’s 1985 formulation, scholarship predominantly relied upon broad socioeconomic metrics or single-item survey queries that conflated income, expenditure levels, and consumer aspirations with psychological pathology or philosophical materialism.

Belk recognized that individuals with equivalent financial resources or consumption practices exhibit profoundly divergent psychological orientations toward their tangible property. Thus, the BELK-MAT was designed to serve several distinct theoretical, empirical, and practical applications:

• Deconstructing Materialism into Behavioral Traits: Rather than viewing materialism as an ideological worldview or simple brand consciousness, the scale operationalizes it as a tripartite personality structure composed of possessiveness, nongenerosity, and envy. This granular differentiation allows researchers to investigate whether negative life outcomes (such as diminished subjective well-being) stem from a general desire for goods or specifically from toxic interpersonal dynamics such as social comparison and resentment (envy) or hoarding tendencies (possessiveness).
• Evaluating Human Well-Being and Mental Health: A vital research application of the scale is in clinical and positive psychology. Decades of empirical studies using the BELK-MAT have examined the paradoxical “dark side” of the consumer society, demonstrating that individuals who score high on these traits consistently report lower psychological health, greater anxiety, impaired relational stability, and diminished life satisfaction.
• Investigating the ‘Extended Self’ and Object Attachment: In consumer psychology, the scale provides a quantifiable metric to evaluate how consumers integrate material items into their personal and social identities. High possessiveness scores, for instance, capture deep-seated anxieties regarding identity loss when possessions are threatened, damaged, or lost.
• Cross-Cultural and Societal Comparisons: By quantifying the trait-level dimensions of materialism, cross-cultural researchers can assess how modernization, industrialization, Western cultural hegemony, and market transitions influence personal values across distinct national contexts (such as comparisons between developing and developed post-industrial economies).

Psychological Construct

In Belk’s psychometric architecture, materialism is defined as “the importance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions. At the highest levels of materialism, such possessions assume a central place in a person’s life and are believed to provide the greatest sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction to the person” (Belk, 1984, 1985). Belk explicitly operationalized this construct not as a conscious philosophical allegiance or single cognitive belief, but as an overarching second-order construct manifested through three primary, intercorrelated first-order personality traits:

1. Possessiveness

Possessiveness refers to the psychological inclination to exercise, maintain, and retain control or exclusive ownership over one’s tangible and intangible possessions. Within Belk’s conceptual model, possessiveness is deeply entwined with feelings of security and personal agency. Possessions become tangible manifestations of the owner’s identity (the “extended self”). Consequently, a highly possessive individual exhibits a heightened preoccupation with maintaining personal ownership, resists losing physical custody of belongings, and derives comfort from physical proximity to items they own. For example, a possessive consumer experiences visceral distress when an everyday possession is borrowed, misplaced, or handled without permission, because the object functions psychologically as an externalized limb of their psychic architecture.

2. Nongenerosity

Nongenerosity reflects an unwillingness to share, lend, or bestow possessions and resources upon others. Unlike simple financial frugality—which focuses on preserving capital for strategic future utility—nongenerosity is an emotionally driven reluctance to see others enjoy or consume what belongs to the individual. Highly nongenerous individuals view sharing as an unacceptable surrender of personal dominance, control, or individual boundary. In interpersonal contexts, this trait manifests as extreme reluctance to loan personal books, tools, or vehicles, as well as an aversion to philanthropic donations, hospitality expenditures, or charitable contributions, accompanied by rationalizations that others are undeserving or careless.

3. Envy

Envy is operationalized as an emotional and cognitive displeasure, resentment, or ill-will experienced when confronted with the superior possessions, accolades, or material success of another individual. In Belk’s taxonomy, envy encompasses two simultaneous components: a desire to obtain the coveted possessions owned by others, and a latent wish that the other individual should forfeit or be deprived of those possessions (often termed malicious or hostile envy in contemporary psychometrics). Within materialistic consumers, envy fuels an endless cycle of social comparison: personal satisfaction is continuously undermined by the perception that peers or societal figures possess superior status markers, generating ongoing discontent and cognitive rumination.

4. Preservation / Tangibilization (Extended Dimension)

In subsequent international investigations across Western and non-Western populations, Ger and Belk (1990, 1996) identified a fourth sub-trait: Preservation (sometimes labeled Tangibilization). This dimension reflects the behavioral habit of making intangible experiences, memories, and personal relationships concrete through physical artifacts, mementos, photographs, and souvenirs. While preservation possesses certain adaptive sentimental qualities, in highly materialistic individuals it degenerates into compulsive accumulation, where interpersonal connections and historical events have little experiential value unless anchored in tangible, physical objects.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundations of the BELK-MAT are situated at the intersection of psychoanalytic theory, personality psychology, and phenomenological consumer research. Belk drew heavily from multiple foundational frameworks to justify treating materialism as a personality trait constellation:

The Extended Self Theory

The most pervasive theoretical underpinning of the scale is Belk’s own construct of the Extended Self (Belk, 1988). Drawing on William James’s (1890) classic formulation of the “empirical self”—which posited that a person’s sense of self is composed of their body, psychic powers, clothes, family, home, and bank accounts—Belk argued that our possessions are not merely external tools, but active components of identity. When possessions are invested with psychic energy, an individual perceives external objects as extensions of the ego. High materialism, therefore, represents an over-extension of the self onto physical commodities, rendering the individual psychically vulnerable to property loss, degradation, or competitive displacement by other consumers.

