Material Values Scale — Short Forms (MVS-SF)

1. Abstract

The Material Values Scale — Short Forms (MVS-SF) comprises a suite of abbreviated psychometric instruments developed by Marsha L. Richins in 2004 to quantify individual differences in materialism as a multifaceted consumer value. Derived from the classic 18-item Material Values Scale originally formulated by Richins and Dawson (1992), the short forms were established to remediate response burden and optimize survey efficiency in large-scale empirical and cross-sectional consumer research. Constructed and evaluated across 15 diverse empirical data sets comprising 4,736 respondents and cross-validated in an independent national sample of 402 adults, the short forms consist of 15-item, 9-item, 6-item, and 3-item variants. The scale captures three foundational, interrelated dimensions of materialism: Success (judging one’s own and others’ achievement through material possessions), Centrality (placing the acquisition and possession of material goods at the center of one’s life), and Happiness (the pervasive conviction that goods and consumption are indispensable to personal well-being and life satisfaction).

Psychometric evaluations indicate that the 15-item and 9-item versions retain the robust structural characteristics and nomological network of the original 18-item instrument while exhibiting exemplary internal consistency (average Cronbach’s α = .86 for the 15-item form; α = .82 across developmental samples and α = .84 in cross-validation for the 9-item form). The 6-item version demonstrates adequate reliability (α = .75), whereas the ultra-brief 3-item version exhibits marginal reliability (α = .63) and is strongly cautioned against for general use. The 9-item short form is formally recommended by Richins as the optimal psychometric compromise between brevity, structural integrity, and criterion validity. Items are scored on a standardized 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), streamlining administration across academic, sociological, and consumer psychology investigations.

2. Keywords

Material Values Scale, MVS-SF, materialism, consumer behavior, acquisition centrality, success dimension, happiness dimension, consumer values, psychometrics, scale shortening, Marsha L. Richins

3. Authors

The short forms of the Material Values Scale were authored by:

• Marsha L. Richins, Ph.D.
  Professor Emerita of Marketing
  Trulaske College of Business, University of Missouri-Columbia
  Columbia, Missouri, United States.
  Recognized as a leading authority on consumer culture, materialism, consumer dissatisfaction, and post-purchase behavior.

The foundational full-length 18-item scale from which these short forms were derived was co-authored by:

• Scott Dawson, Ph.D.
  Professor Emeritus of Marketing and former Dean of the School of Business Administration
  Portland State University
  Portland, Oregon, United States.

4. Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Material Values Scale — Short Forms (MVS-SF) is to provide empirical researchers with a parsimonious, psychometrically rigorous measurement tool capable of evaluating personal materialism without incurring respondent fatigue, survey attrition, or excessive administration costs. In modern consumer research, market research surveys and sociological panel studies routinely evaluate complex structural models requiring dozens of distinct psychological constructs. In such contexts, an 18-item inventory dedicated solely to measuring material values often proves prohibitively lengthy, leading researchers to either adopt single-item proxy measures of dubious validity or to haphazardly delete items from the original scale without empirical justification.

To prevent arbitrary ad-hoc alterations, Richins (2004) conducted a comprehensive psychometric refinement process to systematically isolate subset configurations that maintain high fidelity to the original construct’s breadth and nomological coverage. The short forms measure individual variation in the degree to which individuals view material possessions as essential barometers of human value, life happiness, and personal focus. In research applications, the scale functions as an indispensable predictor and outcome variable across investigations into subjective well-being, hedonic consumption, debt accumulation, credit card misuse, environmental sustainability, pro-social behavior, and compulsive buying disorder.

Beyond consumer psychology, the MVS-SF is utilized in clinical, developmental, and sociological contexts. Clinical researchers deploy the instrument to examine maladaptive coping mechanisms where individuals substitute interpersonal intimacy with commercial acquisition. Sociologists and developmental psychologists employ the short forms in longitudinal tracking of cultural generational shifts, youth socialization within market economies, and the psychological impact of digital advertising and social media comparison on the emergence of materialistic aspirations.

