Frugality Scale (FRUG)

1. Abstract

The Frugality Scale (FRUG), developed by consumer behavior researchers John L. Lastovicka, Lance A. Bettencourt, Renee Shaw Hughner, and Ronald J. Kuntze (1999), represents the definitive psychometric instrument designed to assess consumer frugality as a unidimensional lifestyle trait. Defining frugality as a unidimensional consumer lifestyle trait characterized by the degree to which consumers are both restrained in acquiring goods and services and resourceful in using economic goods and services to achieve longer-term goals, the scale departs from traditional conceptualizations that conflated frugality with deprivation, stinginess, or simple economic necessity. The instrument comprises eight self-report items evaluated on an authentic 6-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (“Definitely Disagree”) to 6 (“Definitely Agree”).

Across an extensive validation program consisting of six distinct studies and seven heterogeneous samples—encompassing undergraduate cohorts, a nonstudent regional probability sample, and a specialized known-groups benchmark of subscribers to The Tightwad Gazette—the scale demonstrated robust psychometric properties. Internal consistency reliability estimates consistently range from Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.73 to α = 0.88, while individual standardized factor loadings consistently fall between 0.53 and 0.77. Confirmatory factor analyses confirm an invariant unidimensional structure across diverse consumer populations. Criterion and known-groups validity were affirmed by significant mean differences between self-identified frugal newsletter subscribers (M = 44.43) and general probability respondents (M = 40.43), as well as student samples (M = 36.00). Discriminant validity analyses confirm that frugality is conceptually and empirically distinct from compulsive buying (r = −0.25), materialism (r = −0.26), value consciousness (r = 0.54), price consciousness (r = 0.45), and susceptibility to interpersonal influence (r = −0.10), while remaining free from social desirability contamination.

2. Keywords

consumer frugality, psychometrics, Lastovicka, self-regulation, consumer behavior, tightwadism, voluntary simplicity, financial psychology, delayed gratification, scale validation, resourcefulness, money management

3. Authors

The Frugality Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by a collaborative research team in consumer psychology and marketing:

• John L. Lastovicka, Ph.D. – Professor Emeritus of Marketing, Department of Marketing, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. Primary research focus: consumer decision-making, lifestyle measurement, consumer self-control, and market research methodologies.
• Lance A. Bettencourt, Ph.D. – Formerly affiliated with the Department of Marketing, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA; currently an independent innovation strategy and service management consultant and author. Primary research focus: customer service behaviors, innovation strategy, and customer relationship management.
• Renee Shaw Hughner, Ph.D. – Associate Professor, Morrison School of Agribusiness, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ, USA. Primary research focus: consumer behavior regarding food, sustainable consumption, and health-related lifestyle decision processes.
• Ronald J. Kuntze, Ph.D. – Formerly affiliated with the John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, and the University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA. Primary research focus: consumer ethics, retail management, and marketing education.

Correspondence concerning the original development of the scale was directed to John L. Lastovicka at the Department of Marketing, Arizona State University.

4. Purpose

The primary objective of developing the Frugality Scale (FRUG) was to address a substantial theoretical and empirical gap in consumer psychology: the absence of a psychometrically rigorous, theoretically grounded measure of frugality that decoupled the construct from economic deprivation, pathologized stinginess, or narrow retail behaviors such as deal-seeking. Prior to 1999, psychological and marketing literature often operationalized penny-pinching through fragmented lenses, treating it either as an enforced consequence of low household income or as an antisocial manifestation of miserliness. Lastovicka and colleagues sought to reframe frugality as a positive, proactive lifestyle trait rooted in volitional self-restraint and resource management.

In modern market economies characterized by ubiquitous credit, aggressive commercial advertising, and consumer culture oriented toward immediate gratification, individual differences in self-control manifest distinctly in purchasing environments. The Frugality Scale measures how individuals balance short-term consumption temptations against overarching, long-term personal goals. It is designed to capture two fundamentally intertwined behavioral manifestations:

1. Restraint in Acquisition: The conscious discipline to defer gratification, forego unnecessary purchases, resist impulse buying, and search out price advantages before expending resources.
2. Resourcefulness in Product Usage: The post-acquisition extraction of maximum utility from owned goods, emphasizing conservation, maintenance, reuse, and the creative repurposing of possessions to prolong their lifecycle and curtail waste.

