Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 175184

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

The etiology of the frugal consumer

Ronald E. Goldsmith a,1, Leisa Reinecke Flynn b,2, Ronald A. Clark c,n
a
College of Business, Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, United States
b
College of Business, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Dr. #5091, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001, United States
c
Department of Marketing, College of Business, Missouri State University, Glass 259, 901 South National Avenue, Springeld, MO 65897, United States

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examines several psychological factors hypothesized as antecedents of frugality. Although
Received 16 July 2013 external forces, such as downturns in economic activity, can promote frugal behavior, it is also likely
Received in revised form associated with a syndrome of individual differences that are independent of economic conditions. These
14 October 2013
include values, personality characteristics, and other consumer characteristics. Our study used data from
Accepted 19 November 2013
256 U.S. consumers to test hypothesized relationships between frugality measured as a personality- or
Available online 27 December 2013
lifestyle-type construct characteristic embedded in the social psychology of consumption. We identied
Keywords: four key constructs as likely antecedents of frugality: materialism, status consumption, brand engage-
Frugality ment, and consumer independence. The results showed that frugal consumers are less materialistic, less
Status consumption
status conscious, and less involved with brands than other consumers, but are more independent from
Materialism
the opinions of others in their consumer decision making.
Brand engagement in self-concept
Consumer independence & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Understanding frugality, however, is hampered because it is

Lastovicka et al. (1999, p. 88) dene frugality as a unidimen-
sional consumer lifestyle trait characterized by the degree to
which consumers are both restrained in acquiring and resourceful
in using economic goods and services to achieve longer-term
goals. Scholarly interest in frugal behavior (e.g., Bove et al.,
2009) has grown in the past few years for two main reasons. First,
concern for the environment seems to have induced increasing
numbers of consumers to practice sustainable consumption. Sec-
ond, the recent and persistent severe economic downturn the U.S.
and other countries have experienced has compelled many con-
sumers to become increasingly frugal (Birkner, 2013; Egol et al.,
2010). This increase in a pattern of consumer behavior makes this
topic important for a variety of concerned parties. Policy makers
are interested in understanding frugality because it can be part of
the response to detrimental effects of excessive consumption on
the environment, on society as a whole, and on personal life
satisfaction (Ballantine and Creery, 2010). Marketers are interested
in understanding frugal consumers as a potential new market
segment (Rick et al., 2008).
little studied by social psychologists (Ballantine and Creery, 2010)
and because of the inconsistent ways in which it is conceptualized.
Frugality as a pattern of behavior can be motivated by external
forces such as economic downturns and personal misfortune
(Birkner, 2013; Egol et al., 2010), as well as by subjective individual
differences among people that motivate them toward frugal
behaviors (Bove et al., 2009; Lastovicka et al., 1999; Palmer,
2009; Kadlec and Yahalom, 2011). The present study focuses on
the latter aspects of frugality in order to understand better the
internal motivations of a frugal person. This subject has had little
prior study, so we believe that our research sheds new light on a
potentially important aspect of social behavior. Thus, the purpose
was to investigate hypothesized relationships between frugality
and four other consumer characteristics, materialism, status con-
sumption, brand engagement, and consumer independence two of
which are relatively new to the literature (Clark, 2006; Sprott
et al., 2009). This knowledge can benet policy makers desiring to
encourage sustainable consumption and marketing managers who
wish to appeal to this segment.

2. Literature review

2.1. Frugality
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 417 836 4115; fax: 1 417 836 4466.
E-mail addresses: rgoldsmith@cob.fsu.edu (R.E. Goldsmith),
leisa.ynn@usm.edu (L. Reinecke Flynn), RonClark@MissouriState.edu (R.A. Clark).
Frugality is viewed from cultural, religious, psychological, and
1
Tel.: 1 850 644 4091; fax: 1 850 644 4098. economic perspectives. But whether the impetus comes from
2
Tel.: 1 601 266 5582; fax: 1 601 266 4630. religion (e.g., the Amish), the current recession (Palmer, 2009),

0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.11.005
176 R.E. Goldsmith et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 175184
political history (Albinsson et al., 2010), cultural mindsets
(Lastovicka et al., 1999), economic theories of discipline (Wilk,
1996), or from personality traits (Bearden et al., 2006), the impacts
in the marketplace are similar. These different perspectives have
spawned several ideas about how best to describe frugality (Todd
and Lawson, 2003). Some view it as a lifestyle trait (Lastovicka
et al., 1999), others as a single value orientation (Todd and Lawson,
2003), while others see it simply as a pattern of behavior (e.g., Egol
et al., 2010). Frugal persons are less materialistic, buy less (e.g.,
alcohol, Rose et al., 2010), are less subject to interpersonal
inuence (Lastovicka et al., 1999), and repair and re-use items
(Albinsson et al., 2010). Frugal persons are distinct from tight-
wads in that they enjoy saving money rather than hate spending
it (Rick et al., 2008). In addition, they may have an anti-
consumption mindset that inuences how they relate to the
marketplace (Albinsson et al., 2010); although Tatzel (2002) argues
that, some tightwads are also materialistic bargain seekers who
enjoy price shopping.
Because frugality means different things, researchers and
others need to be precise in explaining what they mean by the
term when they use it. We distinguish frugal behavior from
frugality, which we conceptualize as a trait combining values
and lifestyle dimensions. Much overt frugal behavior derives from
external events such as job loss. Many of these same behaviors,
however, also stem from the latent concept of frugality. Fig. 1
External Economic Antecedents:
General economic conditions
Personal economic conditions
Other External Influences:
Cultural influence
Social influence
Marketing/demarketing
Internal Psychological Factors
: Interests
Values
Materialism
Consumer traits
Status consumption
Brand engagement
Independence
Fig. 1. A model of frugality.
presents our conceptual model of the various inuences that
engender frugal behavior. Our study focuses on the latent concept
and its psychological antecedents.
In our view, various manifestations of frugal behavior are the
product of both external and internal motivations. Externally, the
major reason people become frugal is because their economic
circumstances compel them to (see Birkner, 2013). Job loss, general
economic downturns, or other negative economic conditions
compel people to change consumption and spending behavior in
a frugal direction (Egol et al., 2010). We venture to label the
outcome of these external forces constrained frugality. A second
set of external stimuli can come from living in a culture that
emphasizes the desirability of frugal behavior, leading people to
live modestly (Albinsson et al., 2010). In addition, social and/or
marketing inuences can persuade people to behave in a frugal
manner. We term these external inuences persuaded frugality.
