The Acquiring Motives Questionnaire (AMQ)<\/strong> is an empirically validated psychometric instrument developed by Jonathan David, Miriam K. Forbes, and Melissa M. Norberg (2024)<\/a> to systematically measure the multidimensional psychological motivations that drive excessive and non-essential acquisition of physical items. While non-essential acquiring is a core behavioral feature of Hoarding Disorder (HD)<\/a> and Compulsive Buying-Shopping Disorder (CBSD)<\/a>, psychometrically robust instruments dedicated to isolating the nuanced positive and negative reinforcement mechanisms governing acquisition have historically been lacking. Developed in parallel with the Saving Motives Questionnaire (SMQ), the AMQ contains 55 items evaluated along a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 0 = “Never” to 4 = “Very Often”). Structural validation using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and item response theory (IRT)<\/a> establishes a 14-factor oblique model comprising nine positive reinforcement dimensions (Positive Social, Positive Sales, Positive Reward, Positive Use\/Info, Positive Historical, Positive Helping Others, Positive Identity, Positive Collecting, and Positive Beauty) and five negative reinforcement dimensions (Negative Social, Negative Sentimental, Negative Mistakes, Negative Coping, and Negative Collecting). The instrument demonstrates high internal consistency across subscales, with McDonald\u2019s omega coefficients ranging from ω = .81 to ω = .92, alongside robust test-retest reliability across most subscales (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] between .70 and .88). Discriminant and criterion-related validity are substantiated through distinct motivational profiles differentiating nonclinical community samples from individuals meeting clinical thresholds for HD and CBSD. The AMQ provides clinicians and researchers with a granular framework for behavioral assessment, functional analysis, and personalized cognitive-behavioral treatment planning<\/span>.<\/p>\n Acquiring Motives Questionnaire, AMQ, hoarding disorder, compulsive buying-shopping disorder, excessive acquisition, behavioral addiction, operant conditioning, positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, psychometrics, consumer behavior<\/p>\n The Acquiring Motives Questionnaire was conceived, developed, and validated by researchers affiliated with Macquarie University:<\/p>\n The primary clinical and empirical objective of the Acquiring Motives Questionnaire (AMQ) is to assess, differentiate, and quantify the specific cognitive, emotional, and behavioral motivations underlying the acquisition of possessions, especially non-essential and redundant objects. Excessive acquisition represents a primary diagnostic and functional challenge in psychiatric and clinical psychological settings. Within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders<\/em> (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR), excessive acquisition is recognized as an explicit specifier for Hoarding Disorder<\/a>, characterizing approximately 85% of diagnosed cases. Furthermore, it constitutes the definitive diagnostic hallmark of Compulsive Buying-Shopping Disorder<\/a> (CBSD), characterized by persistent, uncontrollable urges to buy or obtain items despite severe financial, interpersonal, and psychological impairment.<\/p>\n Prior to the introduction of the AMQ, assessment batteries for hoarding and compulsive shopping largely focused on the downstream behavioral manifestations (e.g., volume of clutter, financial distress, purchasing frequency) or generic constructs of distress, rather than the functional antecedents of acquisition. In clinical behavior analysis and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)<\/a>, understanding the exact reinforcement contingencies\u2014whether an individual is acquiring an object to self-soothe negative affect (negative reinforcement) or to construct a sense of status, aesthetic pleasure, or historical continuity (positive reinforcement)\u2014is crucial for tailoring exposure protocols, cognitive restructuring, and stimulus control strategies.<\/p>\n From an applied perspective, the AMQ allows clinicians to build personalized functional models of acquiring behavior. For example, a patient scoring high on Negative Coping<\/em> and Negative Mistakes<\/em> requires clinical interventions focused on distress tolerance, emotion regulation, and exposure to intolerance of uncertainty regarding future utility. Conversely, a patient presenting with elevated Positive Sales<\/em>, Positive Reward<\/em>, and Positive Identity<\/em> requires interventions targeting hedonic reward habituation, cognitive restructuring around perceived bargain thriftiness, and decoupling self-worth from material identity. In research domains, the AMQ provides an advanced measurement model capable of untangling shared versus distinct etiology across the spectrum of impulse-control, obsessive-compulsive, and addictive behaviors.