Materialism Values Scale (MVS)

1. Abstract

The Materialism Values Scale (MVS), developed by consumer behavior scholars Marsha L. Richins and Scott Dawson in 1992, represents the seminal and most widely utilized psychometric instrument designed to conceptualize and measure materialism as an individual-difference value orientation. Deviating from prior conceptualizations that treated materialism predominantly as a personality trait (e.g., Belk’s materialism scale assessing possessiveness, nongenerosity, and envy), Richins and Dawson grounded their formulation within values theory, defining materialism as an enduring consumer value system concerning the relative importance an individual accords to the acquisition and ownership of material possessions in the pursuit of desired end-states or life goals.

The full-scale instrument comprises 18 self-report items distributed across three conceptually distinct yet interrelated first-order dimensions: Centrality (the extent to which material acquisition and goods are positioned at the center of an individual’s life and day-to-day activities; 7 items), Happiness (the pervasive belief that well-being, life satisfaction, and psychological flourishing depend upon the possession of material objects; 5 items), and Success (the propensity to judge one’s own personal achievement and the life accomplishment of others according to the quantity, monetary value, and prestige of acquired assets; 6 items). Responses are captured using an authentic 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), incorporating eight strategically placed reverse-worded items to mitigate acquiescence bias.

Across extensive empirical evaluations, the MVS demonstrates robust internal consistency, with total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding .80 (typically .84 to .88 in the validation samples) and subscale reliabilities generally spanning between .71 and .83. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently substantiate the hypothesized three-factor hierarchical structure, while extensive validity assessments have demonstrated its convergent validity with spending inclinations, compulsive buying, voluntary simplicity, and subjective well-being deficits. The MVS remains an indispensable gold-standard tool across consumer psychology, economic psychology, marketing, sociological research, and clinical investigations examining hedonic treadmill dynamics, consumer well-being, and debt etiology.

2. Keywords

Materialism Values Scale, MVS, consumer values, Marsha Richins, Scott Dawson, centrality, happiness, success, psychometrics, consumer behavior, post-materialism, well-being

3. Authors

The Materialism Values Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Marsha L. Richins, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita of Marketing at the Trulaske College of Business, University of Missouri (Columbia, Missouri, USA). Dr. Richins is globally recognized for her pioneering contributions to consumer psychology, particularly regarding the psychological aspects of material possessions, interpersonal comparisons, media-induced dissatisfaction, and the nuanced dynamics of consumer emotions.
• Scott Dawson, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Marketing and former Dean of the School of Business Administration at Portland State University (Portland, Oregon, USA), as well as former Dean of the Orfalea College of Business at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly San Luis Obispo). Dr. Dawson’s scholarly portfolio encompasses consumer decision-making, ethical consumerism, voluntary simplicity, and value orientations.

Inquiries regarding the historical development, structural adaptation, and permission boundaries of the scale are typically directed to the seminal publications in the Journal of Consumer Research or via institutional academic communications at the University of Missouri Department of Marketing.

4. Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Materialism Values Scale is to provide an empirically sound, theoretically integrated measurement instrument that captures the multifaceted nature of materialism as a guiding life value. Prior to the early 1990s, the operationalization of materialism in the social sciences was fragmented and plagued by conceptual ambiguity. While early consumer researchers and economists treated materialism either as an aggregate macroeconomic indicator (e.g., national consumption levels) or as a dysfunctional clinical manifestation, psychometrically minded investigators struggled between two divergent paradigms: the behavioral/personality perspective and the values perspective.

Russell Belk’s foundational work in the 1980s conceptualized materialism primarily as a constellation of personality traits—specifically possessiveness, nongenerosity, envy, and later, tangibilization. While Belk’s scale generated valuable descriptive insights, personality traits often fail to capture the prescriptive, motivational, and goal-directed qualities of human life. Recognizing this fundamental limitation, Richins and Dawson posited that materialism is fundamentally a value—an organized set of enduring beliefs about the desirability of specific behaviors and ultimate end-states of existence, situated within the broader framework established by social psychologists such as Milton Rokeach and Shalom H. Schwartz.