The third set of motivations is internal. These are the values
and individual personality differences that distinguish people
psychologically. Psychological characteristics can be inuenced
by cultural inuences, but that takes us beyond the scope of the
current model. Psychological traits can predispose people to live a
frugal lifestyle. A lifestyle is dened in consumer behavior as a
constellation of activities, interests, and opinions that reect
patterns of living (Wells and Tigert, 1971). We use the term
frugality to refer to this lifestyle or personality-type trait that
Frugal Behavior:
Save rather than spend
Trading down
Shop only sales
Buy private label brands
Quality time with family
Preoccupation with value
Watch free TV
Eat at home
Frugality as a Lifestyle:
Activities
Opinions
 R.E. Goldsmith et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 175184
characterizes people who hold positive attitudes toward frugal
behavior and who live in a manner characterized by multiple
frugal behaviors, i.e., voluntary frugality. This notion is related to
voluntary simplicity in that voluntarily frugal consumers choose to
live in a way that rejects excessive spending (Ballantine and
Creery, 2010). The counterintuitive nding that many of America's
millionaires live frugal lifestyles illustrates this phenomenon
(Thomas et al., 2010). Both the internal and external motivations
result in frugal behaviors; people may behave in a similar way, but
for different reasons. Some are more or less externally compelled
or persuaded to do so, others do so willingly. Ultimately, however,
some people who are compelled to live in a frugal manner may
learn to prefer the frugal lifestyle and continue frugal behavior
after the external compunction is gone (Hodson et al., 2012;
Kadlec and Yahalom, 2011), shown by the dotted line in Fig. 1.
The popular press abounds with articles describing frugal
behavior as it goes in and out of style. The recent worldwide
recession has stimulated many consumers to rethink their con-
sumption and spending behavior. For instance, Elliott (2010)
reports in the New York Times that the third Valentine's Day since
the start of the recession saw Americans become savers rather
than spenders, sparking marketers of all stripes to offer discounts,
special deals, and distribution through discount channels to
increasingly frugal consumers. Evans (2011) writes in the Wall
Street Journal that frugal is in fashion, describing how stores
selling discounted name-brand apparel thrive as shoppers seek
low-cost offerings. Moreover, Hagerty and Tita (2011) report that
large appliance manufacturers cut production and resisted price
increases in the face of consumers who only buy when their old
appliances fail or when they cannot repair them. Finally, a 2011
article in Money Magazine (Kadlec and Yahalom, 2011) reports the
results of a large scale survey describing how many Americans are
saving more, borrowing less, spending more time with family,
cutting up credit cards, clipping coupons, shopping for sales,
watching free TV, and reading at the library, all hallmarks of
increasing frugal behavior.
While anecdotal examples are easy to come by, such accounts
of frugality share the characteristic that what they describe are
changes in behavior stimulated by external events and not, as we
approach it, the ingrained personality characteristic that intrinsi-
cally motivates frugal behavior. A limited scholarly literature does
describe a variety of important social behaviors such as voluntary
simplicity (Shaw and Moraes, 2009), green consumption (Pinto
et al., 2011), and socially conscious consumption (Pepper et al.,
2009). Although similar to frugality, they are conceptually distinct
and may be either motivators or consequence of frugal behavior.
Few studies examine frugality directly. Lastovicka et al. (1999)
initiated the scholarly study of frugality by developing their
Frugality scale (F-scale) and showing in six studies that scores
correlate positively with measures of value consciousness and
price consciousness, but negatively with compulsive buying,
materialism, and susceptibility to interpersonal inuence. Todd
and Lawson (2003) show that scores on the F-scale are not
systematically related to a pattern of complex value systems, but
are negatively related to a need for social recognition. Shoham and
Brencic (2004) conrm that a frugal lifestyle is positively related to
value and price consciousness, as well as to self-reported frugal
behavior. Bearden et al. (2006) show that frugal consumers
embrace a long-term time orientation rather than a short-term
time orientation.
Bove et al. (2009) investigate some antecedents of frugal
behavior. Their ndings are especially valuable to the current
study because they focus on relevant consumer traits similar to the
ones we investigate. Their study indicates that frugality is posi-
tively associated with market mavenism, which describes indivi-
duals highly involved in many aspects of the marketplace, thus
177
making them knowledgeable about shopping and buying. It is
likely that market mavens use their marketplace knowledge to get
lower prices on what they buy. It is also positively associated with
shopping antipathy, which describes an attitude opposite of
shopping enjoyment. These results are consistent with our spec-
ulations regarding frugality because they portray consumers who
are somewhat repelled by the activity of shopping but at the same
time are involved in the marketplace itself. We feel that our
ndings can help explain this seeming contradiction. Frugal
consumers are motivated to get the best deals, and therefore they
should be especially knowledgeable about the marketplace in
order to do so; but many shoppers do not really enjoy shopping
because they do not derive the same satisfaction from this activity
as consumers who are motivated by the desire to acquire things
for their own sakes, that is, materialistically motivated consumers.
These frugal shoppers are motivated by other, perhaps more
utilitarian concerns, and thus express some antipathy toward
shopping.
One of the few personality traits consistently thought to de-
motivate frugality is materialism. Many descriptions and discus-
sions of frugality emphasize how it is conceptually opposite the
desire to acquire material goods for their own sakes (e.g., Kadlec
and Yahalom, 2011). While no ndings directly link frugal char-
acteristics to status consumption, brand engagement, or consumer
independence, we expect to nd that the negative relationship
between materialism and frugality (Lastovicka et al., 1999) extends
to a negative relationship between frugality and status consump-
tion and with brand engagement, but a positive relationship with
consumer independence. Conceptual descriptions and justica-
tions for the hypotheses follow.
2.2. Materialism
Materialism is the more than normal valuation of goods over
personal relationships. Demographics have been shown to be
related to materialistic tendencies although the results are con-
sistent only for age. Materialism declines with age (c.f. Pepper
et al., 2009), but it is not clear if gender of respondent is related as
many ndings conict (c.f. Kamineni, 2005; Pepper et al., 2009).
Social status and economic status are related to materialism, but
this phenomenon may be better explained by income variation
within geographic areas. Charles et al. (2009) found that income
variations in materialism disappeared when the level of variation
in income in a home region was controlled. In the case of
materialism, demographics are largely inadequate to explain
individual differences in the construct. This means that in order
to understand what motivates materialism we have to look to
psychological characteristics.
Consumer researchers explain materialistic behavior as arising
out of the fact that certain consumers feel goods will provide
happiness and help them feel successful (Richins and Dawson,
1992). Materialistic traits have been found to be linked to psycho-
logically base individual differences such as unhappiness and
dissatisfaction with life (Millar and Thomas, 2009; Wright and
Larsen, 1993) and also with many consumer traits such as
motivation to shop and positive attitudes towards advertising
(Goldsmith et al., 2011; Osmonbekov et al., 2009).
At rst glance, materialism appears to be the opposite of
frugality, but the reality is not that simple. The popular image of
a materialist is someone who surrounds him or herself with goods
as substitutes for deeper interpersonal relationships, and frugal
consumers are not necessarily looking to spend less in order to
build better relationships. Materialists buy and keep more than
what they need. Even if those purchases are at garage sales, the
materialist is over consuming and that is what is at odds with true
frugality. A person does have not to be 100% one way or the other.