Trait Theory vs. Human Values Paradigm

Psychometrically and conceptually, Belk aligned his instrument with classical trait theory (e.g., Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell). Trait theory posits that human behavior is guided by enduring, cross-situationally stable predispositions that direct cognitive appraisals and behavioral actions. Belk argued that possessiveness, nongenerosity, and envy operate as stable behavioral dispositions established early in life through childhood socialization, familial security, and cultural modeling.

This perspective stands in contrast to the later “Human Values” paradigm popularized by Milton Rokeach and Shalom Schwartz, which was adopted by Marsha Richins and Scott Dawson (1992) in their Material Values Scale (MVS). While Richins and Dawson treated materialism as a centrally held value regarding the role of acquisitions in defining success, happiness, and life centrality, Belk asserted that values are overly cognitive and susceptible to social desirability bias. Belk maintained that measuring visceral, trait-driven emotional reactions (e.g., irritation when someone borrows an item, or bitterness toward a neighbor’s new car) captures the underlying, unfiltered nature of materialism far more effectively.

Psychodynamic and Evolutionary Perspectives

Belk also integrated psychoanalytic concepts regarding object relations and anal-retentive personality archetypes (Freud, 1908; Fromm, 1976). In Erich Fromm’s distinction between the “Having” mode and the “Being” mode of human existence, individuals anchored in the Having mode derive their entire sense of existence from what they own. Belk’s possessiveness and nongenerosity subscales clearly map onto Fromm’s hoarding character orientation, wherein security is achieved not through authentic creative production, but through defensive material accumulation and territorial exclusion.

Validity

The construct validity of the BELK-MAT has been extensively evaluated across four decades of empirical consumer research, positive psychology, and behavioral economics:

Construct and Convergent Validity

In his initial validation studies across student (n = 237) and general adult samples (n = 338), Belk (1985) confirmed that the three subscales (possessiveness, nongenerosity, and envy) correlate positively with one another, supporting a coherent higher-order construct, though the intercorrelations are low to moderate (typically r = 0.20 to 0.45). This modest overlap supports the conceptual premise that these traits represent distinct, non-redundant facets of a materialistic orientation rather than identical psychological expressions.

Convergent validity was established by comparing BELK-MAT scores against external behavioral indicators, peer ratings, and established personality inventories. Individuals scoring high on the BELK-MAT display a heightened preference for status-signaling luxury goods, exhibit higher credit card indebtedness, express elevated brand loyalty to prestige labels, and show lower engagement in pro-environmental recycling or voluntary simplicity movements.

Criterion and Predictive Validity (The Well-Being Paradox)

One of the most profound psychometric achievements of the BELK-MAT is its predictive validity regarding subjective well-being (SWB). Across multiple empirical investigations (Belk, 1985; Dawson & Bamossy, 1991; Wright & Larsen, 1993), the composite materialism score and its individual subscales demonstrate statistically significant negative correlations with:

• General Happiness: r ≈ −0.26 (p < .001)
• Life Satisfaction: r ≈ −0.24 (p < .01)
• Self-Actualization and Self-Esteem: Consistent negative relationships across diverse cohorts.

The Envy subscale consistently demonstrates the strongest negative correlation with subjective well-being, confirming theoretical assertions that an orientation defined by chronic social comparison and status anxiety inherently undermines psychological flourishing.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by evaluating the BELK-MAT against social desirability scales (e.g., the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale) and general cognitive ability. While nongenerosity and envy are socially disapproved traits, empirical evaluations demonstrate that the BELK-MAT retains significant variance independent of social desirability biases, particularly when administered under conditions of guaranteed anonymity. Furthermore, discriminant analysis shows that possessiveness is psychometrically distinguishable from generalized conscientiousness, obsessive-compulsive traits, and clinical hoarding.

Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the BELK-MAT reveals a distinct reliability profile across diverse demographic cohorts and cultural settings:

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In the original 1985 development studies, Belk reported the following internal consistency coefficients across diverse sample groups:

• Overall 24-Item Composite Scale: α = 0.66 to 0.73
• Possessiveness Subscale (9 items): α = 0.57 to 0.68
• Nongenerosity Subscale (7 items): α = 0.58 to 0.72
• Envy Subscale (8 items): α = 0.64 to 0.80