The primary rationale for developing the MVS was therefore threefold:

1. Establishing Conceptual Clarity: To distinguish materialism from adjacent constructs such as economic prudence, brand consciousness, status consumption, or greed, grounding it specifically as a terminal and instrumental value orientation that dictates the role of consumer goods in life construction.
2. Validating Multi-Dimensionality: To empirically operationalize the three core dimensions universally identified in cultural, sociological, and philosophical discourses on materialism: the role of possessions as a lifestyle anchor (Centrality), the reliance on acquisitions to secure psychological well-being (Happiness), and the deployment of material display to benchmark social hierarchies (Success).
3. Facilitating Cross-Disciplinary Research: To equip researchers in consumer psychology, behavioral economics, clinical psychology, public policy, and environmental studies with a standardized, reliable, and valid scale capable of predicting meaningful real-world criteria—including personal savings deficits, high-risk consumer borrowing, compulsive buying disorder, subjective well-being shortfalls, and ecological depletion behaviors.

In empirical application, the MVS serves both descriptive and explanatory roles. In academic research, it enables scientists to track shifts in value orientations across generational cohorts, investigate how exposure to commercialized media and social networking platforms cultivates materialistic aspirations, and examine how materialism moderates or mediates the relationship between existential insecurity and interpersonal functioning. In clinical and counseling settings, the MVS is deployed by financial therapists, debt counselors, and cognitive-behavioral practitioners to identify maladaptive cognitive schemas—particularly irrational beliefs that acquisition can permanently resolve distress, existential void, or social inadequacy.

5. Psychological Construct

Materialism, as operationalized within the MVS, is conceptualized as an individual-difference construct representing a consumer value orientation wherein the acquisition and possession of material goods are positioned as primary organizing goals of daily living. Grounded in Rokeach’s value systems paradigm, values are enduring beliefs that specific modes of conduct or end-states are personally or socially preferable to opposing modes. Materialism occupies a prominent position within an individual’s personal value hierarchy, exerting systemic influences on the allocation of cognitive attention, financial resources, time, and interpersonal behaviors. The MVS delineates this value orientation into three interrelated psychological dimensions:

1. Acquisition Centrality (Centrality)

The Centrality dimension reflects the extent to which possessions, shopping, and the pursuit of goods occupy the structural core of an individual’s life. Highly materialistic individuals organize their daily routines, thoughts, and cognitive bandwidth around acquiring possessions. For such individuals, acquisition is not an incidental, utilitarian necessity required for biological maintenance or basic comfort; rather, it functions as a primary lifestyle anchor, an organizing theme, and a source of intrinsic engagement. The Centrality dimension captures an active consumption orientation, an affinity for luxury and non-practical expenditure, and a conscious rejection of voluntary simplicity. For example, a person high in Centrality views consumption activities—such as browsing online marketplaces, shopping in retail hubs, and planning upcoming purchases—as intrinsically enjoyable recreational pastimes rather than logistical obligations. Conversely, an individual low in Centrality adopts a functional or utilitarian stance toward possessions, maintaining that life is best simplified by curtailing material reliance and focusing psychological capital on non-material pursuits such as relationships, intellect, or spiritual exploration.

2. Acquisition as the Pursuit of Happiness (Happiness)

The Happiness subscale captures the foundational hedonic belief that material acquisitions are the quintessential conduits to subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and psychological contentment. Materialists high on this dimension operate under the cognitive expectation that acquiring additional, more expensive, or more prestigious goods will alleviate negative affective states, elevate their emotional baseline, and provide enduring fulfillment. This dimension directly operationalizes the popular sociological aphorism that “goods bring the good life.” Items on this subscale gauge both prospective optimism (e.g., the belief that one’s life would markedly improve if certain unpossessed items were acquired) and chronic dissatisfaction with one’s current resource endowment (e.g., experiencing pervasive distress or frustration over financial constraints that prevent consumption). Extensive psychological inquiry demonstrates that this dimension embodies the mechanism underlying the hedonic treadmill: because material possessions undergo rapid hedonic adaptation, the anticipated elevation in happiness remains transient, compelling the individual into perpetual cycles of renewed acquisition to stave off affective declines.

3. Possession-Defined Success (Success)

The Success dimension encompasses the evaluative and communicative function of material possessions, operationalizing the tendency to utilize physical goods, wealth indicators, and luxury artifacts as the primary metric for judging one’s own worth and the achievements of others. Rooted conceptually in Thorstein Veblen‘s sociological theory of conspicuous consumption, this dimension posits that material objects serve as communicative markers of competence, social standing, and prestige. High scorers on the Success dimension admire individuals who exhibit wealth through visible signifiers such as expensive automobiles, luxury apparel, and grand residences; simultaneously, they believe their personal belongings telegraph their own social trajectory and life efficacy. They place heavy psychological reliance on public consumption, seeking products capable of impressing peers, and feel uneasy when their public display does not communicate prosperity. In contrast, those low in this dimension evaluate success via intrinsic, non-monetary benchmarks—such as interpersonal relationship depth, moral integrity, intellectual accomplishment, or artistic self-realization—viewing material accumulation as an arbitrary or irrelevant indicator of human worth.