178 R.E. Goldsmith et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 175184
Tatzel (2002) even constructs a two by two matrix and describes
frugal materialists. These people would be price conscious in the
pursuit of attaining more than they need to live. Multi-item self-
report scales enable us to place subjects on spectra for both
characteristics. Still, Lastovicka et al. (1999) report materialism is
negatively related to frugality. This nding is only logical. A strong
desire to spend money sparingly would be hard to line up with a
tendency to want more and more things and thus we would not to
expect to nd many of Tatzel's (2002) frugal materialists in most
populations. While the frugal person is not necessarily behaving in
that manner to build better human relationships, the anti-
consumption bent of frugal people should be related to their
evidencing less materialism (Albinsson et al., 2010). Thus, our rst
hypothesis is:
H1. Materialism is negatively associated with frugality.
2.3. Status consumption
Status seeking is a universal human motivation as people strive
for respect and esteem within their social circles. This need has
been documented repeatedly with Maslow's work as the most
famous example. More recent work shows that the need for status
has a biological basis (Saad and Vongas, 2009). Status consumption
refers to a specic marketplace manifestation of this motivation.
Often status seeking results in the display of objects or even
services with the intent of gaining recognition within one's social
group. Eastman et al. (1999) dene status consumption as seeking
status by buying products and brands that confer it and present a
paper- and-pencil measure of the tendency to consume for status
seeking reasons. Researchers have examined status consumption
both from the point of view of discovering who consumes for
status and also from the perspective of what items people
consume to gain status (Eastman et al., 1999; Gabriel and Lang,
2006; Hader, 2008; Thomsen and Srensen, 2006). Status con-
sumption is also linked to other consumer behavior variables.
Status consumers are opinion leaders and are more subject to
normative social inuence than are other consumers (Clark et al.,
2007). Several studies link status consumption (SC) positively to
materialistic tendencies (e.g., Goldsmith and Clark, 2012; Heaney
et al., 2005) and negatively to role relaxed consumption, a
consumption style emphasizing utilitarian benets over supercial
ones (Clark et al., 2007). Todd and Lawson (2003) show that
frugality is linked to low levels of the value social recognition, a
concept related to status seeking, but no studies look directly at
how the tendency to consume for status is or is not related to
frugality. Partially because status consumption and materialism
are linked, we expect that frugality is negatively related to status
consumption. In addition, the denitions of each characteristic
seem to describe opposing consumer motivations. Frugal consu-
mers are motivated by the pleasure they feel when they refrain
from spending and status consumers actively display the fruits of
their spending activities. It is possible that frugal consumers wear
their frugality as something of a sign of status among other
likeminded consumers so that, like most humans, frugal persons
seek status but do it in other ways than through conspicuous
consumption. Thus, our second hypothesis is:
H2. Status consumption is negatively associated with frugality.
2.4. Brand engagement in self-concept
Brand Engagement in Self-Concept (BESC) is an individual
difference measure representing consumers propensity to include
important brands as a part of how they view themselves (Sprott
et al., 2009, p. 92). This concept captures how consumers use
brands to form and to express self-concepts and identities (Elliott,
2004). Some consumers see brands as relevant to their lives and
form bonds with them (Fournier, 1998). Beyond bonds, consumers
can use brands to construct how they see themselves and portray
that self to others. The person who sees him or herself as a Harley
man or even an NBA or team fan is using the brands to tell the
world who they are. The proliferation of t-shirts with brand logos
on the front are testaments to how common integration of brands
into self really is. Sprott et al. (2009) conceptualize BESC as an
individual difference variable where some consumers are more
likely to use brands to express their self-concepts than are others.
While much of our understanding of consumers relationships to
brands comes from a qualitative perspective (c.f. Belk, 1988;
Fournier, 1998; Lev, 2005), Sprott et al.'s (2009) new scale gives
a quantitative measure of this aspect of the consumer/brand
relationship. Brand engagement with self-concept is related to
brand loyalty and to brand name recall. Scores on the BESC scale
are also positively and strongly (r .42, pr .01) correlated with
materialism (Sprott et al., 2009) and with involvement in fashion
clothing (r .38, p o.01) (Goldsmith et al., 2012). While we nd no
direct studies of the relationship between frugality and BESC we
have every reason to believe that it is negative. Brand engagement
is related to traits and behaviours that are associated with higher
consumption and greater involvement in the marketplace. For one
to consider themselves a real Harley man we would expect that
they have, if not the motorcycle, at least Harley labelled gear. Much
like materialism, there is nothing to preclude a frugal person from
also being brand involved but likely they are less so. Frugal
persons are by denition careful consumers who are less involved
and concerned with the marketplace than most. We predict that
frugal consumers will score lower on the measure of brand
engagement. Thus, the third hypothesis is:
H3. Brand engagement is negatively associated with frugality.
2.5. Consumer independence
One of the most powerful inuences on human behavior is
social inuence (Aronson, 2003). Social inuence research funda-
mentally examines the impact of pressures to conform to societal
expectations of behavior (i.e., norms) in almost every facet of life.
In a consumer behavior context, the existence of social inuence
within a society creates pressure on individuals to conform to the
social norms of consumption placed upon them by referent others
(Bearden et al., 1989). However, consumers are individuals; there-
fore, they do not all respond to the pressures of social inuence in
the same manner. Indeed, responses to social inuence have been
linked to specic individual traits or tendencies (c.f. Goldsmith
et al., 2005).
The tendency to respond to social inuence in different ways
has been described in Social Response Theory (Nail, 1986). Social
Response Theory applied to consumer behavior implies that
consumers respond to social inuence one of three ways. Con-
sumers can succumb to social inuence by conforming to the
norms (Bearden et al., 1989); they can rebel against the perceived
normative pressure to express their uniqueness (Tian et al., 2001);
or they can merely disregard social inuence upon their behavior.
The last response is termed consumer independence and is
dened as an enduring consumer tendency to respond to social
inuences pertaining to product and brand choices and uses by
giving minimal weight to the prescribed norms of consumer
reference groups adhering instead to personal preferences and
tastes despite the apparent deviation from the prescribed norms of
consumer behavior absent the motivation to actively rebel against
the existing norms (Clark, 2006, p. 20).
 R.E. Goldsmith et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 175184
By denition, the independent consumer is likely indifferent to
existing social norms with regard to consumption. Therefore, one
might expect that an independent consumer is less likely to see
social benets associated with paying for a higher priced product
owing to his or her lack of concern with the opinion of others.
Lastovicka et al. (1999) show that frugality is negatively related to
susceptibility to interpersonal inuence; and, Todd and Lawson
(2003) report that frugal consumers value conformity less than
the non-frugal do. This implies that frugal consumers value
frugality more than they value compliance with the expectations
of others. Comparatively, individuals that exhibit a tendency
toward consumer independence would eschew any tendency
toward conformity. Consequently, we expect that consumer inde-
pendence is positively correlated with frugality.
H4. Consumer independence is positively associated with frugality.