5. Psychological Construct

Materialism has been conceptualized in psychological literature along two distinct trajectories: as a personality trait constellation (e.g., Belk, 1985) and as an enduring, centrally held value system regarding the relative importance of possessions and money in one’s life (Richins & Dawson, 1992). The Material Values Scale operates strictly within the value-system conceptualization, defining materialism as a centrally held consumer value that guides consumption choices and dictates the prioritization of life goals. The construct is hierarchically structured and comprised of three core dimensions:

1. Success (Possessions as Indicators of Success)

The Success dimension measures the tendency to assess one’s own achievements and the worth of other individuals through the lens of material goods and property. Highly materialistic individuals utilize owned commodities—such as prestige automobiles, designer clothing, architectural luxury, and electronic hardware—as social status signals and visible evidence of competence, competence recognition, and social superiority. Conversely, low-scoring individuals base judgments of personal and peer success on non-material criteria, including moral character, interpersonal accomplishments, relational depth, artistic contributions, or intellectual growth. An illustrative operationalization of this facet is found in items reflecting admiration for individuals possessing expensive homes, cars, and clothing, or the belief that the things an individual owns indicate personal success.

2. Acquisition Centrality (Acquisition as the Center of Life)

The Centrality dimension reflects the extent to which the acquisition and possession of consumer goods function as the central organizing principle of an individual’s day-to-day life. For individuals with elevated acquisition centrality, consumption is not an occasional instrumental necessity; it is a primary leisure pursuit, an affective diversion, and a fundamental lifestyle orientation. Possessions dominate mental real estate, resource allocation, and aspirational planning. Individuals characterized by low centrality, by contrast, practice voluntary simplicity, prioritize experiential pursuits, or regard material possessions as utilitarian tools rather than anchors of personal identity. Representative items probe tendencies toward unneeded purchasing, preferences for lifestyle simplicity regarding possessions, and the subjective importance of ownership.

3. Happiness (Possessions as Essential to Well-Being)

The Happiness dimension captures the deeply entrenched cognitive expectation that acquiring and possessing material goods is the primary pathway to subjective happiness, psychological satisfaction, and emotional flourishing. High-materialism individuals operating under this conviction exhibit a perpetual hedonic treadmill: they believe that future acquisitions will resolve current life dissatisfactions, elevate emotional states, and confer personal peace. Concurrently, they experience profound distress or frustration when financial resources restrict their capacity to purchase desired goods. Low scorers on this dimension reject the premise that material wealth drives affective happiness, maintaining that personal contentment is derived from internal resources, human relationships, and experiential engagement. Scale items capture the pervasive belief that one’s life would be substantially improved or made happier by owning items not presently possessed.

6. Theoretical Framework

The MVS-SF is anchored in the broad traditions of values theory articulated by Milton Rokeach (1973) and Shalom Schwartz (1992). Rokeach defined a value as an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state. Within this framework, values are organized into hierarchical priorities that dictate behavioral decisions, attitudes, and ideological commitments across diverse situations.

Richins and Dawson (1992) applied this foundation to consumer behavior, positing that materialism constitutes a central organizing value within an individual’s personal value system. Rather than viewing materialism merely as an isolated personality quirk or an episodic desire for luxury, they conceptualized it as a pervasive master value that modulates the priority given to alternative life objectives (such as family, close relationships, professional mastery, or spiritual growth). In this model, material values directly influence three domains of consumer reality: the nature of desires (e.g., instrumental versus terminal materialism), evaluative criteria (evaluating self and others through ownership), and behavioral choices (allocating time and discretionary funds toward earning and shopping rather than prosocial, community, or relational endeavors).

Furthermore, the MVS-SF integrates insights from Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996). Self-Determination Theory draws a sharp distinction between intrinsic aspirations (e.g., personal growth, affiliation, community contribution) and extrinsic aspirations (e.g., financial success, image, fame). Materialism represents the operational apex of extrinsic goal orientation. Richins’ theoretical paradigm demonstrates that placing excessive psychological weight on extrinsic consumer markers systematically undermines the satisfaction of basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This dynamic explains why high scores across the MVS-SF dimensions consistently correlate negatively with subjective well-being, self-actualization, and life satisfaction, while correlating positively with depression, consumer anxiety, and neurosis.

