Translating and Validating the Frugality Scale among the Czech Population

Abstract

Frugality is an important psychological trait that is currently of interest as a research construct in a range of fields, from consumer behavior to financial literacy and financial well-being. Increasingly, the concept of frugality is also being linked to environmental responsibility and behavior, as the core of frugality is the reduction or minimization of resources used and consumed, an emphasis on the long-term use of purchased products, and an overall conservation of resources. For many years, researchers have used the Frugality Scale (FS), the specific research tool introduced to measure frugality in a standardized and valid way. The aim of the study was to examine the psychometric properties of FS translated into the Czech language, to evaluate the uni-dimensionality of the construct, and to analyze associations with relevant variables documenting respondents' attitudes and behavior. For this purpose, the research based on face-to-face interviews among respondents representing the 15-74 years old population of Czechia was conducted. The obtained results showed that the previously developed FS achieved very good results in the Czech environment, where the obtained scores supported the hypothesized uni-dimensional structure of the scale. The CFA results show that the tested model fits well with empirical data. Convergent and construct validity is also shown to be high. Therefore, the Czech version of the Frugality Scale can be considered a reliable and valid instrument that is recommended for further use. By utilizing the FS, researchers and practitioners gain access to a robust tool for quantifying frugality and comprehending its pertinent aspects across diverse contexts.

Full text

Citation: Remr, Jiri. 2023. Translating
and Validating the Frugality Scale
among the Czech Population.
Administrative Sciences 13: 182.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
admsci13080182
Received: 30 June 2023
Revised: 31 July 2023
Accepted: 7 August 2023
Published: 9 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
administrative
sciences
Article
Translating and Validating the Frugality Scale among
the Czech Population
Jiri Remr
INESAN (Institute for Evaluations and Social Analyses), Sokolovská351/25, 18600 Prague, Czech Republic;
jiri.remr@inesan.eu
Abstract:
Frugality is an important psychological trait that is currently of interest as a research
construct in a range of fields, from consumer behavior to financial literacy and financial well-being.
Increasingly, the concept of frugality is also being linked to environmental responsibility and behavior,
as the core of frugality is the reduction or minimization of resources used and consumed, an emphasis
on the long-term use of purchased products, and an overall conservation of resources. For many
years, researchers have used the Frugality Scale (FS), the specific research tool introduced to measure
frugality in a standardized and valid way. The aim of the study was to examine the psychometric
properties of FS translated into the Czech language, to evaluate the uni-dimensionality of the construct,
and to analyze associations with relevant variables documenting respondents’ attitudes and behavior.
For this purpose, the research based on face-to-face interviews among respondents representing
the 15–74 years old population of Czechia was conducted. The obtained results showed that the
previously developed FS achieved very good results in the Czech environment, where the obtained
scores supported the hypothesized uni-dimensional structure of the scale. The CFA results show that
the tested model fits well with empirical data. Convergent and construct validity is also shown to
be high. Therefore, the Czech version of the Frugality Scale can be considered a reliable and valid
instrument that is recommended for further use. By utilizing the FS, researchers and practitioners
gain access to a robust tool for quantifying frugality and comprehending its pertinent aspects across
diverse contexts.
Keywords:
frugality; psychometrics; consumer behavior; purchasing motivation; confirmatory
factor analysis
1. Introduction
Consumer behavior research has traditionally focused on understanding the factors
driving individuals’ choices and behaviors in the marketplace. Frugality has emerged
as a prominent factor in recent years, representing a unique perspective on consumption
characterized by deliberate and conscious efforts to reach a simple lifestyle, economize
resources, and avoid unnecessary expenditures (Bove et al. 2009). It involves thoughtful
and intentional management of resources, informed choices, prioritization of needs over
wants, and finding satisfaction from non-material sources (Goldsmith et al. 2014).
Various discourses on frugality exist, including religious or worldview influences
(Todd and Lawson 2003), historical perspectives (Witkowski 2010;Stearns 2001), values
and morals (Belk 1988;Wilk 2001), and psychological factors, such as self-efficacy and self-
control (Haws et al. 2012;Zavestoski 2002). However, this study follows the perspective
of frugality as it was defined by Lastovicka et al. (1999), who perceived frugality as a
consumer lifestyle trait encompassing restraint in acquiring economic goods and services
and resourceful utilization of these resources to achieve long-term goals.
Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13080182 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 2 of 14
Scholars’ interest in frugal behavior has surged due to three significant factors. Firstly,
growing environmental concerns have encouraged consumers, especially frugal individu-
als, to embrace sustainable consumption practices. By extending the lifespan of products
and reducing frequent purchases, frugal consumers contribute to environmental sustain-
ability (Dacyczyn 1998;Evans 2011;Lin and Chang 2012). Research has shown a positive
association between frugality and sustainable consumption practices, particularly in finding
innovative ways to prolong product life (Evers et al. 2018). Frugal individuals also exhibit a
higher propensity to reuse and repair products (Albinsson et al. 2010) and an active search
for alternative ways to extend the lifetime of their possessions (Evers et al. 2018).
Secondly, the global economic downturn experienced by many countries has com-
pelled consumers to adopt increasingly frugal behaviors (Hampson and McGoldrick 2013).
Frugality, as a behavioral pattern, can be triggered by external forces, such as the already
mentioned economic downturns or personal setbacks. Additionally, individual differences
and subjective motivations play a role in driving individuals towards frugal behaviors
(Lastovicka et al. 1999;
Bove et al. 2009;Kadlec and Yahalom 2011). In this context, Gold-
smith et al. (2014) distinguished extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of frugality. For some people,
extrinsic drivers predominate and then the characteristic patterns of frugal behavior, such
as, for instance, cutting back on consumption or buying cheap goods, are observed to
be repeated. For other people, on the other hand, intrinsic factors may surpass. In such
cases, frugal behavior is driven by the individual’s beliefs, preferences, and interests rather
than being forced by external circumstances. Following this intrinsic line, some authors
considered frugality as a key driver influencing the way consumers behave (e.g., Pepper
et al. 2009; or Roccas et al. 2002). Reinecke and Goldsmith (2016) even attributed to it a
leading role in shaping consumer behavior. In this regard, Muiños et al. (2015) wrote about
voluntary, deliberate, and proactive choices.
Thirdly, frugality represents a form of anti-consumption, voluntarily adopted by
individuals seeking to reduce overall consumption levels (Albinsson et al. 2010;Khamis
2019;Kropfeld et al. 2018). For frugal consumers, anti-consumption becomes integral to
their self-image, reflecting their ability to avoid frivolous expenses and engage in smart and
efficient consumption practices. The rising interest in frugality is rooted in its alignment
with sustainable values, its association with economic challenges, and its representation
of a deliberate rejection of excessive consumption (Rose et al. 2010). In this perspective,
frugal individuals make fewer purchases and claim economic rationality when making
purchases (Michaelis et al. 2020), or even exhibit a dislike of purchases (Albinsson et al.
2010). In contrast to prevailing consumer culture, frugal individuals demonstrate ingenuity
and adaptability in their consumption practices.
Increased attention to frugality and customer motivations is manifested not only by
a number of scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals but also by attempts of many
researchers to propose the relevant research tools for measuring the extent of frugality
and its key determinants. In the center of these attempts, there is the Frugality scale (FS)
developed by Lastovicka et al. (1999) that has become widely used (see, e.g., Todd and
Lawson 2003;Pires et al. 2019;Santor et al. 2020;Rodrigues et al. 2023), and it also has
some adaptations (among others see e.g., Muiños et al. 2015). Although the original FS
was introduced as a one-dimensional construct, some researchers ended up with a bifactor
solution distinguishing financial management from resource management (Pires et al. 2019).
Reflecting the discourse on the dimensionality of the FS, the aim of this study was
to assess the FS in Czechia and determine the number of factors. At the same time, the
intention was to evaluate the reliability of the scale and demonstrate its construct validity.
The hypotheses that were tested were as follows:
(a)
Based on the Czech data, FS has a unidimensional structure.
(b)
All eight items of the scale are correlated, and the scale has high internal consistency.
(c)
Psychometric properties of FS show a good fit of the theoretical model with data.

