Money, Appearance & Attention: One Trait or Three?
Original SimilarMinds archive analysis · Analysis completed November 3, 2026 · Published November 9, 2026 · Provisional measurement findings
Valuing money, investing in appearance and seeking attention were better represented by three correlated traits than by one combined status score in this analysis. They were related, but combining them would hide useful differences between people.
What was compared?
The starting sample was City 4.08: 1,094 response records, balanced at 547 in each of the two recorded gender categories. The 126-item mapping was checked against the original workbook and questionnaire key. Reverse-marked items were already reversed in storage; they were not reversed a second time.
The main comparison selected four items for each of the three domains. A one-factor model was compared with a three-factor model that allowed the traits to correlate. This answers a focused measurement question, not whether these traits are independent of every other personality orientation.
One factor versus three related traits
| Model | CFI | RMSEA | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|
| One status factor | 0.608 | 0.186 | 0.122 |
| Three correlated traits | 0.947 | 0.071 | 0.052 |
Higher CFI and lower RMSEA and SRMR indicate better fit in this comparison. Three traits fitted substantially better, although the remaining misfit means this is not a finished validation of the scales. Both models used numeric seven-category responses and conventional maximum-likelihood statistics.
How strongly were the traits related?
| Pair | Estimated factor correlation |
|---|---|
| Money / appearance | 0.43 |
| Money / attention | 0.39 |
| Appearance / attention | 0.50 |
Positive relationships support discussing these as status-related tendencies. They do not make the three scores interchangeable or demonstrate one underlying cause.
Which items defined each score?
Illustrative examples below are the exact questionnaire wording, grouped by the intended scale. They were selected from the archive for this comparison, rather than being a new live test.
| Domain | Items |
|---|---|
| Money valuation | I would not be happy if I was poor.; One of my main goals in life is to accumulate as much wealth and property as possible.; Money is important to me.; Money can buy happiness. |
| Appearance investment | Physical appearance is everything.; Being physically attractive is very important to me.; I put a lot of effort into how I look.; I put a lot of effort into how I dress. |
| Attention seeking | I tend to act out when I am being ignored.; No matter how much attention I get, it's never enough.; I am motivated by the pursuit of attention.; I find getting attention rewarding. |
Did the distinction hold across other versions?
Thirty-nine other eligible questionnaire versions contained the same six core items with matching wording and scoring direction. These version-level, gender-balanced samples totalled 37,004 records; this is not a verified count of different people across versions. Samples were capped at 10,000 per version and required at least 200 usable records in each of the two recorded gender categories.
All 39 versions favored three factors over one by BIC and by held-out covariance discrepancy. However, this replication used only two indicators per trait: no other eligible version contained all twelve exact items. It supports the distinction between the core concepts, not independent validation of every item in the longer scales.
Why keep three separate scores?
A single average gives the same result to a person scoring 80 / 20 / 20 on money / appearance / attention and another scoring 20 / 80 / 20. The summary loses which orientation drives the score.
The provisional recommendation is three separate, equally weighted four-item scores. An overall status score would need a defined purpose, explicit weighting and further validation; it should not replace the subscores.
What this study does not establish
- These are historical, self-selected questionnaire responses, not a representative population sample.
- Content selection and the available item wording shape the results. Financial insecurity and appearance effort may add meanings beyond status.
- Version replication does not establish strict measurement equivalence, test–retest reliability or predictive validity.
- The short replication models have few degrees of freedom, so very good fit is not evidence of a complete personality model.
Methods and further reading
The main twelve-item analysis used correlated-factor confirmatory models with no correlated residuals. Exploratory cross-loadings, gender-stratified held-out comparisons, respondent bootstraps, rank correlations and a separate polychoric sensitivity check were examined in the underlying analysis. Those checks favored retaining the three-way distinction. The ordinal sensitivity analysis was not a robust WLSMV test.
Source: historical City / Global Advanced questionnaire archive and matching item keys. Only aggregate findings are reported here. Related reading: MOTIVES personality research · Distinct Traits.