The scale serves diverse applications across clinical, economic, and behavioral disciplines. In consumer and financial counseling, clinicians and financial planners utilize the FRUG to assess a client’s dispositional capacity for budgeting, voluntary debt reduction, and retirement savings readiness. In ecological and sustainability research, the scale provides a standardized index of non-ideological conservationism, allowing scholars to examine how personal resourcefulness correlates with lower ecological footprints and waste mitigation. Within marketing strategy and economic modeling, the scale enables researchers to segment markets based on consumer responsiveness to price framing, durability claims, warranty appeals, and trade-in programs versus hedonic or status-driven product appeals.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the FRUG scale is consumer frugality, formally defined as a unidimensional consumer lifestyle trait characterized by the degree to which an individual exercises restraint in the acquisition of goods and services and demonstrates resourcefulness in using economic goods and services to achieve longer-term goals (Lastovicka et al., 1999). Understanding this construct requires articulating its internal components, cognitive-affective dynamics, and empirical boundaries relative to neighboring consumer traits.

Core Components of Frugality

Although the scale operates psychometrically as a single-factor, unidimensional instrument, the underlying construct integrates two complementary behavioral facets:

• Acquisition Restraint: Rather than viewing restraint as painful deprivation, frugal individuals experience psychological utility and affective satisfaction from saving money and deferring gratification. They display high impulse control when confronted with buying opportunities, actively seeking promotions, waiting for sales, and deliberately interrogating whether an item is genuinely necessary prior to purchase.
• Resource Conservation and Maintenance: Frugality extends beyond the point of transaction into the stewardship of possessions. It entails maintaining items to extend their operational lifespan, recognizing the latent utility in everyday objects that others might prematurely discard, and taking preventive care of physical property to avoid replacement costs.

Theoretical and Construct Boundaries

To establish construct validity, Lastovicka et al. delineated frugality from adjacent financial and personality constructs:

• Frugality vs. Tightwadism and Miserliness: As later elaborated in behavioral economics (Rick, Cryder, & Loewenstein, 2008), “tightwads” experience an acute, anticipatory emotional pain when paying for goods, which prevents them from spending money even when spending is rational and desired. In contrast, the frugal consumer does not necessarily experience irrational pain upon spending; rather, they experience positive hedonic satisfaction from saving money, exercising discipline, and maximizing value. Miserliness involves hoarding wealth antisocially, whereas frugality operates as a disciplined, purposeful lifestyle choice often pursued in service of family welfare, financial independence, or ethical stewardship.
• Frugality vs. Value Consciousness and Price Consciousness: Value consciousness (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, & Netemeyer, 1993) reflects a consumer’s concern for paying low prices relative to the quality received (a price-quality trade-off). Price consciousness is narrower, focusing primarily on paying the absolute lowest price. Frugality subsumes elements of both but transcends them: price and value consciousness center entirely on transactional shopping behaviors, whereas frugality incorporates post-purchase usage, maintenance of possessions, and voluntary deferral of acquisition altogether.
• Frugality vs. Materialism: Materialism (Richins & Dawson, 1992) positions acquisitions and physical possessions as central to personal happiness, success, and identity projection. Frugality correlates negatively with materialism because frugal individuals decouple their self-esteem from conspicuous acquisition, prioritizing functional utility and financial self-sufficiency over outward status display.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Frugality Scale draws heavily upon self-regulation theory (Bandura, 1991; Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994), intertemporal choice models, and lifestyle segmentation theory in consumer psychology.

Self-Regulation and Delayed Gratification

At its theoretical core, frugality represents an institutionalized pattern of executive self-control applied to market resources. According to self-regulation models, human action is directed by personal standards, self-monitoring of behavior, affective self-evaluation, and the capacity to suppress dominant, immediate impulses in favor of higher-order distal goals. In consumer environments, the default pull is toward immediate consumption—fueled by sensory stimuli, aggressive marketing, and the instant gratification of purchase. Frugality operates as a chronic self-regulatory orientation wherein an individual monitors spending behavior, actively evaluates potential purchases against internal standards of necessity, and derives positive self-reinforcement (“saving money on purchases gives me a lot of satisfaction”) from exercising restraint.

This dynamic aligns with classic psychological paradigms of delayed gratification (e.g., Mischel’s delay of gratification paradigm). Frugal consumers exhibit a low subjective discount rate for future rewards: waiting for an item to go on sale or maintaining an existing asset is perceived as significantly more advantageous than the fleeting pleasure of an immediate impulse transaction.

Resource Allocation and Lifestyle Theory

Lastovicka et al. integrated economic theories of resource allocation with sociological conceptualizations of lifestyle. Rather than conceptualizing personality as broad, abstract traits (such as the Big Five), consumer lifestyle traits operate at a middle level of abstraction, linking core psychological values to concrete consumption behaviors. Frugality operates as a generalized lifestyle orientation toward economic inputs: time, labor, and capital are husbanded deliberately. Under this framework, frugality is not treated as a poverty-induced coping strategy, but as a proactive, autonomous consumer philosophy wherein efficiency and conservation are intrinsically valued end-states.

