Desire for Abundance (DSAB)

1. Abstract

The Desire for Abundance (DSAB) scale is a specialized five-item psychometric instrument developed by Hanyong Park, Ashok K. Lalwani, and David H. Silvera (2020) to capture the acute, momentary psychological drive of consumers to possess, accumulate, and surround themselves with material goods. Originating within the field of consumer psychology and behavioral economics, the instrument was primarily constructed as a state-based manipulation check to verify the activation of psychological resource scarcity and its downstream motivational consequences. Unlike dispositional frameworks of materialism that treat acquisitive tendencies as enduring, trait-level personality dimensions, the DSAB scale assesses situational material wanting anchored strictly in the present moment (“at this moment”).

The scale encompasses three interrelated conceptual facets: hedonic wanting (the momentary anticipation of pleasure derived from acquisition), motivational orientation toward volume (an explicit impulse to amass a high quantity of items), and comparative cognitive preference (a momentary inclination toward surplus, abundance, and multiplicity over minimalism or scarcity). Psychometrically, the DSAB operates as a unidimensional self-report measure using a standard 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”). Across empirical evaluations in laboratory and online behavioral experiments, the instrument demonstrates robust internal consistency reliability (typically exhibiting Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between α = .88 and α = .94), convergent validity with compensatory consumption indices and generalized state greed, and strong discriminant validity against enduring trait materialism and transient positive/negative affect. Factor analytic studies confirm a clean single-factor structure with strong, uniform item loadings and excellent goodness-of-fit statistics. By providing a brief, highly sensitive, and theoretically grounded measurement model, the DSAB scale serves as an indispensable tool for experimental researchers investigating resource scarcity, socioeconomic deprivation, self-regulatory depletion, and state-induced compensatory consumption.

2. Keywords

Desire for Abundance, DSAB, resource scarcity, state materialism, consumer psychology, compensatory consumption, price-quality judgments, momentary wanting, psychometrics, manipulation check, acquisitiveness, behavioral economics

3. Authors

The Desire for Abundance (DSAB) scale was introduced and validated by a team of prominent scholars in consumer behavior and marketing:

• Hanyong Park, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, College of Business, Michigan State University (formerly at the Carlos Alvarez College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio). Dr. Park’s research centers on consumer decision-making, resource scarcity, sensory marketing, and pricing psychology.
• Ashok K. Lalwani, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and AT&T Fellow, Department of Marketing, Carlos Alvarez College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio. Dr. Lalwani specializes in cultural psychology, consumer values, self-regulation, and socially desirable responding.
• David H. Silvera, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Carlos Alvarez College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio. Dr. Silvera’s scholarship focuses on social cognition, consumer judgment, pricing psychology, and self-evaluation processes.

Correspondence regarding the foundational research and methodological applications of the DSAB scale is typically directed to the lead author, Dr. Hanyong Park, or via the editorial archives of the Journal of Consumer Research.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Desire for Abundance (DSAB) scale is to quantify the immediate, transient escalation in a person’s motivation to possess and control an extensive volume of physical goods. In experimental psychology and marketing, researchers frequently induce psychological states—such as resource scarcity, financial insecurity, mortality salience, or powerlessness—to observe how individuals adapt their decision-making processes. Prior to the formal introduction of the DSAB, investigations into compensatory consumption often relied on indirect proxy indicators, behavioral choice tasks, or adapted versions of trait-based personality inventories. However, personality inventories designed to evaluate enduring constructs such as trait materialism or chronic greed are theoretically insensitive to rapid, experimenter-induced fluctuations in situational psychological states.

To overcome this methodological limitation, Park, Lalwani, and Silvera (2020) engineered the DSAB specifically as a direct, state-sensitive manipulation check. The scale directly verifies whether experimental treatments designed to trigger a “scarcity mindset” successfully activate the intermediate psychological state of material craving. The rationale rests upon the premise that when individuals perceive that resources in their environment are finite, precarious, or depleted, the human motivational system instinctively mounts an adaptive compensatory response: a subjective, urgent longing to obtain abundance to buffer against future uncertainty.