3. Method
3.1. Sample
We gathered the data in two waves via online questionnaires
administered to students in the spring of 2010 at two U.S.
universities, one in the Midwest and one in the South. All students
completed the rst half and then the second half of the survey two
weeks later. Students responses were matched across both ques-
tionnaires. Both schools are public universities, and the largely
undergraduate students were enrolled in business classes. We
chose to use two universities to enhance diversity in the data, and
students represent not only a convenient source of subjects but
also active consumers. The rst questionnaire contained the
measures of BESC, status consumption, frugality, and materialism.
The second questionnaire contained the measures of consumer
independence and agreeableness as a scale to evaluate the
inuence of common method variance (CMV). Separating the
measures in time should help mitigate the effects of CMV on the
ndings (Conway and Lance, 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2003). We also
randomized the order in which the items for each scale were
presented to the participants, which also should help mitigate
CMV (Conway and Lance, 2010). The questionnaires were placed
on an online survey website, and the URL was emailed to the
students along with a consent form. The emails directed the
students to read the consent form and to click on the URL, which
took them to the questionnaire. Both questionnaires were com-
pleted by 303 participants, but each questionnaire contained an
item to detect blind checking, where the participant may fail to
read (or maybe understand) the question (Oppenheimer et al.,
2009). The 42 participants who responded to either item were
removed from the data set, as were 5 additional unusable ques-
tionnaires, leaving 256 valid respondents. Exactly half (1 2 8) were
men and half were women. Ages ranged from 19 to 55, with a
mean of 22.3 years (SD 4.2). We used t-tests to assess mean
differences between the men and women for all variables. Only
one difference was signicant (t(2 5 4) 2.19, p o.05, d .28); men
(M 24.2, SD 6.1) scored slightly higher on brand engagement
than did the women (M 22.4, SD 7.1), but this difference is
likely an anomaly because neither Sprott et al. (2009) nor Flynn
et al. (2011) report meaningful gender differences in large samples
from diverse populations.
3.2. Measures
To measure each construct we used multi-item self-report
scales found in the literature because these have some evidence
179
for reliability and validity, and our ndings can be more easily
integrated with existing research. We measured frugality using the
7-item F-scale described by Lastovicka et al. (1999) with a six-
point agree/disagree response format. The remaining scales used a
ve-point agree/disagree response format. We used the 18-item
version of Richins and Dawson's (1992) Materialistic Values Scale,
Eastman et al.' (1999) 5-item Status Consumption Scale, the 8-item
BESC scale (Sprott et al., 2009), and Clark's (2006) 5-item Con-
sumer Independence scale.
4. Analysis and results
4.1. Preliminary data analyses
We used CFA (AMOS 19.0) to assess the psychometric char-
acteristics of the frugality, status consumption, brand engagement,
and consumer independence scales. The materialism scale was not
included because we could not discover a three-factor solution
that had acceptable psychometric characteristics. Exploratory
factor analysis of the MVS showed four factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0. The pattern of factor loadings also did not
correspond to the theoretical structure of the scale as proposed
by Richins and Dawson (1992). In order to replicate the results
reported by other users of the MVS, we computed a total scale
score (.84) for the MVS using nine items described by Richins
(2004) as a short form of the scale and did not attempt to examine
more ne grained relationships with the three subscales.
Iterative analyses of the other four scales showed that some
scale items had low loadings or high cross-loadings and so we
removed two items from the frugality scale and two items from
the brand engagement scale. The remaining measurement model
showed reasonable t to the data: 2 292.008 on 183 df, p o.001,
2/df 1.596, TLI .951, CFI.987, RMSEA .048, SRMR .0557). All
the item loadings (see Table 1) were statistically signicant
(p o.001), indicating convergent validity. The scales possessed
adequate internal consistency as shown by the construct relia-
bility, coefcient alpha, and average variance extracted values
(Table 1).
Discriminant validity is evidenced in Table 2, where the square
root of the AVE of each scale is larger than the correlation between
the scales. Table 2 also includes the Pearson correlations for the
material values scale, gender, and age. In addition, the correlations
among the scales are modest in size, and 95% condence intervals
about the correlations did not contain 1.0, also belying discrimi-
nant validity. Sprott et al. (2009) provide evidence for discriminant
validity between the brand engagement scale and the material
values scale. Goldsmith and Clark (2012) provide evidence for
discriminant validity between status consumption and consumer
independence.
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for the variables. The
ranges of scores for each variable showed wide distributions, and
the skewness and kurtosis coefcients were all less than 1.0. Only
one, frugality (skew  .718), was more than twice its standard
error (.152). The PP plots of the distributions representing the
cumulative probabilities of the data, however, showed that the
data did not fall exactly on the diagonal line of a normal distribu-
tion (See Osborne, 2013, Ch. 5). In addition, the Kolmogorov
Smirnov and ShapiroWilk normality tests were all signicant,
showing violation of the normality assumption, so we felt there
might be a need to transform the variables to normalize their
distributions. Therefore, we transformed the variables with square
root and natural log transformations. The results of the hypotheses
tests were unchanged for either of these transformed variables,
and so we feel condent that the results are not distorted by the
variables distributions.
180 R.E. Goldsmith et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 175184

Table 1
Factor loadings for multi-items scales, average variance extracted, construct reliability and Cronbach's Alpha coefcient.

Construct and items Std. loading AVE CR

Frugality
I am willing to wait on a purchase I want so that I can save money .832 .512 .835 .83
There are things I resist buying today so I can save for tomorrow .815
I discipline myself to get the most from my money .720
I believe in being careful in how I spend my money .688
Making better use of my resources makes me feel good .459
Status consumption
I would pay more for a product if it had status .830 .561 .864 .86
I am interested in new products with status .746
I would buy a product just because it has status .731
The status of a product is irrelevant to me (R).715
A product is more valuable to me if it has some snob appeal .714
Consumer independence
I buy products that are best for me without worry of what others will think .825 .524 .846 .85
When it comes to making purchases, I just do my own thing .719
I do not care if the products and brands I buy conform to the expectations of others .711
I buy things that I like whether others agree or not .693
When I'm buying something, my personal preferences and tastes are more important to me than the opinions of others .661
Brand engagement in self-concept
My favorite brands are an important indication of who I am .795 .581 .893 .89
Part of me is dened by important brands in my life .788
I consider my favorite brands to be a part of myself .776
I feel as if I have a close personal connection with the brands I most prefer .765
I can identify with important brands in my life .757
There are links between the brands that I prefer and how I view myself .689

Table 2 with the other variables (rage-MVS  .12, rsex-status .13, and rsex-
BESC .15) and so we did not feel it was necessary to try to
Correlations for study variables.
control statistically for either age or gender effects in the bivariate
Frugality Status BESC CI MVS Age
hypotheses tests.
