A Scale of Consumer Wisdom: An Abstract

Abstract

Luchs and Mick (2018) developed an empirically derived five-facet theoretical framework of consumer wisdom which we use as a starting point for the development of a measurement scale. Our first step was to generate a set of 120 potential scale items that were then administered to an online sample of 286 Prolific Academic participants. An exploratory factor analysis suggested a six-factor model. We retained 24 items based on factor loadings and conceptual breadth. We named these factors as: Lifestyle responsibility, Purpose, Flexibility, Perspective, Prudent reasoning, and Transcendence. Next, we tested a hierarchical model in which a single higher-order consumer wisdom factor predicts the six lower-order factors. The results of confirmatory factor analysis reached acceptable levels of model fit per Netemeyer et al. (2003).

For our second data set, we recruited an online sample of 439 Prolific Academic participants. In addition to providing ratings for the 24 CWS items, they also provided responses for a variety of related scales. As expected, CWS was positively and significantly correlated with consumer spending self-control (.57), elaboration of potential outcomes (.50), consumer self-confidence (.35), need for cognition (.22), growth mindset (.18), voluntary simplicity (.21), green attitudes (.46), and socially responsible purchase and disposal (.34). Also as expected, CWS was negatively and significantly correlated with materialism (−.15), compulsive buying (−.31), and spendthrift behaviors (−.39). Overall, CWS was related to all of these constructs as expected, yet the correlations were all moderate to weak thereby affirming the unique position of CWS within this network of related consumer research constructs.

Data set 3 was used to demonstrate the incremental predictive validity of CWS. A third party vendor recruited an online sample of 660 participants using a quota sampling approach to match the demographics of the latest US Census. After responding to demographic questions, participants provided ratings for the 24 CWS items. Next, participants provided responses for four measures of well-being. In order to assess the incremental predictive validity of CWS, we also included Walen and Lachman’s (2000) personal relationship support scale, Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian’s (1996) job satisfaction scale, and Huh and Shin’s (2014) health assessment scale. We first established a baseline set of regressions, model 1, which included the demographic measures as control variables and all of the predictors of well-being except for consumer wisdom. Next, model 2 added consumer wisdom to model 1. As expected, consumer wisdom was a significant predictor in model 2 for all four measures of well-being (all p < .0001). Further, the addition of consumer wisdom significantly improved the model for all four measures of well-being (all F_change p < .0001). Overall, our hierarchical model of consumer wisdom provides a refinement on Luchs and Mick’s (2018) theoretical framework and provides a psychometrically sound 24-item measurement scale.