Construct · 6 names · 6 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · six names, one construct Nearest construct by meaningperceived 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 price value is perceived 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.
Consumers' cognitive tradeoff between the perceived benefits of the applications and the monetary cost of using them, Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu's 2012 construct, added because consumers, unlike the employees in UTAUT, pay for what they use. The three items, adapted from Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal, ask whether the technology is reasonably priced and good value for money. Price value is positive when benefits exceed cost, and it predicts intention directly, more strongly for older women in their data. It is the marketing perceived-value construct with the referent changed from a product to a technology.[1]
A buyer's judgment of what is received for what is paid, formed after price has done two opposite jobs: raising perceived quality and raising perceived sacrifice. Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal's 1991 experiments manipulated price, brand, and store and measured perceived quality, perceived value, and willingness to buy with multi-item scales. Value rose with price at low prices and fell at high ones because the quality signal saturates and the sacrifice does not. The perceived-value items in this paper are the ones UTAUT2 adapted, minus the experimental design that showed why price cuts both ways.[2]
The consumer's overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given (Zeithaml's 1988 definition, distilled from exploratory interviews that produced four folk meanings: value is low price, value is whatever I want in a product, value is the quality I get for the price, and value is what I get for what I give). The paper is a synthesis rather than a scale, and it fixed the give–get formulation that every later measure operationalizes. Its point that get and give both include non-monetary components (time, effort, quality) is the part most later scales drop.[3]
Sweeney and Soutar's 2001 answer to Zeithaml: a nineteen-item scale in which perceived value has four dimensions (emotional, social, quality/performance, and price/value for money) developed on durable goods and validated against willingness to buy. The price dimension is the construct on the rest of this map; the other three are what Zeithaml's get contains once it is unpacked. PERVAL's argument is that a single value-for-money score hides the trade-offs consumers actually make between feeling, status, and quality.[4]
The pleasure or pain of the deal itself: the difference between the price paid and a reference price the buyer considers fair, Thaler's 1985 construct, added to the acquisition utility that standard theory allows, which is the value of the good minus what was paid. Transaction utility explains why the same beer commands a higher willingness to pay from a resort hotel than from a run-down store, and why people forgo purchases with positive acquisition utility because the deal feels bad. It is the only name on this map with an explicit reference point in the definition, and the only one derived from a theory of how money is coded rather than from interviews or item pools.[5]
The maximum price a buyer would pay for a given quantity of a good, the reservation price of demand theory, a point on the individual demand curve rather than a perception. Wertenbroch and Skiera's 2002 field studies measured it incentive-compatibly at the point of purchase with the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism, where the buyer states a price and a random draw decides whether they buy at it, and showed that hypothetical questions overstate what people will actually pay. Price value is a judgment about a price; willingness to pay is the price at which the judgment turns. The two should agree and are measured in different units.[6]
Next
Combine items across the price value scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, 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