Frugality (.72)a  .42nn  .29nn .39nn  .39nn Hypothesis one states that materialism is negatively correlated
Status  .36nn (.75) .55nn  .54nn .60nn with frugality. The correlation in Tables 2 (r  .34, p o.0005)
BESC  .25nn .49nn (.76)  .24nn .52nn
provides support for the hypothesis. This nding is consistent with
CI .34nn  .48nn  .22nn (.72)  .32nn
MVSc  .34nn .60nn .49nn  .32nn
results reported by Lastovicka et al. (1999) and by Pepper et al.
Agec .01  .13n  .08 .04  .12n (2009) and with the conceptual denitions of frugality and
Sexb .04  .09  .15n .01  .08  .04 materialism, which suggest that frugal consumers are not as
concerned with owing goods for their own sakes as are materi-
Note: Person correlations below diagonal; correlation coefcients from CFA above
alistic people, choosing instead to spend their money prudently
diagonal.
a and get the most value they can from the goods they already own.
Square root of average variance extracted (see Table 1) on diagonal.
b
Where 0 men and 1 women. This description is also highly consistent with the descriptions of
n
po .05. millionaires reported in Thomas et al. (2010).
nn
p o.01. Hypothesis two states that status consumption is negatively
correlated with frugality. The correlation between these variables
Table 3 (r  .36, p o.0005) supports this hypothesis. Because a large part
Descriptive statistics for study variables (n 256). of materialism involves owning goods for the status they confer
(Goldsmith et al., 2012), it is logical that the more concerned a
Frugality Status BESC CI MVS Age
consumer is with gaining status through consumption the less
Range 1030 1045 525 630 1025 1955
frugal he or she will be, spending money to acquire additional
Mean 23.7 28.5 13.2 17.4 19.4 22.3 status bearing items and not valuing the goods already owned, or
SD 3.9 6.1 4.2 5.1 3.3 4.2 spending more to acquire a status good than a less prestigious
Skewness  .718  .255 .025  .138  .345 4.5 alternative.
Kurtosis .798 .403  .436  .466 .165 25.6
Hypothesis three states that brand engagement is negatively
associated with frugality. The correlation between these two
4.2. Hypotheses tests measures, (r  .25, p .002) supports this hypothesis, albeit
showing a weak or small association. Our expectation that using
Our interests in this study were in the relationships between brands to express self-concept, a characteristic positively asso-
frugality and four individual differences constructs in an effort to ciated with materialism (Goldsmith et al., 2012; Sprott et al., 2009)
determine if individuals scoring higher on the F-scale manifested is also negatively associated with frugality appears to be correct.
different psychological characteristics than those who scored to Hypothesis four, in contrast with the other hypotheses, states
the low end. This interest is descriptive in nature, trying to that consumer independence is positively correlated with frugal-
determine if higher levels of frugality are associated with higher ity. The argument is that independence from the opinions of
levels of other variables. Therefore, to test the hypotheses, we others frees one from trying to impress through acquisition,
computed the bivariate correlations among the variables. There and because consumer independence is negatively related to
were only three signicant correlations between age and gender materialism and to status consumption (Goldsmith and Clark,
 R.E. Goldsmith et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 175184
Table 4
Summary of sequential regression analysis for demographics and independent variables.
Beta t p
Step 1
Sex .044 .697 .487
Age .006 .102 .919
Step 2
Sex .006 .108 .914
Age  .045  .788 .432
MVS  .167  2.22 .027
Status  .141  1.78 .077
BESC .046  .651 .516
CI .214 3.29 .001
Note: n 256; signicant regression coefcients in bold; sr2y(x1) squared
2012; Goldsmith et al., 2012), individuals who score higher on
frugality will also score higher on a measure of consumer
independence. The correlation in these data (r .34, p o.0005)
supports the hypothesis.
In order to obtain a multivariate view of the relationships in the
study, we used linear regression. We regressed scores on the F-
scale rst on age and gender as potential control variables because
there were three signicant correlations between them and the
other variables, which we felt gave a sufcient cause to fear that
they might inuence the multivariate relationships among the
construct of interests (Spector and Brannick, 2011). The regression
results appear in Table 4.
The results show that despite the correlations between age and
gender with two of the variables, the regression analysis revealed
no signicant relationships for the control variables. The results
showed that when the effects of the other variables were held
constant, frugality was signicantly related to only materialism
(  .167, p .027) and to consumer independence ( .214, p
.001).The sizes of these relationships a comparable with those
reported by Bove et al. (2009) and are similar in size to other
studies of the relationships between materialism and other
individual difference variables (e.g., Pepper et al., 2009). Although
the VIF coefcients were all below 2.0, indicating that multi-
colinearlity did not unduly affect the regression analysis, appar-
ently, the relationships of the independent variables with frugality
are redundant, betraying a more complicated pattern of relation-
ships among these variables.
Along these lines, because only two of the independent variables
were related to frugality in the regression analysis, we examined in
addition to their individual relationships with frugality, the shared
or joint variance they shared with the DV. Joint variance refers to the
joint effects of two or more predictor variables on a single depen-
dent variable (Schoen et al., 2011). Most researchers ignore the
presence of joint variance in the presence of collinearly among
predictors. The squared semipartial coefcient (sr2y(x1)) in a regres-
sion analysis assesses the unique amount of variance in a dependent
measure accounted for by each predictor variable alone, and joint
variance assesses the variance shared by a set of predictors (or
independent variables) that is also shared with the criterion (or
dependent variable) (Schoen et al., 2011, p. 676). Joint variance is
important because it has the potential to improving theoretical
development and theory testing.
To assess joint variance in this study we reran the regression
analysis with only materialism and consumer independence as the
IVs. The squared semipartial coefcients for materialism (.016) and
independence (.034) represent the unique contribution of each
variable to explaining the variance in the dependent variable,
frugality (R2 .192), and their sum (.051) is the amount they
account for separately, or only 26.6% (.051/.192) of the total R2.
The remaining 73.4% of the total explained variance is accounted
181
sr2y(x1) F df p R2 R2adj
.0019
.0000 .245 2.253 .783 .002  .006
.0000
.0020
.0161
.0102
.0012
.0349 9.87 6.249 o .001 .192 .173
semipartial coefcient.
for by the joint variance of these two predictors. This nding is
similar to examples shown in Schoen et al. (2011). As noted below,
this joint or shared variance is not likely the result of common
method variance, and so it further suggests it is the combined
effects of the predictors in addition to their independent effects
that leads to a frugal lifestyle. Our discussion proposes further
study of this issue.
4.3. Subsequent analyses
Inspection of the bivariate scatterplots of the variables did not
reveal any non-linear relationships. The residual analysis did not
detect any residuals larger than 3.0, and only four of the standar-
dized residuals were larger than 2.0. A normality test of the
standardized residuals could not reject the null hypothesis
that they were normally distributed (ShapiroWilk .995(2 5 6),
p .575). The plot of the studentized residuals and standardized
predicted residuals suggested that there might be a violation of
the regression assumption of constant variance, but reanalyzing
the data with the square root transformation of frugality as the
dependent variable did not yield appreciably different results
(Norusis, 2002, Ch. 22). One outlier consistently appeared in these
analyses, but its removal and reanalyzing the data also did not
affect the results.
