IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v7y2012i5p644-658_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An item response theory and factor analytic examination of two prominent maximizing tendency scales

Author

Listed:
  • Weinhardt, Justin M.
  • Morse, Brendan J.
  • Chimeli, Janna
  • Fisher, Jamie

Abstract

The current study examines the construct validity of the Maximization Scale (MS; Schwartz et al., 2002) and the Maximization Tendency Scale (MTS; Diab et al., 2008) as well as the nomological net of the maximizing construct. We find that both scales of maximizing suffer psychometrically, especially in their proposed dimensionality. Using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) we identify and remove three problematic items from the MTS and six problematic items from the MS. Additionally, we find that the MS appears to be measuring difficulty and restlessness with the search for the best alternative, whereas the MTS is more focused on the search for the best option, regardless of choice difficulty. We then examined these revised scales in relation to other psychological constructs in the nomological net for maximizing and found that maximizers may not be unhappy but are generally distressed in the decision-making context. Finally, we suggest that future maximizng research use revised form of the MTS that seems to us to be most consistent with the original concept of maximizing/satisficing.

Suggested Citation

  • Weinhardt, Justin M. & Morse, Brendan J. & Chimeli, Janna & Fisher, Jamie, 2012. "An item response theory and factor analytic examination of two prominent maximizing tendency scales," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(5), pages 644-658, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:5:p:644-658_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500006367/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:5:p:644-658_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.