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 3 of 14
Frugality has received little attention in Czechia. Therefore, this study sheds light
on this important driver of consumer behavior in this part of Europe, making it a novel
contribution. The study represents the first validation of the FS within the Czech society,
providing new evidence about this construct. The validation of FS allows for further
investigations into frugality, enhancing understanding of specific aspects of consumer
attitudes and behavior.
The analytical effort primarily focuses on examining the reliability and validity of the
scale. FS was evaluated in terms of internal consistency and uni-dimensionality, along with
its construct validity. Its applicability within the Czech society was thoroughly assessed.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants and Procedure
The research was designed in such a way that its results would provide insights into
the attitudes and declared behavior of the Czech population. In this respect, the emphasis
was placed on including both adolescents aged 15–17 and respondents whose age was
65–74 years at the time of the data collection. Data on the theoretical population were drawn
from the census when the list of all houses and dwellings was used to design the sample
(in the absence of data from the population register, such a list is a suitable alternative
sampling frame). From this list, a selection was made in such a way that the selected units
reflected the regional differences and distribution in terms of size of place of residence.
Each interviewer was given 5–15 addresses at which an attempt was made to identify
specific respondents using a Kisch table (Kish 1949).
The data collection took place in March 2023, when interviewers contacted individual
households. In total, 2032 individuals were asked to participate in the survey. Due to the
fact that some of those contacted refused to participate in the research, 1153 face-to-face
interviews were conducted. Thus, the response rate was 53.2%. Informed consent was
obtained from respondents before each interview. In the case of adolescent respondents, at
least one of the parents was also invited to obtain informed consent.
All records were anonymized, and it was ensured that no specific person could be
identified, either directly or indirectly. The completed questionnaires were subjected to a
multi-stage check, during which 36 cases were excluded from further processing due to
incompleteness of descriptive data or inconsistency of control variables. Therefore, the
final sample contained 1117 valid cases. A total of 35% of the interviews conducted were
screened using check-backs. Summary information on the data distribution is presented
in Table 1, which also shows the similarity of the sample to selected parameters of the
theoretical population, including the confidence intervals (95% CI). In addition to the FS
itself, the research instrument contained other variables reflecting the relevant attitudes
of the respondents and describing their behavior. It also contained a number of socio-
demographic and socio-economic variables.
Before incorporating the FS into the research instrument, the scale was translated into
Czech and pilot tested. The process of translating the scale followed the recommended
procedure described by Sousa and Rojjanasrirat (2011) and Yu et al. (2004). The initial
translation of the scale was carried out by two independent translators who translated the
individual items of the scale. The parallel translations produced were then compared with
each other, with identified differences discussed with both translators. On the basis of their
consensus, a consolidated translation of the scale in Czech was prepared. This was then
back-translated by a third translator into English in order to check the consistency and
equivalence of the Czech translation with the English original.
The next stage of scale editing focused on identifying potential errors and sources
of bias. In this respect, the translation of the scale was examined for possible overlap in
meaning between the stimuli and for inadequate use of vague and ambiguous words,
jargon, etc. However, no significant errors were identified in these respects. The next steps
of scale translation consisted of pilot testing the scale on a sample of 17 respondents who
were recruited from the target population. These individuals were subjected to a pilot

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 4 of 14
survey to identify any wording inconsistencies in the form of ambiguous wording. At
this stage, the cognitive interview technique was applied, specifically, think-alouds were
conducted (Willis 2005). The outcome of this stage was a finalized form of the FS, which
was incorporated into the research instrument and used for the actual interviewing.
Table 1. Selected socio-demographic characteristics.
Variables Theoretical Population * Sample 95% CI
Gender
Male 49.9% 50.2% 47.1–53.0%
Female 50.1% 49.8% 47.1–53.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Age
15–29 years 20.1% 20.4% 18.0–22.8%
30–39 years 17.8% 18.1% 16.8–21.4%
40–49 years 21.7% 21.9% 18.5–23.3%
50–59 years 17.5% 17.8% 16.5–21.1%
60–74 years 22.9% 21.8% 18.5–23.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Size of the place of
residence
Less than 10,000 inhabitants 46.1% 46.0% 42.1–47.9%
10,000 to 19,999 inhabitants 9.0% 8.7% 8.1–11.6%
20,000 to 49,999 inhabitants 13.0% 12.9% 7.2–10.6%
50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants 9.0% 9.3% 9.4–13.2%
100,000 inhabitants or more 22.9% 23.1% 22.5–27.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
* Data about the theoretical population comes from the Czech Statistical Office.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Frugality Scale (FS)
The Frugality Scale (FS), developed by Lastovicka et al. (1999), serves as a tool to
measure respondents’ attitudes, feelings, and perceptions related to frugality. Consisting
of eight items, the scale employs a six-point Likert-type response format ranging from
6 = definitely
agree to 1 = definitely disagree. The total score on the scale ranges from 8 to
48, with higher scores indicating a higher level of frugality. The reliability and validity of
the FS have been independently explored in various studies conducted by, e.g., Santor et al.
(2020), Pepper et al. (2009), and Shoham and Brenˇciˇc (2004).
2.2.2. Direct Stimuli
Considering that frugality involves conscious reflection and efforts to manage and
preserve possessions, the study also examined specific behavioral indicators related to
individuals’ attempts. Through direct questions, respondents indicated the frequency of
these behaviors using a five-point ordinal scale, where 5 = often, 4 = sometimes, 3 = seldom,
2 = exceptionally, and 1 = never. Table 2provides an overview of key variables focusing
on food waste, the reuse or repeated use of carrying bags, as well as the utilization of
packages designed to minimize waste production (such as reusable or resealable packages).
The underlying assumption here was that respondents who would score higher on the FS
would be more likely to exhibit the observed patterns of behavior. That is, for example,
they should have carried their own bag to the store to a greater extent, or they should have
reported less food waste compared to other respondents.

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 5 of 14
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Direct Stimuli.
Variables n %
Self-reported interest
in waste
at any time, I dispose of any waste 368 33.5%
when it is reasonable and brings some benefit 470 42.8%
do not give much attention to waste at all 260 23.7%
Total 1098 100.0%
“I try not to waste food.”
agree 803 73.3%
neither, nor 192 17.5%
disagree 101 9.2%
Total 1096 100.0%
Frequency of using own carrying bag
at the stores.
often 633 57.9%
sometimes 245 20.5%
exceptionally 204 18.6%
never 33 3.0%
Total 1094 100.0%
“It is important to me that the package design
prevents wasting.”
important 723 66.5%
neither, nor 200 18.4%
unimportant 164 15.1%
Total 1087 100.0%
“I am concerned with inflation,
expensiveness, and high prices of food.”
concerned 858 78.2%
neither, nor 169 15.4%
not concerned 70 6.4%
Total 1097 100.0%
Perceived affordability of consumer goods
without any limitations 342 31.4%
basic consumer goods without significant
limitations, but must consider some durable goods
519 47.6%
chooses the cheapest goods as more expensive
options are unaffordable
181 16.6%
even the cheapest options of basic goods are
prohibitively expensive
48 4.4%
Total 1090 100.0%
2.3. Data Analysis
In order to provide as detailed information as possible about the performance of the FS,
a series of relevant tests and analyses were carried out. Firstly, a descriptive analysis of each
variable was carried out. In addition to frequency analysis, means and standard deviations
were calculated for the individual stimuli comprising the tested scale. Moreover, analyses
aimed at describing the distribution of the data were performed, with skewness and
kurtosis analyses. In assessing internal consistency, item-total correlations were calculated,
and Cronbach’s alpha was used as well. It is worth mentioning that average variance
extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and floor and ceiling effects were assessed
(Field 2017).
To validate the scale and verify the fit of the predicted model to the empirical data, both
exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted. Exploratory
factor analysis aimed to identify the total number of factors using the principal components
method, whereas confirmatory factor analysis verified the fit of the proposed model with
respect to the nature of the data obtained using the maximum likelihood estimation method.
In order to meet both of these objectives, the dataset was divided into two equivalent
subsets using a random number generator, where the first subset (n = 552) was based on
exploratory factor analysis, while the confirmatory task was performed on the second
subset (n = 553). This recommended procedure (Furr 2011) has already been used to
examine the psychometric properties of another scale (Remr 2023). The varimax rotation