Next, because all the variables were measured using multi-item
self-report scales, there is a possibility of common method bias,
which can result if constructs share common measurement
methods (Conway and Lance, 2010; Podsakoff et al., 2003),
although fears of this artifact might be overblown and unwar-
ranted (Spector, 2006). As noted above, we separated some of the
scales from the others in time during the data collection to
mitigate CMV prior to data collection and we offer evidence of
discriminant validity (Conway and Lance, 2010). In addition, we
included in the questionnaire a scale to measure agreeableness, a
construct not theoretically related to the other construct but
sharing the same method. Lindell and Whitney (2001) propose
that examining the correlations of focal constructs with this
separate construct (the marker variable) can provide evidence
for the presence of common method variance, where the absence
of signicant correlations suggests it is not a problem. In our data,
the correlation of agreeableness with brand engagement (the
smallest correlation) was only  .065 (p .302), suggesting that if
CMV is in the data, it is unlikely to inuence the results or
conclusions.
Finally, the pattern of loadings for the frugality scale suggested
it was not unidimensional. Therefore, we performed an explora-
tory factor analysis that yielded a two-factor solution, in contrast
with the description reported by Lastovicka et al. (1999). Table 5
presents the results. One factor represents how people feel about
spending money carefully; the other factor emphasizes prudent
182 R.E. Goldsmith et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 175184
Table 5
Factor analysis results for frugality scale (n 256).
Frugality scale item
I am willing to wait on a purchase I want so that I can save money
There are things I resist buying today so I can save for tomorrow
I discipline myself to get the most from my money
I believe in being careful in how I spend my money
Making better use of my resources makes me feel good
There are many things that are normally thrown away that are
still quite useful
If you take good care of your possessions, you will denitely save
money in the long run
Eigenvalue
Percent of variance
Note: Principal axis factor analysis followed by oblique (direct oblimin) rotation;
loadings from the pattern matrix; only loadings 4 .3 shown.
use of existing possessions. A CFA showed that a two-factor
model t the data better than a one-factor model, but the second
factor was inadequately represented by its three items, and so
we removed two of them from the scale for the analyses we
conducted as noted above. We did, however, compute correlations
to test the hypotheses for each frugality subscale separately and
noted that the results were highly similar, so little would be gained
by treating the scale as two separate dimensions. Nevertheless, the
apparent multidimensionality of the frugality concept suggests
that further attention needs to be devoted to its conceptualization
and measurement. We note that Lastovicka et al. (1999) used
samples smaller than ours to develop the scale, so they might have
not been able to detect a multi-factor structure, and neither Todd
and Lawson (2003), Shoham and Brencic (2004), nor Bearden et al.
(2006) seem to have factor analyzed the F-scale in their studies.
5. Discussion
5.1. Summary
The study tested hypothesized relationships between frugality
and four other personality concepts: materialism, status consump-
tion, brand engagement in self-concept, and consumer indepen-
dence. The results showed as hypothesized that frugality is
negatively related to materialism, status consumption, and brand
engagement. The motivations of the frugal individual to be econom-
ical, utilitarian, and careful with money, seem to be the opposite of
those characterizing materialistic, status seeking individuals who
spend in order to acquire status and buy brands that express his or
her self-concept, perhaps neglecting utilitarian benets in favor of
social and psychological ones. In contrast, frugality is positively
related to consumer independence, a lack of concern for the opinions
of others when it comes to purchasing. This nding is highly
consistent with what we know about independent consumers based
on previous research (e.g., Clark, 2006).
The negative correlation with materialism is consistent with
prior studies (e.g., Lastovicka et al., 1999; Pepper et al., 2009) and
with the general notion that materialistic individuals are big
spenders, heedless of the long-term consequences of their beha-
vior. In contrast, frugal individuals are not as interested in material
goods for their own sakes and carefully spend their money to get
good value. As expected, frugality is negatively correlated with
status consumption because status consumption is highly similar
to materialism. The comparatively low negative correlation
(r  .25, p o.001) between BESC and frugality is interesting.
While highly materialistic individuals are more likely than their
less materialistic counterparts to use brands to express their self-
concept (Sprott et al., 2009), frugal buyers seem to be less likely
than less-frugal buyers to do so, but this relationship seems to be
Factor
loadings much weaker, suggesting that brands remain important to frugal
individuals. The result seems not to be a large repudiation of
F1 F2 brands as expressions of self. Perhaps some brands help consu-
mers express their frugality. Perhaps frugal individuals sometimes
.99
.74
use discount brands to express self-concept, conceivably because
.52 some frugal individuals are proud of the label (see No longer
.48 .30 simply chic, 2011). If frugality is central to that consumer's
.59 self-image, it is easy to imagine that they might use value laden
.57
brands, such as Toyota Corolla or Honda Fit to display this aspect of
.39 themselves. It might also be the case with frugal shoppers using
off-price retailers to buy high end and good quality products at
3.34 1.02 low prices. It brings to mind the slogan for T.J. Maxx, an off-price
47.8% 14.5% fashion retailer, I am a Maxxinista. This claim translates to, I am
a frugal shopper, and I want to show this to my friends and
family. The central theme of many Burlington Coat Factory TV ads
also stresses the wisdom of buying name brand goods at prices
lower than other stores, thereby displaying the attractiveness of
frugal behavior.
5.2. Contributions
Our paper makes original contributions in several ways. First,
this paper is the rst to distinguish the different meanings past
researchers and others have given to the concept of frugality. One
can devise a list of behaviors that many would agree are frugal in
nature. Thus, a constellation of these behaviors can be used to
distinguish whether one lives frugally or not. However, the
behavioral pattern should not be confused with underlying moti-
vations and personality concepts. Frugal behavior may be thrust
upon individuals owing to their cultural circumstance, events in
their personal lives, or by macroeconomic conditions. Constrained
frugality should not be confounded with a distinctive personality
and motivational prole, and in fact may be counter to it. Hence,
the return to materialistic ways when the constraints are lifted, or
new opportunities present themselves to previously frugal-living
individuals who did not have the resources or opportunities to
engage in materialistic behavior. Interestingly, however, the recent
increase in frugal behavior stimulated by the economic recession
of the past few years may not be followed by a return to proigate
spending as the economy recovers (Goodfellow, 2012; Hodson
et al., 2012). Future research should investigate the interrelation-
ships among constrained and voluntary frugality in more depth to
see how the one leads to the other. Success in this area might lead
to successful policy interventions designed to encourage frugal
behavior. Marketing may be able to do little to change constrained
frugal behavior, but by understanding the motives behind volun-
tary frugality, marketing efforts to persuade may be made more
effective.