7. Validity

The validation of the MVS short forms in Richins (2004) involved an extensive series of rigorous psychometric evaluations designed to ensure that data integrity, construct breadth, and criterion associations remained uncompromised relative to the full 18-item scale.

Construct and Factorial Validity

The structural integrity of the 15-, 9-, and 6-item short forms was confirmed using structural equation modeling across multiple independent samples. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated that the three-factor model (Success, Centrality, Happiness) provided acceptable to excellent fit across diverse samples. Crucially, the 9-item short form exhibited superior model fit compared to the original 18-item version, primarily due to the strategic removal of complex, multi-clause, or poorly performing reverse-worded items that had historically produced inflated error covariances.

Nomological and Convergent Validity

Richins evaluated the nomological network of the short forms against an array of theoretically linked constructs across 15 development samples and a dedicated national cross-validation sample ($N = 402$). Nomological validity was evaluated against:

• Belk’s Materialism Scales (1985): The MVS-SF short forms correlated substantially with Russell Belk’s subscales of Possessiveness ($r \approx .30$ to $.45$), Non-generosity ($r \approx .25$ to $.38$), and Envy ($r \approx .35$ to $.52$).
• Terminal Values (List of Values / Schwartz Value Survey): The short forms correlated positively with values favoring financial security, social recognition, and an exciting life, while exhibiting consistent negative correlations with warm relationships with others, sense of belonging, and spiritual fulfillment.
• Possession Meaning: High scorers on the MVS-SF short forms consistently ascribed value to their favorite possessions based on financial worth, status signaling, and public display rather than personal sentimentality, family history, or relational symbolism.
• Windfall Spending: In hypothetical windfall experiments (e.g., receiving an unexpected $20,000 inheritance), scores on the 15-item, 9-item, and 6-item scales strongly predicted the percentage of capital allocated to personal indulgence and luxury consumer \expenditures ($r = .28$ to $.35$, $p < .001$), while demonstrating significant negative correlations with charitable donations and savings.

Nomological correlations generated by the 9-item short form were statistically indistinguishable from those produced by the full 18-item instrument (correlations between the 9-item scale and criterion measures deviated by an average of less than $|.02|$ from the 18-item scale correlations), confirming that construct validity was fully preserved.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency of the Material Values Scale Short Forms was established using extensive cross-sample evaluations across 15 empirical studies totaling 4,736 respondents, alongside a formal cross-validation sample of 402 respondents.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Across the developmental and cross-validation data sets, the internal consistency benchmarks reported by Richins (2004) are as follows:

• 15-Item Form: Exhibited an average Cronbach’s α of .86 across the 15 developmental samples, ranging from .82 to .91. In the cross-validation sample, α was .87. Subscale reliabilities averaged .77 for Success, .74 for Centrality, and .76 for Happiness.
• 9-Item Form: Exhibited an average Cronbach’s α of .82 across the 15 developmental samples, ranging from .79 to .86. In the independent cross-validation sample, α reached .84. Subscale reliabilities were robust for three-item facets, averaging .74 (Success), .71 (Centrality), and .77 (Happiness).
• 6-Item Form: Demonstrated an average Cronbach’s α of .75 across samples and .76 in cross-validation. While psychometrically acceptable for broad exploratory surveys, its two-item subscales showed reduced stability.
• 3-Item Form: Demonstrated an average Cronbach’s α of .63 across samples and .64 in cross-validation. Due to internal consistency consistently falling beneath conventional psychometric thresholds (α < .70), this ultra-short version is explicitly discouraged for standalone assessment.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal stability evaluations of the MVS short forms indicate robust temporal reliability over 3-week to 6-week test-retest intervals ($r_{tt} = .82$ to $.88$ for the 15-item and 9-item forms), confirming that the short instruments measure enduring structural consumer values rather than transient situational affective states.

9. Factor Analysis

Richins (2004) employed both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood estimation to systematically evaluate the multidimensional architecture of the scale during item reduction.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis & Structural Diagnostics

The original 18-item MVS, while structurally sound, frequently exhibited localized points of strain in CFA models due to reverse-worded items that loaded weakly or displayed correlated measurement errors. In developing the short forms, items exhibiting high error variances, cross-loadings > .30, or weak standardized loadings (λ < .50) were sequentially eliminated.

For the optimal 9-item short form (comprising three balanced indicators per factor), CFA fit indices across the validation sample demonstrated superior structural performance compared to the 18-item model:

• Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI): .96 to .98 across samples (vs. .89 to .92 for the full 18-item instrument).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .95 to .97, comfortably exceeding the .90 and .95 benchmarks for well-fitting structural models.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values ranged between .042 and .058 (90% CI [.031, .068]), indicating close approximate fit to population covariance structures.
• Standardized Factor Loadings (λ): All standardized loadings for the 9-item form exceeded .60, with the majority falling between .68 and .84, confirming strong convergent validity at the latent indicator level.

Higher-Order Structural Model

Richins confirmed that both a three-factor correlated model and a second-order factor model (where an overarching general Materialism latent factor accounts for the shared variance among the first-order Success, Centrality, and Happiness dimensions) provide congruent and statistically sound representations of the data. Factor correlations among the three latent dimensions typically range between $r = .48$ and $r = .71$, supporting the standard empirical practice of summing or averaging items into an overall materialism index or examining the subdimensions independently depending on research objectives.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Material Values Scale — Short Forms (MVS-SF)
• Alternative Titles: Abbreviated Material Values Scale, Richins Short-Form Materialism Scale
• Construct Assessed: Materialism as a multi-dimensional consumer value
• Subscales:
  • Success: Possessions as indicators of personal accomplishment (3 to 5 items depending on form).
  • Centrality: Acquisition and ownership as the focal pursuit of life (2 to 5 items depending on form).
  • Happiness: The belief that goods and spending are essential for well-being (2 to 5 items depending on form).
• Instrument Formats & Configurations:
  • 15-Item Form: Comprehensive abbreviated inventory (Items 1 through 15).
  • 9-Item Form: Recommended optimal version; 3 items per subscale (Items 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13).
  • 6-Item Form: Exploratory short version; 2 items per subscale (Items 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12).
  • 3-Item Form: Ultra-brief version; 1 item per subscale (Items 1, 6, 11); not recommended by author due to low reliability (α = .63).
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree). (Note: Richins reversed the scoring direction in the short forms relative to the 1992 scale to align with standard psychometric conventions where higher numerical values represent greater agreement.)
• Scoring Procedure:
  • Items designated with (R) are reverse-scored prior to aggregation: 1 → 5, 2 → 4, 3 → 3, 4 → 2, 5 → 1.
  • Overall Materialism Score: Calculated by summing or averaging all completed items in the selected short-form variant.
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by averaging the valid items within the respective dimension. Using item averages (ranging from 1.0 to 5.0) is recommended to allow direct metric comparisons across short forms of differing lengths.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Material Values Scale Short Forms were formally published in 2004 in the Journal of Consumer Research by Dr. Marsha L. Richins. The scale is in the public academic domain for non-commercial educational, psychological, and scholarly scientific research purposes. No user licensing fees or formal administrative permissions are required from the author or copyright holder for academic deployment, provided appropriate scholarly citation is credited to the original validation article (Richins, 2004) and the foundational work (Richins & Dawson, 1992).

Commercial market research organizations, proprietary diagnostic platforms, or corporate entities intending to integrate the MVS-SF into commercial assessment suites should verify terms of commercial use with the copyright holder and publisher (Oxford University Press / Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.).

12. References

• 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
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.410
• Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223006
• Richins, M. L. (2004). The Material Values Scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/383436
• 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
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)