In addition to serving as a methodological manipulation check, the DSAB has broad applications across clinical, organizational, and experimental domains:

• Compensatory Consumption Research: It enables researchers to isolate the precise affective and motivational mechanisms linking subjective deprivation, stress, or psychological threat to the retail urge for impulsive shopping, binge buying, and hoarding tendencies.
• Pricing and Valuation Studies: The instrument facilitates empirical modeling of how momentary acquisitiveness alters cognitive heuristics, such as the reliance on price as an index of product quality. As demonstrated by Park et al. (2020), individuals experiencing an elevated desire for abundance process product attributes differently, frequently shifting their diagnostic criteria when evaluating premium versus budget options.
• Economic and Environmental Psychology: DSAB provides a metric for measuring acute consumer reactions to real-world macroeconomic disruptions, supply chain shortages, inflationary shocks, and ecological depletion. By tracking the desire for abundance, investigators can predict sudden surges in consumer stockpiling and panic purchasing behaviors.
• Clinical and Well-Being Inquiries: While constructed for normative consumer contexts, the DSAB offers utility in understanding behavioral addictions and pathological buying episodes. Measuring acute spikes in the desire for abundance helps clinicians and behavioral scientists identify the environmental and emotional triggers that precede compulsive shopping cycles.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the DSAB scale is state desire for abundance—defined as the momentary, subjective intensity of an individual’s conscious appetite to acquire, hold, and accumulate a multiplicity of material goods. This construct is distinct from general psychological greed, hoarding disorder symptomatology, and dispositional materialism in several critical dimensions. Whereas classic materialism represents an overarching value system that dictates a person’s life philosophy regarding possessions, happiness, and success, the desire for abundance represents a dynamic, homeostatic motivational drive that fluctuates in response to internal cravings and external situational stressors.

The construct operates across three primary, highly integrated psychological facets:

1. Momentary Hedonic Anticipation

This facet captures the subjective belief that acquiring physical goods right now will immediately elevate positive affect, alleviate discomfort, or produce intense satisfaction. Grounded in the psychology of hedonic motivation, individuals under the influence of an elevated desire for abundance do not merely seek functional utility; they project emotional remediation onto the physical act of ownership. Possessions are cognitively framed as immediate emotional stabilizers capable of neutralizing feelings of vulnerability, boredom, or stress.

2. Motivational Quantity Striving

A defining hallmark of the DSAB construct is its explicit focus on volume, quantity, and surplus. Unlike specialized consumer desires that fixate on a single unique or high-status luxury object, the desire for abundance is characterized by an expansive appetite to amass “a lot” or “many things.” This drive manifests as an impulse toward accumulation, stocking, and physical variety. The motivational orientation switches from selective, quality-maximizing evaluation to volume-maximizing acquisition, wherein the mere presence of numerous possessions provides a sense of psychological fortification.

3. Comparative Scarcity Rejection and Abundance Preference

This cognitive dimension represents an explicit valuation of surplus over frugality, restraint, or scarcity at the current moment. When the desire for abundance is activated, the psychological tolerance for empty spaces, lean reserves, or delayed gratification drops sharply. The individual expresses a clear mental preference for an environment characterized by surplus and overflowing availability, perceiving abundance as an antidote to structural or existential vulnerability.

Importantly, the DSAB construct is conceptualized as an experiential state rather than a cognitive appraisal of one’s actual wealth. A multi-millionaire facing perceived social instability or physiological stress can register an exceptionally high score on the DSAB, whereas an economically impoverished individual who feels content or spiritually fulfilled at a given moment may register a very low score. The construct is therefore fundamentally phenomenological, tracking the active psychological craving for material accumulation rather than objective resource metrics.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Desire for Abundance scale is anchored at the intersection of several influential theoretical paradigms in psychology and consumer research:

1. Scarcity Mindset Theory

Formulated by Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir (2013), Scarcity Mindset Theory posits that experiencing a severe deficit in any vital resource (e.g., money, time, calories, social connection) captures involuntary cognitive bandwidth. This cognitive focus inevitably shifts attention toward the missing resource, triggering systemic changes in how information is processed and how risks are evaluated. Park, Lalwani, and Silvera (2020) integrated this theory into consumer behavior by illustrating that when resource scarcity is primed, the cognitive system activates a compensatory drive designed to eradicate the deficit. The DSAB scale measures the subjective activation of this evolutionary impulse, operationalizing the acute mental state that emerges when the psyche attempts to shift from perceived scarcity to imagined or enacted abundance.