6. Theoretical Framework

The structural and conceptual foundation of the Materialism Values Scale is rooted in several interconnected theoretical paradigms within social psychology, sociology, and consumer behavior.

Values Theory (Rokeach and Schwartz)

The most direct theoretical anchor of the MVS is Milton Rokeach’s Value Theory (1973), later expanded by Shalom Schwartz (1992). Rokeach posited that an individual’s value system consists of a hierarchical organization of beliefs regarding preferable modes of conduct (instrumental values) and ultimate end-states of existence (terminal values). Richins and Dawson argued that materialism functions concurrently across both categories: it acts as a terminal value when the acquisition of goods is sought as an ultimate end-state (the belief that possessions are the essence of the good life, as captured in the Happiness dimension), and as an instrumental value when goods are deployed as behavioral tools to project status, signal efficacy, or establish identity (as captured in the Centrality and Success dimensions).

In Schwartz’s circumplex model of human values, materialism corresponds directly to the self-enhancement pole, which emphasizes power, prestige, achievement, and dominance over resources, positioned in direct structural conflict with self-transcendence (universalism, benevolence) and conservation values. The MVS reflects this antagonism: individuals whose value hierarchy prioritizes material acquisition systematically deprioritize prosocial, communitarian, and spiritual values, leading to demonstrable divergences in behavioral resource allocation.

Conspicuous Consumption and Symbolic Interactionism

The conceptualization of the Success dimension is directly informed by Thorstein Veblen’s (1899) classic sociological treatise, The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen articulated how, within industrial and post-industrial societies, wealth cannot simply be held; it must be conspicuously displayed through goods to earn and maintain social esteem, honorific status, and invidious distinction. Supplementing Veblenian economics, the sociological paradigm of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1959) posits that human actors interpret and interact with objects based on their shared social meanings. Possessions function as symbolic prostheses of the self—a dynamic Russell Belk termed the “extended self.” The MVS acknowledges that materialists rely extensively on these symbolic prostheses to negotiate social verification, reinforce identity boundaries, and signal belonging to desirable socio-economic strata.

Self-Determination Theory and Human Needs

Although the MVS was developed shortly before the full maturation of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) formulated by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, subsequent theoretical scholarship has harmonized the MVS with SDT principles (e.g., Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996; Grouzet et al., 2005). SDT delineates between intrinsic goals (autonomy, relatedness, competence) and extrinsic goals (financial success, image, fame). Within this framework, high MVS scores reflect an over-investment in extrinsic aspirations. Because extrinsic pursuits do not inherently satisfy basic psychological needs—and frequently crowd out interpersonal intimacy and autonomous self-expression—the pursuit of material values often precipitates what Tim Kasser termed the “high price of materialism”: elevated anxiety, depression, lower self-actualization, and depleted subjective well-being.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Materialism Values Scale has been exhaustively demonstrated across numerous studies spanning three decades of international consumer and psychological research. In their landmark 1992 validation study, Richins and Dawson subjected the 18 items to rigorous empirical screening, demonstrating exceptional construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Richins and Dawson (1992) established construct validity by evaluating the MVS across diverse adult and student samples, testing theoretically derived hypotheses concerning consumer behavior, financial orientations, and life satisfaction:

• Voluntary Simplicity: Scores on the MVS demonstrated significant negative correlations with voluntary simplicity behaviors and values ($r = -.32$ to $-.44, p < .001$), demonstrating that individuals dedicated to low-consumption lifestyles systematically score lower across all three MVS subscales.
• Spending Inclinations and Desired Income: When respondents were asked to allocate hypothetical financial windfalls, high MVS scorers allocated significantly higher proportions of money to personal spending and luxury goods, and dramatically smaller percentages to charitable contributions, savings, or gifts for family and friends. High scorers also reported substantially higher levels of desired annual income compared to their low-materialism counterparts.
• Compulsive and Impulsive Buying: Subsequent studies (e.g., Mowen, 2000; Ridgway et al., 2008) have demonstrated strong positive correlations between MVS scores and compulsive buying scales ($r$ typically ranging from .40 to .62), confirming that individuals who view goods as central to happiness and success exhibit impaired behavioral control over acquisition.