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 6 of 14
method with Kaiser Normalization was used to conduct the exploratory factor analysis. The
CFA included validation of the usual set of absolute and incremental indices. In addition,
the model tested was optimized to account for potential errors associated with unobserved
variables whose variance could not be explained within the model.
Missing values were handled by the listwise method, whereas other valid cases
available for the sub-analysis were used in the analysis of the other variables. For this
reason, the bases for each finding differ. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM
SPSS ver. 27 software, with the exception of the confirmatory factor analysis, which was
performed in AMOS 24 software.
3. Results
3.1. Univariate Statistics
As can be seen from Table 3, the FS achieved a total score of 35.87 in the research
conducted, with a standard deviation of 6.613. The table also shows the mean scores
for each item along with its standard deviation. For comparison, it is worth noting that
Lastovicka et al. (1999) found a means value of 40.43.
Table 3. Selected Statistics of the Frugality Scale (FS) and Its Items.
n Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Item-Total Correlation
1
If you take good care of your possessions,
you will
definitely save money in the long run.
552 4.72 1.028 −0.617 0.177 0.678
2
There are many things that are
normally thrown
away that are still quite useful.
552 4.14 1.144 −0.206 −0.551 0.696
3Making better use of my resources makes
me feel good. 552 4.64 1.027 −0.616 0.482 0.578
4
If you can reuse an item you already have,
there is no
sense in buying something new.
552 4.45 1.137 −0.498 −0.237 0.640
5I believe in being careful in how I
spend my money. 552 4.62 1.132 −0.574 −0.277 0.729
6I discipline myself to get the most from
my money. 552 4.74 1.065 −0.822 0.712 0.707
7
I am willing to wait on a purchase I want
so that
I can save money.
552 4.40 1.161 −0.472 −0.224 0.655
8
There are things I resist buying today
so I can
save for tomorrow.
552 4.16 1.168 −0.221 −0.495 0.568
The whole FS 552 35.87 6.613 −0.531 0.414
None of the items show a different pattern of ratings from the others, with values
of the means ranging from 4.14 to 4.74 and values of the standard deviations ranging
from 1.027 to 1.168. In terms of the values distribution, the floor and ceiling effects are
useful. These values are 0.0% and 2.2%, respectively, which can be considered adequate.
Similarly, the values of skewness and kurtosis are within the acceptable range, according to
Cain et al. (2017).
3.2. Uni-Dimensionality and Internal Consistency
The assumed uni-dimensionality of the scale is evidenced by the results of the ex-
ploratory factor analysis. Indeed, using the principal components method, only one factor
with an eigenvalue greater than 1 was extracted. In this regard, it should be noted that
the sampling adequacy rate was 0.905, which confirms the suitability of the input data
for the exploratory factor analysis. In this regard, Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded a
significant result with
χ2
= 1993.241 (df = 28, p< 0.001), and the coefficient of determination

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 7 of 14
reached a value of 55.9%, indicating that the identified factor explains more than half of the
variance. According to Pett et al. (2003), such value is adequately high to inform on the
meaningfulness of the factor analysis performed.
Table 4reports the factor loadings and communalities of all eight items in the scale.
The results show the highest factor scores for the item “I believe in being careful in how I
spend my money”, while the lowest value was for the item “There are things I resist buying
today so I can save for tomorrow”. According to Hogarty et al. (2005), a factor score greater
than 0.4 can be considered a significant contribution, which is the threshold that all items
in the scale tested reached.
Table 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis (FS).
n F1 Communalities
1 I believe in being careful in how I spend my money. 552 0.809 0.65
2 I discipline myself to get the most from my money. 552 0.792 0.63
3
There are many things that are normally thrown away
that are still quite useful. 552 0.783 0.61
4If you take good care of your possessions, you will
definitely save money in the long run. 552 0.767 0.59
5
I am willing to wait on a purchase I want so that I can
save money. 552 0.740 0.55
6
If you can reuse an item you already have, there is no
sense in buying something new. 552 0.732 0.54
7Making better use of my resources makes
me feel good. 552 0.682 0.47
8There are things I resist buying today so I can save
for tomorrow. 552 0.662 0.44
The assumed uni-dimensionality was evidenced by the high value of Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient, which in this study was 0.886. In relation to the overall consistency of the scale,
the contributions of the individual items were also analyzed. The eight-item solution tested
was found to be optimal in terms of internal consistency. In fact, none of the items would
worsen the overall consistency of the scale. Moreover, the possible removal of any of the
items would not lead to an increase in the internal consistency of the scale (Raykov 1997).
The correlations between the items ranged from 0.640 to 0.729, i.e., all values exceeded the
0.4 threshold recommended by Tavakol and Dennick (2011). Therefore, the results support
the claim that the individual items of the scale indeed reflect the intended construct and
can be used as a whole to measure frugality.
3.3. Psychometric Performance of the Frugality Scale
The construct validity and psychometric properties of the scale were tested on a
separate subset (n = 553) independently of the results of the exploratory factor analysis. To
this end, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation.
The model tested can be seen in Figure 1.
As the tested model achieved a chi-square value of 24.078 with df = 12 (p= 0.020), it
was necessary to compute other indices to assess the fit of the model to the data (Pituch and
Stevens 2016). In this regard, a set of absolute and incremental indices were used, where in
addition to the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR), the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI)
and the normalized fit index (NFI) were also assessed.

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 8 of 14
Adm.Sci.2023,13,xFORPEERREVIEW8of15



Figure1.ConfirmatoryFactorAnalysis(FS)oftheImprovedModel.
Asthetestedmodelachievedachi-squarevalueof24.078withdf=12(p=0.020),it
wasnecessarytocomputeotherindicestoassessthefitofthemodeltothedata(Pituch
andStevens2016).Inthisregard,asetofabsoluteandincrementalindiceswereused,
whereinadditiontotherootmeansquareerrorofapproximation(RMSEA)andstand-
ardizedrootmeansquareresidual(SRMR),thecomparativefitindex(CFI),Tucker–Lewis
index(TLI)andthenormalizedfitindex(NFI)werealsoassessed.
FromthedatasummarizedinTable5,itcanbeseenthattherootmeansquareerror
ofapproximation(RMSEA)reachedavalueof0.043,andthevalueofthestandardized
rootmeansquareresidual(SRMR)was0.0186,whicharevaluesthatarebelowtherecom-
mendedthresholdsandindicatethatthetheoreticalmodelreflectswellthedataobtained
(ComreyandLee2013).Thegoodnessoffitoftheproposedmodelisfurthercharacterized
bythegoodnessoffitindex(GFI)quantifyingtheproportionofvarianceintheobserved
covariancematrix(HuandBentler1998),whichreachedavalueof0.989,andthecompar-
ativefitindex(CFI)comparingthefitofthehypotheticalmodelwiththebaselinemodel,
whichreachedavalueof0.993.TheTucker–LewisIndex(TLI)andtheNormalizedFit
Index(NFI)alsoindicateaverygoodfitofthetheoreticalmodeltothedata(Byrne2001).
Basedonthevaluesobtained,itcanbeconcludedthatthetestedmodeladequatelyrepre-
sentsthedata.Inotherwords,withrespecttothevaluesofthekeyindices,itcanbecon-
cludedthattheFSperformsverywell.

Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (FS) of the Improved Model.
From the data summarized in Table 5, it can be seen that the root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) reached a value of 0.043, and the value of the standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR) was 0.0186, which are values that are below the recom-
mended thresholds and indicate that the theoretical model reflects well the data obtained
(Comrey and Lee 2013). The goodness of fit of the proposed model is further characterized
by the goodness of fit index (GFI) quantifying the proportion of variance in the observed co-
variance matrix (Hu and Bentler 1998), which reached a value of 0.989, and the comparative
fit index (CFI) comparing the fit of the hypothetical model with the baseline model, which
reached a value of 0.993. The Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) and the Normalized Fit Index (NFI)
also indicate a very good fit of the theoretical model to the data (Byrne 2001). Based on the
values obtained, it can be concluded that the tested model adequately represents the data.
In other words, with respect to the values of the key indices, it can be concluded that the FS
performs very well.
Table 5. Absolute and Incremental Indices (FS).
Indices Original Model Improved Model
RMSEA (Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation) 0.126 0.043
SRMR (Standardized Root
Mean Square Residual) 0.0571 0.0186
GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) 0.917 0.989
CFI (Comparative Fit Index) 0.903 0.993
TLI (Tucker–Lewis Index) 0.865 0.984
NFI (Normed Fit Index) 0.894 0.987

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 9 of 14
3.4. Convergent Validity
Convergent validity was analyzed through the average variance extracted (AVE) and
composite reliability (CR). In this regard, the FS achieved an AVE value of 0.56, i.e., the
latent variable explains 56% of the variance of the indicators. Since this value exceeds
the recommended threshold, which, according to Bardhoshi and Erford (2017), is 0.4, it
could be concluded that the latent variable adequately represents the construct being tested.
Moreover, the value of composite reliability (CR) indicates a high correlation between the
items of the latent variable when it reaches a value of 0.91.
3.5. Construct Validity
Furthermore, a high correlation between the scale items may indicate that they measure
the same construct (Furr 2011), and therefore, the correlation matrix is used to demonstrate
construct validity (see, among others, Nunnally and Bernstein 1994;Brown 2015;Schreiber
et al. 2006). In this regard, the correlation matrix presented in Table 6shows that all eight
stimuli consistently measure the same construct, as all items are significantly correlated
with each other.
Table 6. Correlation matrix (FS).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1
If you take good care of your possessions,
you will definitely save money in the
long run.
1000
2
There are many things that are normally
thrown away that are still quite useful. 0.495 ** 1000
3
Making better use of my resources makes
me feel good. 0.455 ** 0.384 ** 1000
4
If you can reuse an item you already
have, there is no sense in buying
something new.
0.414 ** 0.449 ** 0.387 ** 1000
5
I believe in being careful in how I spend
my money. 0.450 ** 0.483 ** 0.391 ** 0.476 ** 1000
6
I discipline myself to get the most from
my money. 0.431 ** 0.461 ** 0.455 ** 0.422 ** 0.584 ** 1000
7
I am willing to wait on a purchase I want
so that I can save money. 0.379 ** 0.434 ** 0.278 ** 0.372 ** 0.464 ** 0.435 ** 1000
8
There are things I resist buying today so I
can save for tomorrow. 0.308 ** 0.318 ** 0.229 ** 0.355 ** 0.435 ** 0.372 ** 0.519 ** 1000
Kendall’s tau_b; ** = correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Construct validity can be further evidenced by the relationship of the scale scores
with known predictors. In this regard, the study included questions on general interest
in waste and specifically an attempt to avoid food waste, using own bags at the stores,
overall concerns with the economy (i.e., inflation, price level), and perceived affordability
of consumer goods. Table 7shows how the FS scale scores varied across respondent groups.
The obtained results show statistically significant associations with all hypothesized
variables, with the exception of perceived affordability. Significant associations with
the selected indicators fitted with the expected frugal attitudes. In fact, the perceived
affordability that did not show statistically significant associations also corresponds to the
construct of frugality because it is considered rather as a state of mind and the deliberate
intention to spare resources and avoid overconsumption (see, e.g., Albinsson et al. 2010),
instead of the consequence of limited financial resources.

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 10 of 14
Table 7. Frugality Scale (FS) by the relevant attitudes and reported behaviors.
Variable % (n) Mean SD F df p*
Self-reported interest
in waste
at any time, I dispose of any waste 33.5% (368) 37.38 6.224 19.480 2
0.000
when it is reasonable and
brings a benefit. 42.8% (470) 35.80 6.455
do not give much attention
to waste at all. 23.7% (260) 34.20 6.206
I try not to waste food.
Agree 73.3% (803) 37.34 5.799 81.170 2
0.000
neither, nor 17.5% (192) 32.23 5.591
disagree 9.2% (101) 32.02 7.686
Frequency of using
own carrying bag
at the stores.
Often 57.9% (633) 37.67 6.181 42.674 3
0.000
sometimes 20.5% (224) 33.73 5.107
exceptionally 18.6% (204) 33.47 6.255
never 3.0% (33) 32.12 8.459
It is important to me
that the package design
prevents wasting.
Important 66.5% (723) 37.06 6.186 34.712 2
0.000
neither, nor 18.4% (200) 33.97 5.971
unimportant 15.1% (164) 33.46 6.733
I am concerned with
inflation, expensiveness,
and high prices of food.
Concerned 78.2% (858) 36.84 6.242 46.291 2
0.000
neither, nor 15.4% (169) 33.49 5.841
not concerned 6.4% (70) 30.86 5.901
Perceived affordability
of consumer goods
without any limitations 31.4% (342) 35.88 6.949 0.567 3
0.637
basic consumer goods without
limitations, but must consider some
durable goods
47.6% (519) 35.85 6.078
chooses the cheapest goods as more
expensive options are unaffordable 16.6% (181) 36.49 6.176
even the cheapest options of basic
goods are prohibitively expensive 4.4% (48) 36.44 6.928
* = ANOVA.
4. Discussion
This study aimed to test the psychometric properties of the FS in the context of
Czech society. To achieve this goal, various testing methods were combined, including the
assessment of internal consistency, principal components analysis, and confirmatory factor
analysis. Based on the formulated hypotheses, the data analysis supported the conclusion
that FS has a uni-dimensional structure in the Czech context. The scale demonstrated
internal consistency with favorable item-total correlations and a high Cronbach’s alpha
value. Moreover, exploratory factor analysis revealed a single factor underlying all eight
items indicating a high level of internal consistency. Besides, confirmatory factor analysis
supported the goodness of fit of the proposed model to the empirical data, as indicated
by the absolute and incremental fit indices. Additionally, the results showed significant
associations between FS and relevant attitudinal and behavioral patterns. Notably, the
scale exhibited a strong correlation with pro-environmental behavior. It was also associated
with resource efficiency and price sensitivity, as reported in other studies (Gil-Giménez
et al. 2021;Pinto et al. 2011;De Young 1996;Pan et al. 2019;Shoham and Brenˇciˇc 2004).
Moreover, the study revealed interesting demographic associations. Age and gender were
statistically significant factors linked to FS scores, with older respondents displaying higher
frugality values than younger ones and females scoring higher than males. These findings
add further depth to the understanding of frugality and its relevance in Czech society.
Moreover, the results revealed that respondents with a consistent and value-based
interest in good waste management scored significantly higher on the FS compared to others.
This finding aligns with numerous other studies, demonstrating a positive correlation
between frugality and environmental behavior (see Lin and Chang 2012;Evans 2011; or
Evers et al. 2018). Additionally, concerning environmental attitudes, it is evident that
respondents who brought their own shopping bags to the store achieved a significantly