7. Validity

The psychometric validation of the Frugality Scale was conducted across six comprehensive empirical studies encompassing seven distinct samples (totaling over 1,500 participants), establishing exemplary construct, criterion, known-groups, convergent, and discriminant validity.

Known-Groups Validity

To demonstrate that the FRUG scale accurately detects real-world differences in frugal living, Lastovicka et al. implemented a known-groups design comparing:

• A national random sample of subscribers to The Tightwad Gazette (a prominent newsletter dedicated to extreme thrift, resourceful household management, and debt-free living).
• A regional probability sample drawn from general consumer households.
• An undergraduate university student sample.

The empirical results demonstrated marked, statistically significant differences across cohorts. Tightwad Gazette subscribers exhibited the highest mean frugality scores (M = 44.43, SD = 3.82 on a 48-point theoretical maximum). The general probability sample scored significantly lower (M = 40.43, SD = 5.21; t = 8.12, p < .001), while the student sample—typically exhibiting lower financial autonomy and differing lifestyle priorities—demonstrated substantially lower scores (M = 36.00, SD = 6.10). This stepwise differentiation provided decisive known-groups criterion validation.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To confirm that the scale measured its intended construct without redundantly capturing related economic orientations or response biases, Lastovicka et al. administered a battery of established psychological instruments alongside the FRUG scale. The correlation matrix confirmed precise theoretical alignment:

• Compulsive Buying Scale: Frugality correlated negatively with compulsive buying tendencies (r = −0.25, p < .01), verifying that high frugality protects against uncontrolled, pathological spending episodes.
• Materialism (Richins & Dawson): Frugality correlated negatively with the overarching materialism scale (r = −0.26, p < .01) and specifically with its acquisition-as-success dimension (r = −0.29), showing that frugal individuals do not define personal worth through accumulation.
• Value Consciousness & Price Consciousness: Moderate positive correlations were observed with value consciousness (r = 0.54, p < .001) and price consciousness (r = 0.45, p < .001). While related, these coefficients fall well below the standard threshold (r > 0.85) indicating construct redundancy, demonstrating that frugality shares variance with shopping thrift but encompasses an independent, broader lifestyle orientation.
• Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence: Frugality correlated negatively or near zero with consumer susceptibility to normative interpersonal influence (r = −0.10, p < .05), showing autonomy from peer consumption pressures.
• Social Desirability Bias: The scale was administered alongside the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Correlations between frugality and social desirability were statistically nonsignificant (r = 0.04 to 0.08), confirming that respondents do not inflate frugality scores merely to present themselves favorably.

8. Reliability

The Frugality Scale has repeatedly proven to be a highly reliable measurement device across varied populations, socioeconomic backgrounds, and cultural adaptations.

Internal Consistency

Across the seven validation samples reported by Lastovicka et al. (1999), the internal consistency of the 8-item instrument consistently met and exceeded rigorous psychometric thresholds:

• Study 2 (Scale Refinement Sample): Cronbach’s α = 0.73
• Study 3 (Undergraduate Cohort A): Cronbach’s α = 0.80
• Study 4 (Probability Sample of General Consumers): Cronbach’s α = 0.85
• Study 5 (Undergraduate Cohort B): Cronbach’s α = 0.88
• Study 6 (Known-Groups Sample – Tightwad Gazette Subscribers): Cronbach’s α = 0.77 (reflecting expected slight range restriction due to high homogeneity among extreme savers)

Subsequent independent replications in marketing and behavioral economics literature have routinely confirmed Cronbach’s alpha values between α = 0.78 and α = 0.86, with average inter-item correlations ranging between 0.32 and 0.48. These figures indicate a high degree of item cohesion without excessive item redundancy.

