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

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.

What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,” indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing

“…"Decision difficulty" was the label applied by Nenkov et al (2008) to one of the factors that emerged from factor analyses of Schwartz et al's (2002) original Maximization Scale. This factor included four items that broadly described the tendency to find decisions challenging (e.g., "I often find it difficult to shop for a gift for a friend").…”

“…Schwartz et al included these items because they theorized that maximizers would tend to find decisions more difficult than satisficers, which is a reasonable claim given that maximizers have a more challenging goal of choosing the very best alternative. Because of the presence of decision difficulty items in the original maximizing measure, and the formal establishment of decision difficulty as a component of maximizing in the Short Form Maximization Scale (Nenkov et al, 2008), the majority of definitions and measures of maximizing have included decision difficulty (see Table 1).…”

“…Why might decision difficulty and indecisiveness be only moderately correlated in previous studies? We suggest that previous findings have largely been limited by relying on the Decision Difficulty subscale from the Short Form of the Maximization Scale (Nenkov et al, 2008;Schwartz et al, 2002). The scale has low reliability and relatively few items; was originally developed to measure maximizing broadly instead of decision difficulty specifically; has outdated items (e.g., "Renting videos is really difficult.…”

“…For further comparison, participants additionally completed Schwartz et al's (2002) original Maximization Scale (MS), out of which we scored the three subscales -High Standards (MS-HS), Alternative Search (MS-AS), and Decision Difficulty (MS-DD) -from Nenkov et al (2008). We expected the MTS to be most related to the MS-HS, the MI-AS to be most related to the MS-AS, and the MI-DD and IS to be most related to the MS-DD.…”

The role of actively open-minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration

“…After completing the four tasks, participants answered questions about cognitive styles and personality dimensions. These included, in an order chosen at random for each participant, the Actively Open-minded Thinking scale (See Appendix), need for cognition (Cacioppo et al, 1984), the Short Grit Scale (grit-s; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), the Maximization Scale (Nenkov, Morrin, Ward, Hulland, & Schwartz, 2008), the Big 5 personality dimensions (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), worry (Van Rijsoort, Emmelkamp, & Vervaeke, 1999), and the Cognitive Reflection Test (Frederick, 2005).…”