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 11 of 14
higher frugality score. Specifically, those who often carried their own shopping bags
obtained an FS value of 37.67, while respondents who reported never bringing their bags
scored 32.12. Similar results were observed when evaluating the degree of importance
respondents attached to packaging design that prevents wastage. Here, individuals who
consider this characteristic important scored 37.06 on the FS, while those who attached no
importance to it scored 33.46. The results are consistent with findings from other studies
examining the relationship between environmental attitudes and frugality. Notably, they
indicate that frugality at the individual level is not solely a matter of value orientation but
also translates into specific behavioral patterns performed daily.
One particular area that lies at the crossroads between frugality and environmental
concerns is the issue of food waste. The study highlighted a significant discrepancy
between respondents who confirmed the importance of not wasting food and others. Those
who expressed efforts to reduce food waste scored significantly higher on the FS (37.34)
compared to respondents with an opposite attitude towards food waste, who scored 32.02.
This finding further substantiates the core principles of frugality as presented by Lastovicka
et al. (1999).
In the context of frugality, several sources delve into money perception, financial
management, and handling of finances. This research also examined this aspect. Specifically,
respondents who showed concern about these financial matters demonstrated higher levels
of frugality, scoring 36.84 on the FS, compared to other respondents who scored 30.86.
Finally, a noteworthy observation was that FS scores did not significantly differ based
on the perceived affordability of consumer goods. FS values remained consistent in this
regard, suggesting a predominant influence of intrinsic drivers over extrinsic determinants.
From these results, it becomes evident that frugality was a product of an individual’s
own decisions, willpower, and motivation, rather than being solely influenced by external
circumstances, such as scarce resources.
The implications of this study are threefold:
(a)
Academic: The validated research tool in the form of the frugality scale will facilitate
in-depth and specific data analysis to identify individual patterns of consumer behav-
ior. Examining this construct using a purposefully designed robust scale allows for
a better understanding of the nature of frugality in the individuals being surveyed
and provides greater insight into the mindset and attitudes in this area. The appli-
cability of the insights gained is significantly broader since, in addition to consumer
behavior itself, frugality also has implications for financial literacy and sustainable
behavior (Suárez et al. 2020). Additionally, it opens avenues for further exploration
of the relationship between frugality and other related constructs such as voluntary
simplicity, value consciousness, money attitudes, and thriftiness. These associations
can contribute to enhancing models of purchasing behavior and may lead to valuable
meta-analyses.
(b)
Practical: Better insight into respondents’ thinking about resource management prac-
tices improves the position of policymakers in designing specific measures and policies
that aim to promote resource conservation or reduce waste. Careful analysis based on
a robust methodology allows for better differentiation between social groups so that
specific interventions can be better targeted to the desired populations.
(c) Managerial: The study’s significance extends to management, particularly in profiling
the target group and describing the purchasing behavior of current customers. For
instance, considering customer frugality may become essential at various product
lifecycle stages, especially the estimation of the late-majority customers and the lag-
gard ones is important since these two groups are likely to attract frugal individuals.
Understanding the distribution of frugal customers can aid in making better product
planning, tailoring innovation, and using better strategies to suit the needs and prefer-
ences of relevant customer segments. The results of this study can, therefore, assist in
developing customer profiling methodologies and refining strategies, reflecting the
frugality of their customers.

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 12 of 14
However, the research conducted has some limitations. Since it was designed as a cross-
sectional study, the direction of the identified associations cannot be reliably determined.
Thus, it is not possible to analyze the correlation between frugality and pro-environmental
behavior in much detail (Churchill 1979;DeVellis 2016). It, therefore, remains unclear
whether increased frugality leads to sustainable behavior or, conversely, whether sustain-
able behavior (primarily driven by greater environmental responsibility) leads to increased
frugality. Similarly, it is not possible to use the available data to credibly prove the reasons
why older respondents show a higher propensity to frugality. There may be several scenar-
ios in this regard (see, inter alia, Todd and Lawson 2003;Lastovicka et al. 1999; or Bove et al.
2009), but the existing data do not suggest any. Thus, the results obtained only identify
and describe particular associations, but other, specifically targeted research will be needed
to explain them. Another limitation relates to the fact that the research conducted relies
on self-reported data. These may be burdened with all sorts of response biases (see, e.g.,
Biemer and Lyberg 2003 for details). The last restriction concerns the general social context
in Czechia. After many years of relatively stable economic development, the country faced
double-digit inflation and a sharp increase in energy prices in 2022. This may have affected
the way many individuals approached resource management and the way they planned
their household budgets and thought about their consumption behavior and purchasing
priorities. For this reason, it would be desirable to replicate the research on the same
population at a later date, when the economic situation has stabilized again.
5. Conclusions
The research conducted is among the multitude of studies that emphasize frugality as
one of the important drivers of consumer behavior. Based on the data collected, the tested
research instrument in the form of the FS has been shown to be suitable for further use
and capable of providing useful insights about the target group. In this regard, it should
be pointed out that the psychometric properties of the scale were very good, as well as its
internal consistency, reliability, and validity. On the basis of the results obtained, the FS
can be used either with the aim of researching customer attitudes and mapping the key
drivers of purchasing behavior or as an explanatory (or independent) variable in complex
attitudinal or behavioral models.
The results obtained not only provide information about the Czech population but
also provide other researchers with new ideas for further investigation, outline directions
for further research and ultimately contribute to the validation of the FS as such.
Funding:
This submission was funded by Operation Program Research, Development and Education,
European Structural and Investment Funds, and by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of
the Czech Republic, grant number/registration number CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/18_054/0014660 as a
part of the project “Setting the conditions and the environment for international and cross-sector
cooperation”.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki of 1975 (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration- of-helsinki/,
accessed on 8 August 2023) and follows the Ethical code of AAPOR (https://www.aapor.org/
Standards-Ethics/AAPOR-Code-of-Ethics.aspx, accessed on 8 August 2023). The research design
as well as the research instrument (the questionnaire) were approved in INESAN by the Research
Ethics Board (IREBA/2023/312). The institute holds HRS4R HR Excellence in Research award
(https://inesan.eu/en/hrs4r-2/, accessed on 8 August 2023) which acknowledge the highest standard
of ethics carried-out by researchers at this institute (https://www.euraxess.cz/jobs/hrs4r, accessed
on 21 March 2023). All links were accessed on 8 August 2023.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
This study involved data collected from anonymous respondents. All subjects gave their informed
consent for inclusion before their participation in the survey.
Data Availability Statement:
The data used to support the findings of this study will be available
from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 13 of 14
Acknowledgments:
The author would thanks to all interviewers engaged in this study and to all
members of the supportive research team.
Conflicts of Interest:
The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
Albinsson, Pia A., Marco Wolf, and Dennis A. Kopf. 2010. Anti-consumption in East Germany: Consumer resistance to hyper
consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9: 412–25. [CrossRef]
Bardhoshi, Gerta, and Bradley T. Erford. 2017. Processes and procedures for estimating score reliability and precision. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development 50: 256–63. [CrossRef]
Belk, Russell W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15: 139–68. [CrossRef]
Biemer, Paul P., and Lars E. Lyberg. 2003. Introduction to Survey Quality. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bove, Liliana L., Anish Nagpal, and Adlai David S. Dorsett. 2009. Exploring the determinants of the frugal shopper. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services 16: 291–97. [CrossRef]
Brown, Timothy A. 2015. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press.
Byrne, Barbara M. 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. In Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 2nd ed. New York:
Routledge.
Cain, Meghan K., Zhiyong Zhang, and Ke-Hai Yuan. 2017. Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring
nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behavior Research Methods 49: 1716–35. [CrossRef]
Churchill, Gilbert A. 1979. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16:
64–73.
Comrey, Andrew L., and Howard B. Lee. 2013. A First Course in Factor Analysis. London: Psychology Press.
Dacyczyn, Amy. 1998. The Complete Tightwad Gazette: Promoting Thrift as a Viable Alternative Lifestyle. New York: Villard Books.
De Young, Raymond. 1996. Some psychological aspects of reduced consumption behavior: The role of intrinsic satisfaction and
competence motivation. Environment and Behavior 28: 358–409. [CrossRef]
DeVellis, Robert F. 2016. Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 4th ed. London: SAGE.
Evans, David. 2011. Thrifty, green or frugal: Reections on sustainable consumption in a changing economic climate. Geoforum 42:
550–57. [CrossRef]
Evers, Uwana, Richard L. Gruner, Joanne Sneddon, and Julie A. Lee. 2018. Exploring materialism and frugality in determining product
end-use consumption behaviors. Psychology & Marketing 35: 948–56.
Field, Andy. 2017. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 5th ed. London: Sage Publications.
Furr, Mike. 2011. Scale Construction and Psychometrics for Social and Personality Psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Gil-Giménez, Domingo, Gladys Rolo-González, Ernesto Suárez, and Gabriel Muiños. 2021. The Influence of Environmental Self-Identity
on the Relationship between Consumer Identities and Frugal Behavior. Sustainability 13: 9664. [CrossRef]
Goldsmith, Ronald E., Leisa Reinecke Flynn, and Ronald A. Clark. 2014. The etiology of the frugal consumer. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 21: 175–84. [CrossRef]
Hampson, Daniel P., and Peter J. McGoldrick. 2013. A typology of adaptive shopping patterns in recession. Journal of Business Research
66: 831–38. [CrossRef]
Haws, Kelly, Rebecca Walker Reczek, Robin A. Coulter, and William O. Bearden. 2012. Keeping it all without being buried alive:
Understanding product retention tendency. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22: 224–36. [CrossRef]
Hogarty, Kristine Y., Constance V. Hines, Jeffrey D. Kromrey, John M. Ferron, and Karen R. Mumford. 2005. The Quality of Factor
Solutions in Exploratory Factor Analysis: The Influence of Sample Size, Communality, and Overdetermination. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 65: 202–26. [CrossRef]
Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1998. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under-parameterized model
misspecification. Psychological Methods 3: 424–53. [CrossRef]
Kadlec, Dan, and Tali Yahalom. 2011. How the economy changed you. Money 40: 80–88.
Khamis, Susie. 2019. The aestheticization of restraint: The popular appeal of de-cluttering after the global financial crisis. Journal of
Consumer Culture 19: 513–31. [CrossRef]
Kish, Leslie. 1949. A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household. Journal of the American Statistical Association 44:
380–87. [CrossRef]
Kropfeld, Maren Ingrid, Marcelo Vinhal Nepomuceno, and Danilo C. Dantas. 2018. The ecological impact of anti-consumption lifestyles
and environmental concern. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 37: 245–59.
Lastovicka, John L., Lance A. Bettencourt, Renee S. Hughner, and Ronald J. Kuntze. 1999. Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: Theory and
measurement. Journal of Consumer Research 26: 85–98. [CrossRef]
Lin, Ying-Ching, and Chiu-chi Angela Chang. 2012. Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness in green product usage.
Journal of Marketing 76: 125–34.