Temporal Stability

Test-retest reliability was assessed across a four-week interval using an independent student validation sample. The test-retest correlation coefficient was r = 0.84 (p < .001), indicating high temporal stability and confirming that the scale captures an enduring consumer lifestyle trait rather than a temporary, state-dependent financial mood.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensionality of the Frugality Scale was rigorously established through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) during the initial item pruning phase, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across multiple independent validation samples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial item pools comprising dozens of potential statements reflecting thrift, conservation, price tracking, and self-restraint were subjected to principal axis factoring with oblimin and varimax rotations. Across successive iterations, a single dominant eigenvalue emerged (accounting for over 42% to 49% of the total variance across datasets), with the scree plot demonstrating a distinct elbow following the first factor. Items exhibiting poor primary factor loadings (< 0.50), substantial cross-loadings on secondary situational factors, or excessive semantic overlap were pruned. This systematic elimination yielded the definitive 8-item unidimensional scale.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The single-factor measurement model was tested via CFA across multiple independent samples using maximum likelihood estimation. The standardized factor loadings across all eight items ranged consistently from 0.53 to 0.77:

• Item 1: λ = 0.53 – 0.62 (possession care saves money)
• Item 2: λ = 0.54 – 0.65 (utility in items normally thrown away)
• Item 3: λ = 0.67 – 0.75 (careful in how money is spent)
• Item 4: λ = 0.71 – 0.77 (discipline to get the most for money)
• Item 5: λ = 0.60 – 0.72 (willingness to wait to save money)
• Item 6: λ = 0.55 – 0.68 (waiting for items to go on sale)
• Item 7: λ = 0.64 – 0.74 (satisfaction from saving money)
• Item 8: λ = 0.68 – 0.76 (carefully searching for best purchase prices)

Model fit indices across the CFA studies confirmed that the single-factor structure provided an excellent fit to the empirical data. Fit metrics reported in the validation studies consistently met established cutoffs:

• Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) ≥ 0.94
• Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) ≥ 0.91
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ 0.93 to 0.96
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.051 to 0.062

Alternative two-factor models (e.g., attempting to separate acquisition restraint from product usage/maintenance) were formally tested but failed to produce a statistically significant improvement in chi-square relative to the loss of degrees of freedom. Consequently, the authors determined that consumer frugality is most parsimoniously and robustly operationalized as a unified, unidimensional construct.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Frugality Scale (FRUG)
• Authors: John L. Lastovicka, Lance A. Bettencourt, Renee Shaw Hughner, and Ronald J. Kuntze
• Publication Year: 1999
• Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computerized survey (Qualtrics, REDCap), or embedded marketing research module
• Item Count: 8 items
• Structure: Single-factor / Unidimensional construct
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Definitely Disagree
  • 2 = Generally Disagree
  • 3 = Moderately Disagree
  • 4 = Moderately Agree
  • 5 = Generally Agree
  • 6 = Definitely Agree
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 4 minutes
• Target Population: Adult consumers, university students, and financial planning clients (reading level: 8th grade equivalent or above)
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Reverse Scoring: Item 2 is negatively keyed in the published academic version (“There are many things that are normally thrown away that are of no use”) and must be reverse scored prior to index calculation: 1 becomes 6, 2 becomes 5, 3 becomes 4, 4 becomes 3, 5 becomes 2, and 6 becomes 1. If administering the positively phrased variant (“There are many things that are normally thrown away that are still quite useful”), no reverse scoring is performed.
  • Summed Scoring: All 8 item responses are summed, producing a total frugality score ranging from a minimum of 8 to a maximum of 48. Higher scores indicate greater levels of consumer frugality.
  • Mean Scoring: Alternatively, researchers may calculate the composite mean across the 8 items (sum divided by 8), producing a continuous index ranging from 1.00 to 6.00.
• Normative Reference Benchmarks:
  • Extreme Frugal / Known Groups (e.g., Tightwad Gazette subscribers): M ≈ 44.4 (SD ≈ 3.8)
  • General Consumer Population (Random Probability Sample): M ≈ 40.4 (SD ≈ 5.2)
  • Young Adult / Student Samples: M ≈ 36.0 (SD ≈ 6.1)

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Frugality Scale was originally published in 1999 in the peer-reviewed journal Journal of Consumer Research (Volume 26, Issue 1, pages 85–98), published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

• Academic and Non-Commercial Research Use: Under academic fair-use guidelines, the 8-item Frugality Scale is accessible without financial licensing fees for non-commercial scholarly research, university theses, dissertations, and academic studies. Researchers are expected to properly cite the foundational 1999 article in all resulting publications, reports, or presentations.
• Commercial and Proprietary Applications: For commercial consulting, proprietary corporate market research, product development software, or clinical commercial tools, users must consult copyright licensing policies managed by the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) / Marketplace or seek formal authorization through Oxford University Press Rights and Permissions.

12. References

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-083140-1.50006-2

Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S., & Kuntze, R. J. (1999). Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: Theory and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/209552

Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000208

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

Rick, S. I., Cryder, C. E., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Tightwads and spendthrifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 767–782. https://doi.org/10.1086/523285

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)