An item response theory and factor analytic examination of two prominent maximizing tendency scales

Abstract

The current study examines the construct validity of the Maximization Scale (MS; Schwartz et al., 2002) and the Maximization Tendency Scale (MTS; Diab et al., 2008) as well as the nomological net of the maximizing construct. We find that both scales of maximizing suffer psychometrically, especially in their proposed dimensionality. Using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) we identify and remove three problematic items from the MTS and six problematic items from the MS. Additionally, we find that the MS appears to be measuring difficulty and restlessness with the search for the best alternative, whereas the MTS is more focused on the search for the best option, regardless of choice difficulty. We then examined these revised scales in relation to other psychological constructs in the nomological net for maximizing and found that maximizers may not be unhappy but are generally distressed in the decision-making context. Finally, we suggest that future maximizng research use revised form of the MTS that seems to us to be most consistent with the original concept of maximizing/satisficing.

The Short Maximization Inventory

“…MI is the first scale to measure satisficing directly, as a separate subscale, instead of indirectly through low maximizing scores. Weinhardt et al (2012) highlight the presence of the Satisficing scale as an important advancement, as "the data do not support the assumption that maximizing and satisficing are on opposite ends of a continuum and therefore developing a satisficing measure is extremely important" (p. 655). Cheek and Schwartz (2016) acknowledge the possible benefits of measuring satisficing directly, but challenge the content validity and face validity of MI's Satisficing subscale.…”

“…Since the publication of MS (Schwartz et al, 2002), the scale has been shortened (Nenkov et al, 2008) and modified (Lai, 2010;Weinhardt, Morse, Chimeli & Fisher, 2012), and new scales to measure maximization have been developed (Diab et al, 2008;Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci & Miceli, 2015;Turner et al, 2012). See Cheek and Schwartz (2016) for a list and discussion of the existing maximization scales.…”

“…Psychometric properties of MI were shown by its authors to be superior to MS, using both classical test theory and item response analysis. Weinhardt et al (2012) note the use of general statements in MI as a significant advantage over MS, which uses specific statements.…”

“…Another maximization scale, the Maximization Tendency Scale (MTS, Diab et al, 2008), consists mostly of High Standards items. As Weinhardt et al (2012) propose, MI is to be perceived as a measure of maximization behavior, while MTS as a measure of maximization goal (Cheek & Schwartz, 2016). A High Standards subscale, which is a standard component of other maximization-related scales, is not present in MI.…”

“…By removing poorly performing items and refining both the Alternative Search and Satisficing subscales, we partially address the suggestions offered by Cheek and Schwartz (2016) and Weinhardt et al (2012). The resulting Short Max-imization Inventory is a compact yet powerful measurement tool that might benefit the whole field, as it facilitates further research on maximizing.…”