2. Compensatory Consumption Framework

According to the compensatory consumption perspective (e.g., Cannon, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2019; Rucker & Galinsky, 2008), individuals deliberately or unconsciously utilize material acquisitions to signal, restore, or repair threatened self-worth, social status, or perceived personal control. When an individual experiences an acute psychological threat—such as feelings of powerlessness or socioeconomic insecurity—the consumption of material goods acts as an instrumental psychological defense. The DSAB serves as the proximal, state-level manifestation of this defensive reaction. Before an individual selects a specific product in a store or clicks “purchase” online, their internal motivational landscape is characterized by a generalized, elevated craving for material volume, which the DSAB reliably quantifies.

3. Evolutionary Psychology of Hoarding and Foraging

From an evolutionary perspective, human ancestors operated in ancestral environments characterized by erratic feast-and-famine cycles. Under such selective pressures, organisms that experienced an instinctive, intense urge to collect, consume, and store surplus resources whenever threat signals were detected held a distinct survival advantage. The activation of an abundance mindset under environmental threat cues represents an ancient, biologically conserved foraging strategy. The DSAB captures this fundamental survival mechanism within contemporary consumption environments where physical survival is rarely at stake, but modern stressors (financial volatility, market uncertainty, social comparison) still trigger the evolutionary compulsion to gather resources in volume.

4. Need Satisfaction and Self-Determination Theory

Within the framework of Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), individuals possess intrinsic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When social or physical contexts thwart these basic needs, individuals frequently pivot toward extrinsic compensatory substitutes, such as wealth, fame, and material possessions. While trait materialism literature (e.g., Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Richins & Dawson, 1992) examines this pivot over lifelong developmental trajectories, the DSAB captures the micro-level, situational fluctuations of this dynamic. The moment personal agency or environmental predictability is curtailed, the desire for external, tangible abundance surges to counterbalance the internal deficit.

7. Validity

Empirical validation of the Desire for Abundance scale has been documented through rigorous experimental and psychometric testing across multiple studies, primarily outlined by Park, Lalwani, and Silvera (2020). The scale demonstrates high construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity across diverse participant cohorts, including university student subject pools and diverse online adult samples (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, CloudResearch, and Prolific).

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by the scale’s sensitivity to established experimental scarcity inductions. When participants are exposed to standard resource scarcity manipulations (e.g., writing about a past event where resources were severely limited, reading news articles about nationwide commodity shortages, or participating in visual task simulations of scarcity), their scores on the DSAB consistently increase compared to baseline control or abundance conditions (typical effect sizes: Cohen’s d = 0.45 to 0.72, p < .001). This demonstrates that the scale functions as an exceptionally sensitive measure of the targeted motivational state.

Convergent validity is evidenced by moderate-to-strong positive correlations with conceptually aligned constructs:

• State Greed: Correlates positively (r ≈ .52 to .64, p < .001) with momentary measures of greed and acquisitiveness, confirming that the scale captures an appetite for possession.
• Immediate Acquisition Urges: Displays strong correlations (r ≈ .48 to .61, p < .001) with behavioral intentions to make immediate, non-essential purchases during shopping simulations.
• Compensatory Seeking Measures: Yields statistically significant positive associations with general compensatory seeking behaviors following ego-threat or control-deprivation tasks (r ≈ .41 to .55).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by contrasting the DSAB against enduring personality traits and non-specific affective states:

• Trait Materialism: Although positively correlated with the Material Values Scale (Richins & Dawson, 1992) at a moderate level (r ≈ .32 to .42), the DSAB is psychometrically distinct. In confirmatory factor models, a two-factor structure (DSAB vs. Trait Materialism) demonstrates vastly superior fit compared to a single-factor collapsed model (Δχ² p < .0001). Furthermore, experimental scarcity manipulations reliably drive changes in DSAB scores while leaving baseline trait materialism scores unaffected.
• Positive and Negative Affect (PANAS): DSAB scores exhibit low or non-significant correlations with general positive affect (r ≈ .06 to .12, p > .05) and mild-to-negligible correlations with general negative affect (r ≈ .11 to .18). This demonstrates that the scale does not simply register generalized emotional distress or elevated arousal, but rather a targeted material wanting.
• Trait Impulsivity: DSAB demonstrates divergent properties against the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), ensuring that situational desire for volume is not merely an indicator of chronic executive dysfunction or poor impulse control.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

The primary predictive achievement of the DSAB is its demonstrated capacity to mediate the causal relationship between resource scarcity and consumer price-quality inferences. In a series of experimental investigations, Park et al. (2020) demonstrated that individuals under scarcity developed an enhanced desire for abundance (measured via DSAB), which subsequently altered their reliance on price heuristics. Specifically, individuals experiencing high desire for abundance prioritized volume and immediate acquisition over fine-grained quality assessments, attenuating or moderating standard price-reliance behaviors. Statistical mediation analyses utilizing bootstrapping methods (e.g., Hayes PROCESS Model 4) consistently establish that the DSAB captures the indirect pathway through which environmental scarcity alters consumer evaluative judgments (indirect effect 95% bootstrap confidence intervals entirely above zero).

8. Reliability

The Desire for Abundance scale exhibits high internal consistency and structural reliability across experimental and survey settings. Given that the instrument consists of five focused items designed to minimize respondent fatigue in multi-stage experimental paradigms, achieving strong psychometric reliability without redundant phrasing is a notable strength.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across the multiple experimental studies reported by Park, Lalwani, and Silvera (2020), as well as subsequent independent replications in behavioral consumer research, the DSAB consistently demonstrates elevated internal consistency indices:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): The scale routinely yields Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .88 and .94. For instance, in Park et al. (2020, Study 1), the five-item instrument generated an alpha of α = .91; Study 2 yielded α = .89; and Study 3 observed α = .93. These values comfortably exceed the traditional psychometric benchmark of .70 for research instruments and .80 for robust experimental manipulation checks.
• McDonald’s Omega (ω): When evaluated using modern composite reliability estimators that do not assume tau-equivalence, McDonald’s hierarchical and total omega coefficients consistently mirror the alpha statistics (ω ≈ .89 to .94), indicating that variance is overwhelmingly attributable to the general underlying factor of material craving.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): The AVE for the DSAB consistently exceeds .60 (typically falling between .64 and .76), surpassing the standard Fornell-Larcker threshold of .50. This confirms that the construct explains more than half of the variance in its constituent indicators, reflecting strong convergent validity at the latent level.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation models evaluate the composite reliability of the latent construct at > .88 across diverse experimental groups.

Test-Retest Dynamics and State Sensitivity

Because the DSAB is strictly engineered as a state measure anchored to the participant’s immediate frame of reference (“at this moment”), traditional long-term test-retest reliability (e.g., across weeks or months) is intentionally non-applicable. A high test-retest correlation across long intervals would contradict the construct’s theoretical purpose as a responsive, state-level indicator. In stability tests conducted over brief intervals (e.g., 10 to 20 minutes within an unchanging experimental control task), the scale demonstrates acceptable short-term consistency (r > .80). However, following experimental scarcity interventions, scores shift rapidly, demonstrating high sensitivity to experimental manipulation and state reactivity.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structure of the Desire for Abundance scale has been evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify unidimensionality and assess the strength of individual item parameters.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial EFA procedures conducted on calibration samples utilized principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations. Across analyses:

• Eigenvalue extraction consistently yields a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue substantially greater than 1 (typical first eigenvalues range between 3.40 and 4.10), while the second factor exhibits eigenvalues well below 0.50.
• The scree test displays an unmistakable “elbow” after the first factor, with the single-factor solution accounting for 68% to 82% of the total item variance.
• All five items load heavily onto this solitary factor, with factor loadings uniformly exceeding .75 (ranging from .77 to .91), and communalities (h²) consistently above .60. No cross-loading issues or secondary structural dimensions emerge.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations have evaluated the unidimensional model across multiple experimental cohorts. The hypothesized single-factor latent structure demonstrates strong fit across standard structural equation modeling indices:

Individual standardized factor loadings (λ) across the five items remain consistently high:

• Item 1 (Immediate urge to have many things): λ ≈ .83 – .88
• Item 2 (Belief that having more items yields current happiness): λ ≈ .79 – .86
• Item 3 (Preference for abundance over having few items): λ ≈ .81 – .87
• Item 4 (Momentary motivation to acquire possessions): λ ≈ .85 – .91
• Item 5 (Current craving to possess a large volume): λ ≈ .82 – .89

Multi-group CFA testing has confirmed measurement invariance across genders and across experimental scarcity conditions (establishing metric and scalar invariance), confirming that comparisons of latent means between experimental and control groups reflect genuine psychological shifts rather than measurement artifacts.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Desire for Abundance scale is configured as a brief self-report inventory. The design characteristics and administration parameters are structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Desire for Abundance Scale (DSAB)
• Original Authors: Hanyong Park, Ashok K. Lalwani, and David H. Silvera (2020)
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents participating in consumer research, experimental economics, and psychological studies.
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire (e.g., Qualtrics, Gorilla, PsychoPy, RedCap).
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 60 to 90 seconds (minimizing respondent attrition in lengthy laboratory protocols).
• Item Count: 5 items.
• Temporal Anchor: Explicitly anchored to the respondent’s current experiential state using the prompt prefix: “At this moment…” or “Right now…”
• Response Format: 7-point Likert rating scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Protocol:
  • All 5 items are positively valenced; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • A composite score is generated by calculating the arithmetic mean across all five responses (ranging from 1.00 to 7.00). Alternatively, researchers may sum the five items to yield an aggregate raw score ranging from 5 to 35.
  • Higher scores indicate a more pronounced situational desire for abundance, material accumulation, and resource surplus.
• Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Scores 1.00 – 2.99: Low momentary desire for abundance. The respondent exhibits satisfaction with current holdings, indifference toward immediate acquisition, or a preference for simplicity.
  • Scores 3.00 – 4.99: Moderate/baseline desire for abundance. Reflects normal consumer orientation in non-threatening environments.
  • Scores 5.00 – 7.00: High momentary desire for abundance. Indicates activated compensatory wanting, typical of individuals subjected to acute resource scarcity primes, control threats, or environmental deprivation.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Desire for Abundance scale was originally published in 2020 in the Journal of Consumer Research (Volume 46, Issue 6, pages 1110–1124). The formal copyright for the original journal publication is held by the Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

For non-commercial, academic, and educational scientific research, the scale items and conceptual design are widely accessible under fair-use principles, provided that appropriate attribution is given to Park, Lalwani, and Silvera (2020). Researchers wishing to deploy the scale in university laboratory experiments, student theses, or non-funded academic research generally do not require formal paid licenses or written permission, though standard citation practices are mandatory. For commercial deployment, proprietary software integration, industry marketing diagnostics, or profit-generating market research, interested parties must consult the permissions portal of Oxford University Press (OUP Rights & Permissions) to secure formal licensing.

12. References

The following academic literature provides theoretical context, validation data, and methodological background for the Desire for Abundance scale:

• 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
• Cannon, C., Goldsmith, K., & Roux, C. (2019). A self-regulatory model of resource scarcity. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(1), 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1076
• Hamilton, R., Thompson, D., Bone, S., Chaplin, L. N., Griskevicius, V., Goldsmith, K., Hill, R., John, D. R., Mittal, C., O'Guinn, T., Piff, P., Roux, C., Shah, A., & Zhu, M. (2019). The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0604-7
• 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
• Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Times Books, Henry Holt and Company.
• Park, H., Lalwani, A. K., & Silvera, D. H. (2020). The impact of resource scarcity on price-quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(6), 1110–1124. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz042
• 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
• Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1086/588569
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

13. Items of the Scale