While the Envy subscale regularly achieves conventional thresholds for psychometric acceptability (α ≥ 0.70), Possessiveness and Nongenerosity frequently demonstrate lower internal consistency figures (falling within the 0.55–0.68 range) in replicated studies. Psychometricians (e.g., Richins & Dawson, 1992) have noted that these lower alphas stem in part from the multidimensional behavioral breadth covered by the items, as well as the inclusion of several reverse-scored items that introduce cognitive processing noise among respondents.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments conducted on a subsample of respondents over a multi-week interval (n = 48; Belk, 1985) yielded substantial test-retest reliability coefficients:

• Possessiveness: r = 0.87 (p < .001)
• Nongenerosity: r = 0.64 (p < .001)
• Envy: r = 0.70 (p < .001)

These coefficients corroborate Belk’s central theoretical claim: that materialism manifests as a stable personality trait configuration rather than a fluctuating emotional state or temporary affective reaction to marketing stimuli.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the BELK-MAT has been the subject of extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA):

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In early developmental phases, principal components analyses with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations supported a three-factor solution corresponding to Possessiveness, Nongenerosity, and Envy. Factor loadings for primary items ranged between 0.35 and 0.72. However, several items exhibited noticeable cross-loadings or weak primary saturation (< 0.40), reflecting the complex behavioral facets of property disposal and social sharing. When Ger and Belk (1990) conducted cross-national factor analyses across 12 countries, an additional robust factor emerged: Preservation, which accounted for meaningful unique variance in non-Western and transitional economies.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Limitations

Subsequent psychometric scrutiny, particularly by Richins and Dawson (1992), subjected Belk’s 24-item three-factor model to rigorous structural equation modeling and CFA. These analyses revealed that while the tripartite model is theoretically compelling, goodness-of-fit indices for the full 24-item set frequently fell below modern psychometric standards (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] < 0.85; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] > 0.08). The primary psychometric weaknesses identified were:

• Complex item syntax and multi-barrelled phrasing in several reverse-coded items.
• Error covariance among items within the Possessiveness scale that address distinct object classes (e.g., personal souvenirs vs. utilitarian tools).
• Sample-dependent instability of factor structures when moving between adolescent, undergraduate, and mature adult populations.

These structural findings led Richins and Dawson to propose the Material Values Scale (MVS). Nevertheless, methodological scholars note that when items with low factor loadings are trimmed, a modified, short-form BELK-MAT achieves acceptable structural equation fit indices while preserving the unique, non-cognitive trait dynamics of possessiveness and interpersonal envy that value-based scales fail to capture.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The standard Belk Materialism Scales instrument is structured as follows:

• Construct Measured: Trait materialism manifested across sub-dimensions of possessiveness, nongenerosity, and envy.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 16 and older).
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or digital/online questionnaire.
• Total Item Count: 24 items in the standard scale (9 Possessiveness, 7 Nongenerosity, 8 Envy).
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Possessiveness: Items 1 through 9.
  • Nongenerosity: Items 10 through 16.
  • Envy: Items 17 through 24.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 = “Strongly Agree” (or “Agree”) to 5 = “Strongly Disagree” (or “Disagree”). (Note: Researchers frequently format this from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree; reverse coding must be aligned accordingly).
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Positively keyed items are scored such that higher values reflect higher materialism.
  • Items marked as reverse-scored (*) must have their values inverted prior to index compilation (e.g., on a 1-to-5 scale: 1 → 5, 2 → 4, 3 → 3, 4 → 2, 5 → 1).
  • Subscale scores are derived by calculating either the sum or the mean of their constituent items.
  • An aggregate Materialism composite score is obtained by summing or averaging all 24 items.
• Estimated Completion Time: 5 to 8 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Belk Materialism Scales were originally published in 1985 in the peer-reviewed academic article: “Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World”, published in the Journal of Consumer Research (Volume 12, Issue 3, pages 265–280). The copyright for the academic publication is held by the Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. (published by Oxford University Press).

The scale is widely recognized within academic circles as being available for non-commercial, educational, and scholarly research purposes without payment of licensing fees, provided that appropriate academic attribution and citation of Dr. Russell W. Belk and the Journal of Consumer Research are maintained. For commercial applications, commercial consumer profiling, or distribution within copyrighted commercial test batteries, researchers and practitioners must obtain formal permission from the publisher and copyright holders.

References

• Belk, R. W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to consumer materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measure of happiness. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 11, pp. 291–297). Association for Consumer Research. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6260/
• Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1086/208515
• Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
• Dawson, S., & Bamossy, G. (1991). If ‘we are what we have,’ what are we when we don’t have? An examination of psychological and situational correlates of materialism among Dutch consumers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 3(2), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v03n02_05
• Freud, S. (1908). Character and anal erotism. In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 9, pp. 167–176). Hogarth Press.
• Fromm, E. (1976). To Have or to Be? Harper & Row.
• Ger, G., & Belk, R. W. (1990). Measuring and comparing materialism cross-culturally. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 17, pp. 186–192). Association for Consumer Research. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/7010/
• Ger, G., & Belk, R. W. (1996). Cross-cultural differences in materialism. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(95)00035-6
• James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Company.
• Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1086/209304
• Wright, N. D., & Larsen, V. (1993). Materialism and life satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 6, 158–165.

Items of the Scale