Second, we show that a voluntary frugal lifestyle, by which we
mean a personality-like pattern of thoughts, feelings, and inten-
tions, both leads an individual to frugal behavior and is itself
partially the product of deeper psychological mechanisms located
in personality, values, and motivations. One argument in favor of
this view is the fact that measured frugality, scores on a scale
intended to operationalize the concept can account for only a
small portion of variance in self-reported frugal behavior (e.g.,
Lastovicka et al., 1999; Todd and Lawson, 2003). Likewise, the four
variables we examine in relation to frugality appear to share only a
small portion of variance in the F-scale itself. This nding com-
bined with the multivariate analyses suggests that more complex
relationships characterize the psychological antecedents of frug-
ality. We can suggest that, as the ndings show, materialism and
consumer independence, independently and jointly, seem to
 R.E. Goldsmith et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 175184
inuence the level of an individual's voluntary frugality, while
brand engagement and status consumption are likely also the
results of materialism and should not be taken as causes of
frugality. Indeed, Goldsmith and Clark (2012) show that materi-
alism is conceptually more fundamental than status consumption
and consumer independence and that status consumption com-
pletely mediates the relationship between materialism and con-
sumer independence. We can therefore envision a nomological
network containing these as well as additional variables, some of
which, like materialism, are true antecedents of frugality, and
others are related to it, allowing us to prole the frugal consumers,
but not playing a true causal role. Future research should try to
delineate these variables and test the models.
Another contribution of the study lies in the revelation that the
F-scale, probably the most popular way to operationalize frugality,
might be two-dimensional, representing a complex trait consisting of
a careful spending aspect and a waste not, want not dimension.
Future research should explore the attitudinal aspects of frugality in
more detail to determine if the frugal lifestyle has more to it than just
these two aspects. The two dimensions can be used separately to
determine if they lead to different behaviors or behavioral patterns.
Maybe there are different types of frugal consumers. This information
would be of value to those seeking to better understand or use the
concept. Future research should explore this avenue to help policy
makers by suggesting different strategies to encourage each type of
frugality. Finally, the study raises the question: does frugality affect
other aspects of life besides consumption? Is it related to charitable
giving, voluntarism, or other social behaviors such as socially conscious
buying, green consumption, and voluntary simplicity?
Frugality is a dimension of social behavior because frugal buying
and prudent money management can reect social standing and
social image. Thus, individuals may be embarrassed or proud of their
frugal behavior depending on how it is judged by signicant others.
In the case of voluntary frugality, which stems from more basic value
and personality characteristics, those social judgments may matter
less to the individual because voluntary frugality is linked to lower
levels of materialism, status seeking through consumption, and to
the need to use brands to express self-concept. Thus, these frugal
individuals are self-consistent. Their independence from the opi-
nions of others is highly consistent with this interpretation. Indivi-
duals constrained to live frugally, however, may experience social
discomfort because this behavior is inconsistent with basic person-
ality. If the frugal lifestyle is becoming more prevalent in the
U.S. owing to the past recession, its study as an element of social
psychology should be expanded.
5.3. Limitations
Although the nature of the sample limits the generalizability of the
point and interval estimates of the measured characteristics, the study
focused on testing theoretically derived hypothetical relationships, not
on providing a description of a specic target segment. Moreover,
although we cannot reliably describe demographic characteristics of
frugal consumers because the sample demographics had restricted
variability, the sample was comprised of real consumers who mani-
fested considerable variability on the psychological characteristics we
measured (see Table 2), and so constitutes a realistic source of data. As
noted by Highhouse and Gillespie (2009p. 250), it is rare in applied
behavioral science for the nature of the sample to be an important
consideration for generalizability.
6. Conclusions
These insights into the psychology of the frugal consumer can
help marketing managers and policy makers seeking to promote
183
sustainable consumption and consumer welfare. For instance,
frugal consumers might be interested in purchasing brands that
reect their feelings of independence in addition to providing
utilitarian benets. Managers can downplay the status aspects of
brands and appeal to the money saving and wise use of the
product instead. The negative relationship with brand engagement
offers an intriguing possibility. Perhaps consumers are frugal
because of reduced economic circumstances (Pepper et al., 2009)
and miss being able to express themselves through brands.
Marketers could create new brands or position existing ones to
express frugal virtues and values. Consumers might be persuaded
to adopt these brands as meaningful symbols of their wise
consumer behavior. Making frugality a desirable characteristic
would go a long way toward sustainable consumption. A better
grasp of the psychology of this behavior might be the way to avoid
forced or disruptive policies to that end.
References
Aronson, E., 2003. The Social Animal, ninth ed. Worth Publishers, New York.
Albinsson, P.A., Wolf, M., Kopf, D.A., 2010. Anti-consumption in East Germany:
consumer resistance to hyper consumption. J. Consum. Behav. 9 (6), 412425.
Ballantine, P.W., Creery, S., 2010. The consumption and disposition behavior of
voluntary simpliers. J. Consum. Behav. 9, 4556.
Bearden, W.O., Money, R.B., Nevins, J.L., 2006. A measure of long-term orientation:
development and validation. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 34 (3), 456467.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G., Teel, J.E., 1989. Measurement of consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal inuence. J. Consum. Res. 15 (4), 473481.
Belk, R.W., 1988. Possessions and the extended self. J. Consum. Res. 15 (2), 139168.
Birkner, C., 2013. Thrifty brits: economic austerity in the U.K. has given rise to a
more frugal British consumer. Marketing News August, 8.
Bove, L.L., Nagpal, A., Dorsett, A.D.S., 2009. Exploring the determinants of the frugal
shopper. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 16 (4), 291297.
Charles, K.K., Hurst, E., Roussanov, N., 2009. Conspicuous consumption and race.
Q. J. Econ. 124 (2), 425467.
Clark, R.A., 2006. Consumer Independence: Conceptualization, Measurement, and
Validation of a Previously Unmeasured Social Response Tendency. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. Florida State University.
Clark, R.A., Zboja, J.J., Goldsmith, R.E., 2007. Status consumption and role-relaxed
consumption: a tale of two retail consumers. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 14 (1),
4559.
Conway, J.M., Lance, C.E., 2010. What reviewers should expect from authors
regarding common method bias in organizational research. J. Bus. Psychol.
25 (3), 325334.
Eastman, J.K., Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R., 1999. Status consumption in consumer
behavior: scale development and validation. J. Marketing Theory Pract. 7 (3),
4151.
Egol, M., Clyde, A., Rangan K., Sanderson, R., 2010. The New Consumer Frugality:
Adapting to the Enduring Shift in U.S. Consumer Spending and Behavior. White
Paper Available from Booz & Company, http://www.booz.com/media/ uploads/
he_New_Consumer_Frugality.pdf.
Elliott, R., 2004. Making up people: consumption as a symbolic vocabulary for the
construction of identity. In: Ekstrom, K.M., Brembeck, H. (Eds.), Elusive
Consumption. Berg, Oxford, UK, pp. 129143.
Elliott, S., 2010. Will You be My Frugal Valentine? New York Times p. B8. (January
28, 2010).
Evans, K., 2011. A couple of bargains for frugal shoppers. Wall Street J. (Online)
(July 7, 2011).
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E., Korzenny, F., 2011. Brand engagement in self-concept: a
psychometric and demographic analysis. J. Multi. Res. 3 (2), 518.
Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in
consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 24 (4), 343373.
Gabriel, Y., Lang, T., 2006. The Unmanageable Consumer. Sage, London.
Goldsmith, R.E., Clark, R.A., 2012. Materialism, status consumption, and consumer
independence. J. Soc. Psychol. 152 (1), 4360.
Goldsmith, R.E., Clark, R.A., Lafferty, B.A., 2005. Tendency to conform: a new
measure and its relationship to psychological reactance. Psychol. Rep. 96,
591594.
Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R., Clark, R.A., 2011. Materialism and brand engagement as
shopping motivations. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 18 (4), 278284.
Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R., Clark, R.A., 2012. Materialistic, brand engaged and status
consuming consumers and clothing behaviors. J. Fashion Marketing Manage.
16 (1), 102119.
Goodfellow, P., 2012. The New Normal, According to Consumers. Forbes, July 31,
2012.
Hader, S., 2008. Wooing luxury customers. Marketing Manage. 17 (4), 2731.
Hagerty, J.R., Tita, B., 2011. Appliance sales tumble; whirlpool, electrolux set
production cuts; frugal customers become handymen. Wall Street J. (Online).
New York.
184 R.E. Goldsmith et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 175184
Heaney, J.-G., Goldsmith, R.E., Jusoh, W.J.W., 2005. Status consumption among
Malaysian consumers: exploring its relationships with materialism and atten-
tion- to-social-comparison-information. J. Int. Consum. Marketing 17 (4),
8398.
Highhouse, S., Gillespie, J., 2009. Do samples really matter that much? In: Lance,
Charles E., Vandenberg, Robert J. (Eds.), Statistical and Methodological Myths
and Urban Legends. Routledge, New York, pp. 247265.
Hodson, N., Blischok, T., Egol, M., 2012. Four Forces Shaping Competition in Grocery
Retailing. White Paper from Booz & Company, May 2, 2012, http://www.booz.
com/global/home/what-we-think/reports-white-papers/ic-display/50493080.
Kadlec, D., Yahalom, T., 2011. How the economy changed you. Money 40 (10),
8088.
Kamineni, R., 2005. Inuence of materialism, gender and nationality on consumer
brand perceptions. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Marketing 14 (1), 2532.
Lastovicka, J.L., Bettencourt, L.A., Hughner, R.S., Kuntze, R.J., 1999. Lifestyle of the
tight and frugal: theory and measurement. J. Consum. Res. 26 (June), 8598.
Lev, S.J., 2005. The evolution of qualitative research in consumer behavior. J. Bus.
Res. 58 (3), 341347.
Lindell, M.K., Whitney, D.J., 2001. Accounting for common method variance in
cross-sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (1), 114121.
Millar, M., Thomas, R., 2009. Discretionary activity and happiness: the role of
materialism. J. Res. Pers. 49, 699702.
Nail, P.R., 1986. Toward an integration of some models and theories of social
response. Psychol. Bull. 100 (2), 190206.
No longer simply chic, cheap is now a badge of honor, 2011. Published in
Knowledge@Wharton, September 28, 2011, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.
edu/article. cfm?articleid=2849.
Norusis, M.J., 2002. SPSS 11.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Osborne, J.W., 2013. Best Practices in Data Cleaning. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Oppenheimer, D.M., Meyvis, T., Davidenko, N., 2009. Instructional manipulation
checks: detecting satiscing to increase statistical power. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
45 (4), 867872.
Osmonbekov, T., Gregory, B.T., Brown, W., Xie, F.T., 2009. How consumer expertise
moderates the relationship between materialism and attitude toward advertis-
ing. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Marketing 17 (4), 321327.
Palmer, K., 2009. Frugal forever? U.S. News & World Report 146(6), 56-58.
Pepper, M., Jackson, T., Uzzell, D., 2009. An examination of the values that motivate
socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33 (2),
126136.
Pinto, D.C., Nique, W.M., Aaa, E.-S., Herter, M.M., 2011. Green consumer values:
how do personal values inuence environmentally responsible water con-
sumption? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 35 (2), 122131.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879903.
Richins, M.L., 2004. The material values scale: measurement properties and
development of a short form. J. Consum. Res. 31 (1), 209219.
Richins, M.L., Dawson, S., 1992. A consumer values orientation for materialism and
its measurement: scale development and validation. J. Consum. Res. 19 (3),
303316.
Rick, S.I., Cryder, C.E., Loewenstein, G., 2008. Tightwads and spendthrifts. J. Consum.
Res. 34 (6), 767782.
Rose, P., Smith, S.T., Segrist, D.J., 2010. Too cheap to chug: frugality as a buffer
against college-student drinking. J. Consum. Behav. 9 (3), 228238.
Saad, G., Vongas, J.G., 2009. The effect of conspicuous consumption on men's
testosterone levels. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 110 (2), 8092.
Schoen, J.L., DeSimone, J.A., James, L.R., 2011. Exploring joint variance between
independent variables and a criterion: meaning, effect, and size. Organ. Res.
Methods 14 (4), 674695.
Shaw, D., Moraes, C., 2009. Voluntary simplicity: an exploration of market
interactions. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33 (2), 215223.
Shoham, A., Brencic, M.M., 2004. Value, price consciousness, and consumption
frugality: an empirical study. J. Int. Consum. Marketing 17 (1), 5569.
Spector, P.E., 2006. Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban
legend? Organ. Res. Methods 9 (2), 221232.
Spector, P.E., Brannick, M.T., 2011. Methodological urban legends: the misuse of
statistical control variables. Organ. Res. Methods 14 (2), 287305.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S., Spangenberg, E., 2009. The importance of a general measure of
brand engagement on market behavior: development and validation of a scale.
J. Marketing Res. 46 (1), 92104.
Tatzel, M., 2002. Money worlds and well-being: an integration of money disposi-
tions, materialism and price-related behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 23 (1), 103126.
Thomas, Stanley, J., Danko, W.D., 2010. The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising
Secrets of America's Wealthy. Talyor Trade Publishing, New York.
Thomsen, T.U., Srensen, E.B., 2006. The rst four-wheeled status symbol: pram
consumption as a vehicle for the construction of motherhood identity.
J. Marketing Manage. 22, 907927.
Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O., Hunter, G.L., 2001. Consumer's need for uniqueness: scale
development and validation. J. Consum. Res. 28 (1), 5066.
Todd, S., Lawson, R., 2003. Towards an understanding of frugal consumers.
Australas. Marketing J. 11 (3), 818.
Wells, W.D., Tigert, D.J., 1971. Activities, interests, and opinions. J. Advertising Res.
11 (4), 2735.
Wilk, R.R., 1996. Economies and Cultures: Economic Foundations of Economic
Anthropology. Westview, Boulder, CA.
Wright, N.D., Larsen, V., 1993. Materialism and life satisfaction. J. Consum. Satisf.
Dissatisf. Complain. Behav. 6, 158165.