Discriminant Validity

The MVS demonstrates robust discriminant validity against potentially confounding psychological constructs. Richins and Dawson examined its differentiation from general self-esteem, locus of control, and social desirability bias. Social desirability correlations were found to be modest and negative ($r$ ranging between $-.12$ and $-.24$), demonstrating that while some respondents acknowledge the slight social stigma associated with overt greed, the MVS predominantly captures genuine variance in personal values rather than impression management artifacts. Furthermore, when contrasted with Belk’s (1985) trait-based materialism scale, the MVS exhibited moderate convergent overlap ($r = .40$ to $.55$) while demonstrating superior structural stability, clearer factor definitions, and significantly higher construct predictive power.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity (Well-Being Deficits)

Perhaps the most rigorously validated empirical pattern involving the MVS is its inverse relationship with subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and psychological health. Across dozens of replications (e.g., Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Kasser, 2002; Dittmar et al., 2014 meta-analysis), overall MVS scores consistently exhibit negative correlations with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), domain-specific satisfactions (with family, friendships, self-concept), and positive affect, while correlating positively with depression, perceived stress, and physical health complaints. Specifically, the Happiness subscale exhibits the strongest negative association with overall life satisfaction ($r$ often exceeding $-.35$), confirming the paradox that those who believe possessions bring happiness consistently report the lowest levels of psychological flourishing.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the Materialism Values Scale have been established across a wide spectrum of cross-sectional, longitudinal, and cross-cultural cohorts.

Internal Consistency

In the original scale development and validation studies across multiple independent samples totaling over 1,200 participants, Richins and Dawson (1992) documented strong internal consistency for the composite 18-item instrument and its constituent subscales:

• Full 18-item Scale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients consistently ranged from .84 to .88 across general consumer samples, well above the standard .70 threshold for psychometric acceptability.
• Success Subscale (6 items): Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .74 to .78.
• Centrality Subscale (7 items): Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .71 to .75.
• Happiness Subscale (5 items): Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .73 to .83.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across global populations—including North American, Western European, East Asian, and Latin American cohorts—have routinely confirmed these parameters. For instance, in Richins’ (2004) comprehensive reassessment, full-scale alphas remained robust at .86 (Sample 1), .87 (Sample 2), and .88 (Sample 3), with subscale internal consistencies consistently maintaining stability above .70.

Test-Retest Reliability

The temporal stability of the MVS supports its foundational theoretical premise: that materialism functions as an enduring value system rather than a fluctuating emotional or cognitive state. Richins and Dawson (1992) conducted test-retest assessments over a three-week interval, reporting stability coefficients of:

• Full Scale: $r_{tt} = .87$ ($p < .001$)
• Success Subscale: $r_{tt} = .82$
• Centrality Subscale: $r_{tt} = .83$
• Happiness Subscale: $r_{tt} = .86$

Longitudinal consumer investigations spanning several months to over two years (e.g., Kasser et al., 2014) continue to confirm moderate-to-high test-retest stability (test-retest correlations between .65 and .78 over 12-month periods), confirming that while values can gradually shift due to major life events, financial shocks, or focused interventions, they remain remarkably stable over adult lifespans.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Materialism Values Scale was developed through iterative exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and subsequently validated using rigorous confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) techniques.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale construction, Richins and Dawson initiated testing with an initial pool of over 120 candidate items derived from popular literature, philosophical discourses, and qualitative focus groups. Successive item reduction stages utilizing common factor analysis with oblique (Promax and Oblimin) rotations were deployed, reflecting the theoretical expectation that the underlying dimensions of materialism are correlated rather than orthogonal. The scree test and eigenvalue criteria ($lambda > 1.0$) converged upon a clear three-factor solution representing Success, Centrality, and Happiness. Items exhibiting cross-loadings greater than .30 on multiple factors, low primary factor loadings (< .40), or conceptual redundancies were systematically eliminated, yielding the final, parsimonious 18-item scale.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses, most notably documented in Richins (2004), tested competing structural representations of the MVS:

1. A single, unifactorial general materialism model.
2. A three-factor first-order uncorrelated (orthogonal) model.
3. A three-factor first-order correlated (oblique) model.
4. A second-order hierarchical model, wherein a overarching general materialism construct accounts for the covariance among the three first-order dimensions (Success, Centrality, and Happiness).

CFA results unequivocally demonstrate the superiority of the three-factor correlated and second-order hierarchical models over the unifactorial alternative. Across extensive testing (e.g., Richins, 2004; Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002), the second-order model demonstrates acceptable-to-good fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Routinely ranges between .91 and .96 in well-specified structural models.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically spans between .90 and .95.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently falls between .045 and .062 (with 90% confidence intervals bounded below .07).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Typically falls below .055.