Adm. Sci. 2023,13, 182 14 of 14
Michaelis, Timothy L., Jon C. Carr, David J. Scheaf, and Jeffrey M. Pollack. 2020. The frugal entrepreneur: A self-regulatory perspective
of resourceful entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing 35: 105969. [CrossRef]
Muiños, Gabriel, Ernesto Suárez, Stephany Hess, and Bernardo Hernández. 2015. Frugality and psychological wellbeing. The role of
voluntary restriction and the resourceful use of resources. Psyecology 6: 169–90. [CrossRef]
Nunnally, Jum C., and Ira H. Bernstein. 1994. Validity. Psychometric Theory 3: 99–132.
Pan, Li Sunny, Tod Pezzuti, Wei Lu, and Cornelia Connie Pechmann. 2019. Hyperopia and Frugality: Different Motivational Drivers
and yet Similar Effects on Consumer Spending. Journal of Business Research 95: 347–56.
Pepper, Miriam, Tim Jackson, and David Uzzell. 2009. An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and frugal
consumer behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies 33: 126–36. [CrossRef]
Pett, Marjorie A., Nancy R. Lackey, and John J. Sullivan. 2003. Making Sense of Factor Analysis. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
[CrossRef]
Pinto, Diego Costa, Walter Meucci Nique, Edar da Silva Añaña, and Márcia Maurer Herter. 2011. Green consumer values: How do
personal values influence environmentally responsible water consumption? International Journal of Consumer Studies 35: 122–31.
Pires, Pedro P., Ana Carolina Monnerat Fioravanti Bastos, Érica de Lana Meirelles, Júlia Mulinari Peixoto, Natacha de Barros Candido,
and Leonardo de Barros Mose. 2019. Factorial Structure of the Frugality Scale: Exploratory Evidence. Psico-USF 24: 1–9.
[CrossRef]
Pituch, Keenan A., and James P. Stevens. 2016. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS,
6th ed. New York: Routledge Taylor & Frances Group.
Raykov, Tenko. 1997. Scale reliability, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, and violations of essential tau-equivalence with fixed congeneric
components. Multivariate Behavioral Research 32: 329–53. [CrossRef]
Reinecke, Flynn Leisa, and Ronald Earl Goldsmith. 2016. Filling some gaps in market mavenism research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour
16: 121–29. [CrossRef]
Remr, Jiri. 2023. Validation of the Health Consciousness Scale among the Czech Population. Healthcare 11: 1628. [CrossRef]
Roccas, Sonia, Lilach Sagiv, Shalom H. Schwartz, and Ariel Knafo. 2002. The big five personality factors and personal values. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 789–801. [CrossRef]
Rodrigues, Maria, João F. Proença, and Rita Macedo. 2023. Determinants of the Purchase of Secondhand Products: An Approach by the
Theory of Planned Behaviour. Sustainability 15: 10912. [CrossRef]
Rose, Paul, Shannon Toney Smith, and Daniel J. Segrist. 2010. Too cheap to chug: Frugality as a buyer against college-student drinking.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9: 228–38.
Santor, Darcy A., Fethi Ihssane, and Sara-Emilie McIntee. 2020. Restricting Our Consumption of Material Goods: An Application of the
Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 12: 800. [CrossRef]
Schreiber, James B., Amaury Nora, Frances K. Stage, Elizabeth A. Barlow, and Jamie King. 2006. Reporting structural equation
modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research 99: 323–38. [CrossRef]
Shoham, Aviv, and Maja Makovec Brenˇciˇc. 2004. Value, price consciousness, and consumption frugality: An empirical study. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing 17: 55–69. [CrossRef]
Sousa, Valmi D., and Wilaiporn Rojjanasrirat. 2011. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in
cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17: 268–74.
[CrossRef]
Stearns, Peter N. 2001. Consumerism in World History: The Global Transformation of Desire. London and New York: Routledge.
Suárez, Ernesto, Bernardo Hernández, Domingo Gil-Giménez, and Víctor Corral-Verdugo. 2020. Determinants of Frugal Behavior: The
Influences of Consciousness for Sustainable Consumption, Materialism, and the Consideration of Future Consequences. Frontiers
in Psychology 11: 3219.
Tavakol, Mohsen, and Reg Dennick. 2011. Making sense of Cronbach
´
s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education 2: 53–55.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Todd, Sarah, and Rob Lawson. 2003. Towards an understanding of frugal consumers. Australasian Marketing Journal 11: 8–18. [CrossRef]
Wilk, Richard. 2001. Consuming morality. Journal of Consumer Culture 1: 245–60. [CrossRef]
Willis, Gordon B. 2005. Cognitive Interviewing in Practice: Think-Aloud, Verbal Probing, and Other Techniques. New York: SAGE Publications,
Inc. [CrossRef]
Witkowski, Terrence H. 2010. A brief history of frugality discourses in the United States. Consumption Markets & Culture 13: 235–58.
Yu, Doris S., Diana T. Lee, and Jean Woo. 2004. Issues and challenges of instrument translation. Western Journal of Nursing Research 26:
307–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zavestoski, Stephen. 2002. The social–psychological bases of anticonsumption attitudes. Psychology & Marketing 19: 149–65.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.