The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A short form of the Maximization Scale: Factor structure, reliability and validity studies
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The satisfaction with life scale
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 · Cited by 31,768
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1063 · Cited by 7,456
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359
A Measure of Subjective Happiness: Preliminary Reliability and Construct Validation
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1023/a:1006824100041 · Cited by 4,071
Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.7.3.238 · Cited by 2,387
Adaptive strategy selection in decision making.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534 · Cited by 1,955
Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom.
Schwartz, B. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.79 · Cited by 875
Self-citation
Cited by
Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242
Decision difficulty in the age of consumer empowerment
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Griffin, J. G. (2014) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.003 · Cited by 256
Schwartz, B. (2015) · Positive Psychology in Practice · doi:10.1002/9781118996874.ch8 · Cited by 77
Self-citationMüller, S. M., Wegmann, E., Stolze, D., & Brand, M. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106296 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Nenkov, G. Y., Morrin, M., Ward, A., Schwartz, B., & Hulland, J.
- Venue
- Judgment and Decision Making
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 371-388
- ISSN
- 1930-2975 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2151912132
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 3.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
