IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v3y2008i5p371-388_2.html

A short form of the Maximization Scale: Factor structure, reliability and validity studies

Author

Listed:
  • Nenkov, Gergana Y.
  • Morrin, Maureen
  • Ward, Andrew
  • Schwartz, Barry
  • Hulland, John

Abstract

We conducted an analysis of the 13-item Maximization Scale (Schwartz et al., 2002) with the goal of establishing its factor structure, reliability and validity. We also investigated the psychometric properties of several proposed refined versions of the scale. Four sets of analyses are reported. The first analysis confirms the 3-part factor structure of the scale and assesses its reliability. The second analysis identifies those items that do not perform well on the basis of internal, external, and judgmental criteria, and develops three shorter versions of the scale. In the third analysis, the three refined versions of the scale are cross-validated to confirm dimensionality, reliability, and validity. The fourth analysis uses an experiment in an investment decision making context to assess the reliability and nomological validity of the refined scales. These analyses lead us to conclude that a shorter, 6-item Maximization Scale performs best and should be used by future researchers. It is hoped that clarification of the conceptual underpinnings of the maximization construct and development of a refined scale will enhance its use among researchers across several of the social science disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Nenkov, Gergana Y. & Morrin, Maureen & Ward, Andrew & Schwartz, Barry & Hulland, John, 2008. "A short form of the Maximization Scale: Factor structure, reliability and validity studies," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(5), pages 371-388, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:5:p:371-388_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500000395/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yeganloo, A. & Moran, C. & Jafri, J., 2025. "Let Me Think About It: Evidence of Choice Deprivation, Not Overload, in Charitable Giving," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2554, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    2. Volkan Doğan & Enis Yakut & Selin Göral Nazlıoğlu & Ali Emre Aydın & Bahadır Ayar & Derya Yalçın Doğan, 2025. "Why Are Maximizers More Vulnerable to Fear of Missing Out? Exploring the Link Between Maximization and Fear of Missing Out Through Variety-Seeking," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(3), pages 21582440251, September.
    3. Elena Higueras‐Castillo & Francisco Liébana‐Cabanillas & Manuel Alonso Dos Santos & Katrin Zulauf & Ralf Wagner, 2024. "Do you believe it? Green advertising skepticism and perceived value in buying electric vehicles," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 4671-4685, October.
    4. Olivier Toubia & George Z. Gui & Tianyi Peng & Daniel J. Merlau & Ang Li & Haozhe Chen, 2025. "Twin-2K-500: A dataset for building digital twins of over 2,000 people based on their answers to over 500 questions," Papers 2505.17479, arXiv.org.
    5. Christopher Funke & Caroline Rothert-Schnell & Gianfranco Walsh & Federico Mangiò & Giuseppe Pedeliento & Ikuo Takahashi, 2026. "The digital stress scale: cross-cultural application, validation, and development of a short scale," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1229-1265, April.
    6. Mohd Rizuan Abdul Kadir & Abdul rahim saleh Ibrahim AlBalushi & Sarfaraz Javed, 2025. "Institutional Pressure and Business Sustainable Performance: Does Environmental Management Accounting Matter?," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 14(2), pages 207-219, July.
    7. Olivier Toubia & George Z. Gui & Tianyi Peng & Daniel J. Merlau & Ang Li & Haozhe Chen, 2025. "Database Report: Twin-2K-500: A Data Set for Building Digital Twins of over 2,000 People Based on Their Answers to over 500 Questions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 1446-1455, November.

    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:3:y:2008:i:5:p:371-388_2. 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.