Construct · 4 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one construct, many names Nearest construct by meaningprice valuecompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to perceived value is price value.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
Zeithaml's 1988 Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value gave the foundational definition: perceived value is the buyer's overall assessment of the utility of a product, based on what is received weighed against what is given. The receipts include quality and benefits, and the sacrifices include the money paid together with time and effort, so value is the net of the two. This treats value as one summary trade-off judgment on a single scale, which is exactly the reading that the multidimensional labels on this page, the PERVAL scale, consumption-value theory, and the customer-value tradition, later argued was too thin to capture how buyers actually judge worth.[1]
Sweeney and Soutar's 2001 Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale built the PERVAL instrument, which splits value into separate dimensions rather than one number: functional value from quality and performance, functional value from price and money spent, social value from the approval a purchase brings, and emotional value from the feelings it arouses. Each dimension is rated with its own items, so a product can score high on one and low on another. This is the same underlying idea of consumer value that Zeithaml named, but recast as a bundle of components, which is why the two labels measure much the same construct in incompatible ways: a single trade-off score versus a profile across four dimensions.[2]
Sheth, Newman, and Gross's 1991 Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values proposed that a market choice is driven by up to five kinds of value at once: functional value from performance, social value from associations with a group, emotional value from feelings, epistemic value from novelty or curiosity, and conditional value that depends on the situation. Like PERVAL, this frames value as several parts rather than one, and its functional, social, and emotional components map closely onto the later scale. It shares the same referent as Zeithaml's trade-off, a consumer's assessment of worth, but pulls it apart along its own list of values, so the label names the same thing under yet another scheme.[3]
Woodruff's 1997 Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage defined customer value as a customer's perceived preference for, and evaluation of, the attributes, performances, and consequences of a product as they help or block the customer's goals in use situations. This shifts attention from the moment of purchase to the worth realised while the product is used, the reading that service research calls value-in-use. It is the same family of judgment that Zeithaml, Sweeney and Soutar, and Sheth and colleagues each named, but framed around goals and use rather than a purchase-time trade-off or a fixed set of dimensions, which is why the labels overlap without lining up.[4]
Next
See how perceived value sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct