Materialism Scale

Abstract

The Material Values Scale (MVS), colloquially and academically designated as the Materialism Scale, was conceived and empirically validated by Marsha L. Richins and Scott Dawson in 1992. Developed to overcome the conceptual ambiguities and psychometric deficiencies of earlier personality-based inventories, the MVS operationalizes materialism not merely as a superficial behavioral trait or economic pathology, but as an overarching consumer values orientation that centrally structures an individual’s life priorities, behavioral choices, and subjective well-being. The full instrument comprises 18 self-report items distributed across three distinct, theoretically derived subscales: Success (measuring the extent to which one judges personal and interpersonal success by the quantity and quality of accumulated possessions; 6 items), Centrality (capturing the degree to which material acquisition serves as the defining nucleus of day-to-day existence and resource allocation; 7 items), and Happiness (assessing the cognitive conviction that the acquisition and ownership of material commodities constitute essential prerequisites for psychological contentment and life satisfaction; 5 items).

The scale employs a standard 5-point Likert response format ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5), incorporating eight reverse-scored items deliberately engineered to mitigate acquiescence response bias. Extensive psychometric testing across diverse demographic samples, national cohorts, and consumer environments has substantiated the scale’s structural integrity, discriminant validity, and predictive efficacy. Internal consistency estimates across literature routinely demonstrate acceptable-to-strong reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients yielding ranges of .71 to .75 for the Success dimension, .74 to .78 for Centrality, .73 to .83 for Happiness, and omnibus scale reliabilities consistently traversing .80 to .88. Over three decades of empirical deployment across social psychology, behavioral economics, sociology, and consumer behavior have established the MVS as the gold standard psychometric instrument for measuring materialistic value systems, linking heightened scores to compulsive consumption, financial indebtedness, ecological disregard, and systematic decrements in subjective well-being.

Keywords

Material Values Scale, Materialism Scale, Marsha Richins, Scott Dawson, Consumer Values Orientation, Material Centrality, Material Success, Material Happiness, Compulsive Buying, Subjective Well-Being, Psychometrics, Factor Structure, Consumer Behavior

Authors

The Material Values Scale was formulated through the collaborative scholarship of two prominent consumer psychologists and marketing researchers:

• Marsha L. Richins, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita of Marketing at the Trulaske College of Business, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States. Dr. Richins is an internationally acclaimed authority on consumer psychology, post-purchase affect, subjective well-being, and the structural dynamics of materialistic consumption. (Email: [email protected]).
• Scott Dawson, Ph.D.: Professor of Marketing and former Dean of the School of Business Administration at Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, United States, and later Dean of the Orfalea College of Business at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Dr. Dawson’s research has extensively investigated consumer culture, market research methodology, and the interaction between business ethics, macro-marketing systems, and human values.

Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Material Values Scale is to provide a rigorous, theoretically sound, and psychometrically robust operationalization of materialism conceptualized as an individual-level system of consumer values. Prior to the benchmark work of Richins and Dawson (1992), empirical inquiry into materialism was hobbled by disjointed conceptualizations. Seminal predecessors, most notably Russell Belk (1985), treated materialism primarily as a constellation of discrete personality traits—namely possessiveness, nongenerosity, and envy. While Belk’s perspective illuminated specific affective predispositions, it struggled with inconsistent factor replicability across varied populations and failed to capture the cognitive-evaluative mechanisms that direct an individual’s goals, aspirations, and overarching philosophy of living.

Richins and Dawson recognized that defining materialism through the lens of human values—grounded in the paradigm pioneered by Milton Rokeach—would offer vastly superior explanatory and predictive power. In Rokeach’s framework, a value represents 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. Consequently, the MVS was purposely constructed to measure the relative hierarchy of material goods within a respondent’s holistic value system. The scale explicitly measures:

• How strongly an individual equates accumulated wealth and high-status possessions with personal accomplishment and social standing.
• The relative centrality of acquisition activities, luxury pursuits, and goods consumption in directing time, energy, and financial capital.
• The prescriptive, deeply held belief that personal happiness, psychological wholeness, and life satisfaction are fundamentally contingent upon acquiring possessions one does not currently own.

In applied research and clinical settings, the MVS serves several pivotal functions. In developmental and social psychology, it is utilized to chart how sociocultural pressures, advertising exposure, peer socialization, and parental parenting styles foster materialistic aspirations among adolescents and emerging adults. In clinical psychology and behavioral economics, the scale functions as an essential diagnostic and explanatory covariate for identifying underlying mechanisms of compulsive buying disorder, pathological gambling, excessive credit card debt, and socio-emotional isolation. Furthermore, environmental psychologists and sustainability researchers depend on the MVS to assess the value-action gap regarding ecological conservation, demonstrating that elevated materialism consistently correlates with higher individual carbon footprints, resistance to sustainable consumption practices, and diminished biocentric empathy.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct delineated by Richins and Dawson frames materialism as a multifaceted, internally organized consumer value system consisting of three interrelated cognitive-affective components. Materialism operates not merely through outward behavioral manifestations (such as frequent shopping or the ownership of luxury brands), but through deep-seated internal appraisals regarding the function and meaning of material objects.

1. Acquisition as the Pursuit of Happiness

The Happiness dimension evaluates the psychological conviction that the acquisition and possession of material objects represent primary pathways to personal well-being, life satisfaction, and positive affect. Individuals scoring high on this dimension operate under the pervasive anticipation that acquiring future possessions will resolve internal anxieties, ameliorate existential dread, and elevate baseline contentment. Conversely, the inability to acquire desired commodities triggers substantial psychological distress, dissatisfaction with life, and subjective feelings of inadequacy. This dimension directly taps into hedonic treadmills and compensatory consumption mechanisms; possessions are viewed not as practical utilities, but as emotional panaceas. An exemplar item embodying this construct is: “I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things.”

2. Acquisition Centrality

The Centrality dimension reflects the extent to which possessions and the act of acquisition occupy a central organizing place in an individual’s daily life, behavioral routines, and mental energy. High-centrality individuals organize their schedules, cognitive bandwidth, and financial strategies around acquiring goods, often prioritizing consumption above interpersonal relationships, community engagement, or non-material self-actualization. Acquisition operates as an organizing life theme, a primary leisure activity, and a preferred source of sensory and psychological stimulation. Conversely, low scorers endorse a simpler, less encumbered lifestyle where material goods serve strictly functional needs. The construct is exemplified by items such as: “I try to keep my life simple, as far as possessions are concerned” (reverse scored) and “I like a lot of luxury in life.”

3. Possession-Defined Success

The Success dimension measures the extent to which a person evaluates their own personal efficacy and the worth of other human beings through the objective lens of accumulated possessions, financial prestige, and conspicuous markers of wealth. In this cognitive paradigm, tangible assets serve as public scorecards of worth, competence, intelligence, and social hierarchy. Individuals with elevated scores on this subscale continually scan their interpersonal environment for symbolic signals of affluence (e.g., designer apparel, luxury automobiles, exclusive real estate) and project their own self-esteem onto visible commodities. An individual who rejects this value measures human achievement through moral character, artistic creation, interpersonal warmth, or intellectual growth. A definitive scale item is: “Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions.”

Theoretical Framework

The development of the Material Values Scale is deeply anchored in classic and contemporary theories of social psychology, human motivation, and cognitive sociology. Specifically, Richins and Dawson integrated foundational value theory, symbolic interactionism, and subsequent extensions of self-determination and compensatory consumption models.

Rokeach’s Value Theory and Terminal vs. Instrumental Goals

The conceptual bedrock of the MVS is derived from Milton Rokeach’s (1973) definitive value paradigm. Rokeach asserted that values are enduring, hierarchical, and centrally located within a person’s cognitive cognitive architecture. Values serve as foundational criteria that guide actions, attitudes, judgments, and comparative evaluations. Within this framework, values are bifurcated into terminal values (desirable end-states of existence, such as inner harmony, wisdom, or freedom) and instrumental values (preferable modes of conduct, such as honesty, ambition, or broadmindedness).

Richins and Dawson theorized that materialism functions primarily at the intersection of these two categories: material possessions represent both instrumental means (e.g., leveraging consumption to project success or attain status) and terminal end-states (e.g., the ultimate goal of surrounding oneself with luxury to achieve happiness). Furthermore, because values exist within a competitive priority hierarchy, holding highly materialistic values inevitably displaces opposing values, such as altruism, collective welfare, and spiritual or relational intimacy.

Self-Determination Theory and Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Aspirations

Subsequent theoretical corroboration for the MVS construct emerged from Self-Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. SDT classifies human aspirations into intrinsic goals (e.g., personal growth, self-actualization, meaningful relationships, community contribution) and extrinsic goals (e.g., financial success, physical image, fame, popularity). Research utilizing the MVS consistently confirms that the three MVS dimensions operationalize an overwhelming cognitive orientation toward extrinsic aspirations. Because extrinsic pursuits do not directly satisfy fundamental human psychological needs—specifically autonomy, competence, and relatedness—the theoretical model explains why high scores on the MVS are persistently correlated with emotional fragility, lower psychological vitality, and diminished life satisfaction.

Compensatory Consumption and Symbolic Self-Completion

The scale also builds upon Wicklund and Gollwitzer’s theory of Symbolic Self-Completion. This perspective posits that when individuals experience self-identity deficits, insecurities, or threats to personal status, they employ instrumental, socially recognized symbols—frequently high-prestige material objects—to bridge the subjective discrepancy between their actual self and their idealized self. Materialism operates as a compensatory coping mechanism whereby material acquisition is relied upon to soothe existential vulnerabilities, soothe attachment insecurities, and construct a defensible social identity.

Validity

The Material Values Scale has been subjected to exhaustive empirical evaluation across numerous psychometric investigations, establishing robust evidence for construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

During the initial validation process, Richins and Dawson (1992) demonstrated construct validity by examining how the scale correlated with theoretically related constructs across a diverse sample of adults ($N = 205$ in preliminary studies, followed by an extensive validation sample of $N = 250$). Convergent validity was substantiated through positive, statistically significant correlations between total MVS scores and general measures of consumer envy ($r = .39, p < .001$), nongenerosity ($r = .25, p < .001$), and possessiveness ($r = .32, p < .001$) as operationalized by Belk’s materialism subscales. Furthermore, individuals scoring high on the MVS placed significantly greater priority on financial security and social recognition on the Rokeach Value Survey, while placing substantially less emphasis on warm relationships with others ($r = -.29, p < .01$) and a world of beauty ($r = -.24, p < .01$).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by verifying that the MVS captures a unique value orientation that does not merely mirror generalized neurosis, basic socioeconomic standing, or generic response tendencies. Richins (2004) substantiated discriminant validity across multiple consumer panels ($N = 1,732$), showing that while the MVS correlates moderately with neuroticism ($r \approx .20$), it retains extensive unique variance. Furthermore, the correlation between household income and MVS scores is typically trivial or non-significant ($r$ values ranging from $-.05$ to $.08$), proving that materialism is a cognitive-philosophical orientation rather than a direct artifact of objective economic wealth.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive utility of the MVS is exceptionally well-documented across behavioral settings:

• Voluntary Simplicity and Consumption Choices: Individuals with low MVS scores display significantly higher rates of pro-environmental behaviors, voluntary downshifting, and resistance to impulse buying.
• Compulsive Buying Disorder: Multiple structural equation modeling studies (e.g., Dittmar, 2005; Faber & O’Guinn, 1992) demonstrate that high MVS scores strongly predict compulsive and addictive spending patterns ($eta$ coefficients ranging from $.45$ to $.62$), mediating the link between low self-esteem and chronic consumer indebtedness.
• Subjective Well-Being: In a landmark meta-analysis across 259 independent samples by Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) and subsequent syntheses by Dittmar et al. (2014), MVS scores consistently showed negative relationships with life satisfaction ($r = -.19$), self-esteem ($r = -.22$), and positive affect ($r = -.15$), alongside positive correlations with depression, anxiety, and physical health complaints.

Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the Material Values Scale has demonstrated acceptable to strong internal consistency across its foundational development and subsequent global replications.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In the seminal 1992 investigation by Richins and Dawson, the 18-item scale underwent testing across multiple independent adult samples. The internal consistency coefficients reported by the authors across validation cohorts yielded:

• Success Subscale (6 items): $\alpha = .71$ to $.75$
• Centrality Subscale (7 items): $\alpha = .74$ to $.78$
• Happiness Subscale (5 items): $\alpha = .73$ to $.83$
• Omnibus Materialism Scale (18 items): $\alpha = .85$ to $.88$

Subsequent psychometric re-evaluations (e.g., Richins, 2004) confirmed that the overall scale maintains exceptional internal consistency across large-scale national datasets ($N = 1,732$), with total-scale alphas consistently exceeding $.85$. The subscales likewise exhibited composite reliability indices ($
ho_c$) consistently exceeding the conventional$.70$ benchmark.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Richins and Dawson evaluated the temporal stability of the MVS over a three-week interval, obtaining a test-retest correlation coefficient of $r = .87$ ($p < .001$) for the full scale. Individual subscales yielded temporal stabilities of $r = .82$ for Success, $r = .83$ for Centrality, and $r = .86$ for Happiness. Long-term longitudinal studies spanning multi-year intervals (e.g., Kasser et al., 2014) indicate that while absolute value orientations can undergo developmental shifts in response to major life transitions or therapeutic interventions, rank-order stability remains high ($r$ values typically between $.60$ and $.72$ over two-year spans), establishing that the MVS reliably measures an enduring value orientation.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Material Values Scale has been subjected to rigorous Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to evaluate its multidimensional construct representation.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

During scale development, Richins and Dawson initiated scale construction with an initial pool of over 120 items drawn from qualitative interviews, consumer literature, and expert panels. Through iterative item analysis and principal components factor extraction with varimax rotation, items exhibiting high cross-loadings ($> .35$ on secondary factors) or inadequate primary loadings ($< .40$) were eliminated. This purification sequence systematically isolated a robust, three-factor orthogonal solution explaining over 48% of the total variance, cleanly matching the theoretical dimensions of Success, Centrality, and Happiness.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Models

Subsequent evaluations utilizing modern Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) have examined both a first-order three-factor correlated model and a second-order model where the three factors load onto a higher-order overarching latent construct of Materialism.

Factor loadings for individual items onto their respective target constructs typically range between $.51$ and $.78$. While the 18-item structural model yields solid psychometric properties, Richins (2004) observed that presence of reverse-scored items occasionally introduces minor method effects (negatively worded item artifact). To address this, Richins introduced validated shortened iterations (15-item, 9-item, and 6-item short forms), which display enhanced global fit indices (CFI $> .95$, RMSEA $< .05$) while preserving the fundamental three-factor theoretical architecture.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Material Values Scale (MVS) / Materialism Scale
• Original Authors: Marsha L. Richins, Ph.D., and Scott Dawson, Ph.D. (1992)
• Format / Administration: Standardized self-report paper-and-pencil or digital psychometric questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 16 and older).
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes for the full 18-item version.
• Total Item Count: 18 items.
• Subscale Structural Breakdown:
  • Success Subscale: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (6 items; assesses defining success via material assets).
  • Centrality Subscale: Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (7 items; assesses lifestyle centrality of consumption).
  • Happiness Subscale: Items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (5 items; assesses belief that possessions lead to happiness).
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • The scale contains 8 reverse-scored items: 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 16.
  • Reverse scoring formula: $\text{Recoded Score} = 6 – \text{Raw Score}$ (e.g., $5 \rightarrow 1$, $4 \rightarrow 2$, $3 \rightarrow 3$, $2 \rightarrow 4$, $1 \rightarrow 5$).
  • Subscale scores are calculated either by summing the recoded item ratings within each dimension or by computing mean scores (range: 1.00 to 5.00).
  • The overall Materialism index is obtained by summing or averaging all 18 recoded items (theoretical range for sum scores: 18 to 90). Elevated scores denote higher adherence to materialistic value systems.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Material Values Scale was originally developed and published in 1992 in the peer-reviewed Journal of Consumer Research, with further psychometric standardization and short-form development published by Richins in 2004. The scale is copyright-protected by Oxford University Press / The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

Research and Educational Permissions: For non-commercial academic, research, and classroom teaching purposes, the authors and copyright holders permit the use, reproduction, and administration of the scale without royalty fees, provided proper bibliographic citation is accorded to Richins and Dawson (1992) and Richins (2004). Researchers do not require formal written authorization from the authors for academic thesis or peer-reviewed empirical use, provided the scale is not being sold or integrated into commercial diagnostic batteries.

Commercial Applications: Any commercial deployment, inclusion within proprietary assessment platforms, market-research testing batteries for commercial monetization, or organizational consulting tools requires formal copyright clearance and licensing agreements through the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) or the permissions department of Oxford University Press.

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
• 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
• 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
• Dittmar, H. (2005). Compulsive buying—a growing problems? An investigation of gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. British Journal of Psychology, 96(4), 467–491. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X53533
• 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
• Faber, R. J., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1992). A clinical screener for compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1086/209315
• 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
• 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.
• Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic Self-Completion. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Yang, A. (2015). Quantifying anomia: Development of a scale (Master’s thesis, California State University, Los Angeles). California State University ScholarWorks. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/159926/YANG_Anthony.pdf

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)