Item factor loadings ($lambda$) are robust, with the majority of standardized loadings exceeding .55 and many surpassing .70 across their designated target constructs. Inter-factor correlations among the three latent dimensions are moderate to substantial (typically $r = .45$ to $.68$), confirming that while the subscales represent analytically distinct components of consumer value systems, they converge upon a common higher-order construct of general materialism.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Full Instrument Name: Materialism Values Scale (frequently abbreviated as MVS).
• Alternative / Abbreviated Versions: In 2004, Marsha L. Richins published validated short-form versions of the MVS, including a 15-item version, a widely used 9-item short form (3 items per subscale), and a 3-item ultra-short index designed for large-scale multi-construct consumer surveys. The original 18-item instrument remains the gold-standard specification.
• Test Type: Self-report psychological scale; multi-dimensional individual-difference value inventory.
• Target Population: General adolescent and adult populations (typically ages 16 and older); adapted versions have also been validated for children and youth.
• Administration Format: Standard paper-and-pencil or online digital survey formats; self-administered.
• Estimated Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 7 minutes for the full 18-item scale.
• Number of Items: 18 items distributed across three subscales:
  • Success Subscale: 6 items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
  • Centrality Subscale: 7 items (Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
  • Happiness Subscale: 5 items (Items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree).
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Reverse Scoring: Exactly 8 items are worded negatively to protect against acquiescence response bias and must be reverse-scored prior to calculating composite indices. These reverse-scored items are indicated by (R): Item 3, Item 6, Item 7, Item 8, Item 9, Item 13, Item 14, and Item 16.
  • Transformation Algorithm: For reverse-scored items, invert the numerical values: $1 \rightarrow 5$, $2 \rightarrow 4$, $3 \rightarrow 3$, $4 \rightarrow 2$, and $5 \rightarrow 1$ (or calculated via formula: $X_{\text{reversed}} = 6 – X_{\text{original}}$).
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated either by summing or averaging the items assigned to each subscale:
    • Success: Sum of items 1, 2, 3(R), 4, 5, 6(R) [Range: 6 to 30; or mean score 1.00 to 5.00].
    • Centrality: Sum of items 7(R), 8(R), 9(R), 10, 11, 12, 13(R) [Range: 7 to 35; or mean score 1.00 to 5.00].
    • Happiness: Sum of items 14(R), 15, 16(R), 17, 18 [Range: 5 to 25; or mean score 1.00 to 5.00].
  • Overall Materialism Score: Computed by summing all 18 items (after reversing items 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 16) to yield a raw composite score ranging from 18 to 90, or by taking the grand mean of all 18 items (range: 1.00 to 5.00). Higher scores uniformly denote higher levels of materialistic value orientation.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Publication: 1992 (with refined short-form variants published in 2004).
• Original Copyright Holders: The scale was published in the Journal of Consumer Research (Oxford University Press / University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.). Authors: Marsha L. Richins and Scott Dawson.
• Commercial Fees & Academic Accessibility: The Materialism Values Scale is widely considered an academic, open-access psychometric measurement instrument for non-commercial educational, scientific, and scholarly research purposes. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required for academic scholars, students, or institutional scientists utilizing the instrument for non-commercial investigations, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and bibliographic citation are maintained.
• Commercial Use Licensing: Commercial organizations, private market research enterprises, or consulting practitioners wishing to integrate the MVS into proprietary diagnostic toolkits, monetization platforms, or commercial brand audits are advised to contact the copyright holder (Journal of Consumer Research / Oxford University Press) and the primary author for formal commercial licensing terms.

12. References

Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1086/344429

Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Hurst, M., & Kasser, T. (2014). The relationship between materialism and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 879–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037409

Grouzet, F. M., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S., Ryan, R. M., Saunders, S., Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 800–816. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.800

Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3501.001.0001

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

Kasser, T., Rosenblum, K. L., Sameroff, A. J., Deci, E. L., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., Árnadóttir, O., Bond, R., Dittmar, H., & Hawks, N. (2014). Changes in materialism, changes in psychological well-being: Evidence from three longitudinal studies and an intervention experiment. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9371-4

Mowen, J. C. (2000). The 3M model of motivation and personality: Theory and empirical applications to consumer behavior. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6708-7

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

Ridgway, N. M., Kukar-Kinney, M., & Monroe, K. B. (2008). An expanded conceptualization and a new measure of compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1086/591108

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. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

13. Items of the Scale