<\/p>\n The psychological construct captured by the AMQ is the multidimensional structure of acquisition motives<\/strong>. Acquisition is not a monolithic behavioral impulse; rather, it is sustained by an interconnected network of appetitive approach motivations and distress-avoidance mechanisms. The AMQ organizes this construct into 14 distinct, correlated subscales divided across positive and negative reinforcement valences:<\/p>\n The theoretical architecture of the Acquiring Motives Questionnaire is grounded in the synthesis of three primary psychological paradigms: operant conditioning models of behavioral reinforcement, cognitive-behavioral conceptualizations of hoarding and compulsive shopping, and theories of the extended self within consumer psychology.<\/p>\n At its core, the AMQ applies B. F. Skinner’s operant conditioning framework<\/a> to differentiate between positive and negative reinforcement trajectories. Positive reinforcement occurs when the acquisition of an item delivers an appetitive stimulus\u2014such as hedonic pleasure (Positive Beauty, Positive Reward), social status (Positive Social), or self-actualization (Positive Identity). Conversely, negative reinforcement operates when the behavior terminates or prevents an aversive emotional or somatic state. In pathological hoarding and compulsive shopping, individuals frequently acquire possessions to neutralize acute affective distress (Negative Coping), mitigate the anxiety of prospective memory failure (Negative Sentimental), or avoid anticipated remorse and uncertainty (Negative Mistakes). By organizing the subscales into explicit positive and negative dichotomies, the AMQ captures the dual-process drivers that maintain chronic behavioral excess.<\/p>\n The scale directly operationalizes the cognitive-behavioral model of hoarding proposed by Frost and Hartl (1996)<\/a> and extended by Steketee and Frost (2003). In this model, information-processing deficits (e.g., categorization difficulties, memory distrust) interact with maladaptive beliefs about possessions. Possessions are attributed profound sentimental significance, instrumental utility, and aesthetic beauty. When exposed to an acquisition cue, individuals experience an intense surge of positive affect coupled with irrational beliefs regarding the prospective necessity of the item. If the individual resists acquisition, they encounter severe cognitive dissonance, fear of regret, and emotional distress. Acquiring the item produces immediate psychological relief, reinforcing the maladaptive belief system.<\/p>\n The AMQ also incorporates Russell Belk\u2019s (1988)<\/a> seminal theory of the “extended self,” which posits that humans define, anchor, and stabilize their identity through external physical objects. When internal self-worth, social connection, or perceived control is compromised, individuals often engage in compensatory consumption\u2014acquiring items to bridge the gap between their actual and ideal selves. The Positive Identity and Positive Social dimensions directly measure these compensatory symbolic dynamics.<\/p>\n The psychometric validity of the AMQ was established across rigorous multi-phase studies published by David, Forbes, and Norberg (2024)<\/a>, utilizing nonclinical student cohorts, community adult samples, and clinical cohorts diagnosed with Hoarding Disorder, Compulsive Buying-Shopping Disorder, or comorbid presentations.<\/p>\n Construct validity was demonstrated using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic approaches, combined with Item Response Theory (IRT) modeling. Polytomous graded response models confirmed that each item displayed high discrimination parameters (α > 1.0), indicating that the scale items effectively differentiate individuals across varying latent trait levels of acquisition drive. The items exhibited balanced threshold parameters (β), demonstrating sensitive measurement across mild, moderate, and severe motivational profiles<\/span>.<\/p>\n Convergent validity was verified by evaluating the AMQ against established indices of hoarding and compulsive shopping: the Saving Inventory-Revised (SI-R)<\/em>, the Compulsive Buying Scale (CBS)<\/em>, and the Richmond Compulsive Buying Scale (RCBS)<\/em>. As hypothesized:<\/p>\n Divergent validity was demonstrated through comparatively weak correlations with non-materialistic neurotic traits, general depressive symptom inventories (when controlling for negative coping), and unrelated psychological scales, verifying that the AMQ is not merely reflecting general negative affectivity.<\/p>\n The AMQ demonstrated superior criterion-related validity by successfully differentiating clinical samples (HD and CBSD) from healthy controls. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses and multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) indicated that clinical individuals scored significantly higher across all negative subscales and specific positive subscales (such as Positive Identity and Positive Reward) compared to control participants without psychiatric diagnoses. Notably, CBSD groups exhibited distinct elevations in Positive Sales and Positive Reward relative to isolated HD groups, whereas HD participants exhibited higher elevations in Negative Mistakes and Negative Sentimental motives, substantiating the scale\u2019s diagnostic discrimination utility.<\/p>\n The AMQ demonstrates excellent reliability metrics across both nonclinical and clinical populations, as documented in the primary psychometric evaluation by David et al. (2024).<\/p>\n Because traditional Cronbach’s alpha often underestimates internal consistency in multidimensional scales with varying factor loadings, the authors computed McDonald’s omega (ω) for each subscale:<\/p>\n All subscales comfortably exceed the standard psychometric benchmark of ω ≥ .80, indicating high item homogeneity and minimal measurement error within each latent dimension<\/span>.<\/p>\n Temporal stability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) over a two- to four-week retest window. The majority of the AMQ subscales demonstrated robust test-retest reliability with ICC values ranging from .70 to .88. Only two subscales displayed marginally lower temporal stability: Positive Use\/Info<\/em> (ICC = .67) and Positive Helping Others<\/em> (ICC = .68). These slightly lower coefficients are theoretically consistent with situational fluctuations in altruistic impulses and immediate informational needs, whereas core emotional and compensatory motives demonstrated pronounced longitudinal stability<\/span>.<\/p>\n The structural composition of the AMQ was derived and confirmed via advanced psychometric sequencing comprising exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).<\/p>\n Initial item pools were generated through comprehensive literature synthesis, clinical focus groups, and expert panel reviews. An initial exploratory factor analysis utilizing robust maximum likelihood estimation and geomin oblique rotation on nonclinical samples suggested a prominent 13-factor structure, with items clustering clearly according to specific functional motivations.<\/p>\n Subsequent validation conducted on independent community and clinical validation samples tested competing measurement models: unidimensional models, two-factor general valence models (Positive vs. Negative), higher-order models, and a 14-factor correlated oblique model. The 14-factor model demonstrated superior fit across standard statistical criteria:<\/p>\n Standardized factor loadings across all 55 items were strong, with item loadings uniformly exceeding .60, and many exceeding .80. Inter-factor correlations revealed that while subscales within the positive valence correlated positively with one another (average r<\/em> ≈ .40 to .60), and subscales within the negative valence correlated positively (average r<\/em> ≈ .50 to .70), correlations between positive and negative subscales were modest to moderate. This structural independence confirms that positive hedonic attraction and negative avoidance of distress operate as distinct cognitive-affective pathways in acquisition pathology<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Acquiring Motives Questionnaire was formally published in 2024<\/strong>. The instrument is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association (APA)<\/a> and the authors (David, Forbes, & Norberg, 2024). Qualified academic researchers and licensed mental health clinicians may utilize the instrument for non-commercial research and therapeutic assessment purposes in accordance with standard academic fair-use guidelines. Commercial deployment, digital redistribution, or inclusion in proprietary software requires formal permission and licensing from the authors and the publisher. Inquiries regarding permissions and administration guidelines should be addressed to Dr. Melissa M. Norberg via Macquarie University (melissa.norberg@mq.edu.au<\/a>).<\/p>\nKeywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
Positive Reinforcement Dimensions<\/h3>\n
\n
Negative Reinforcement Dimensions<\/h3>\n
\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
Operant Conditioning and Reinforcement Paradigms<\/h3>\n
Cognitive-Behavioral Models of Hoarding and CBSD<\/h3>\n
Extended Self and Compensatory Consumption<\/h3>\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Structural Validity<\/h3>\n
Convergent and Divergent Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Criterion-Related and Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
Internal Consistency<\/h3>\n
\n
Test-Retest Reliability<\/h3>\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)<\/h3>\n
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)<\/h3>\n
\n
Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
\n
13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)<\/h2>\n