Construct · 6 fields · 12 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs 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 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 fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
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 synthesis found four lay meanings (low price, whatever I want in a product, the quality I get for the price, and what I get for what I give) and fixed the last as the definition. Vargo and Lusch moved the locus: in service-dominant logic value is not embedded in a product and delivered, but co-created with the customer and determined only in use. Both agree that value is a perception held by the buyer, not a property of the thing sold.[1][2]
Two things that the word conflates. Bowman and Ambrosini separated use value (the subjective worth of a good to its user) from exchange value, the money realized when it is sold, and argued that firms create the first and capture some of the second. Lepak, Smith, and Taylor made it multilevel: value can be created by individuals, firms, or societies, and who captures it depends on competition and isolating mechanisms, so the creator and the captor are often different parties. A start-up that creates a great deal of value and captures none of it is the standard case.[3][4]
The present worth of the cash an asset will deliver, discounted for time and risk. Graham and Dodd taught that a security has an intrinsic value that its price can wander away from, and that the analyst's job is to estimate the one and buy when the other is below it with a margin of safety. Fama's efficient-markets hypothesis states the opposite limit: if prices fully reflect available information, price is the best estimate of value and the wandering is noise. Both camps agree value is a number in currency; they disagree whether anyone can know it better than the market does.[5][6]
The value of a state is the expected sum of discounted future rewards an agent will collect from that state under a given policy; the value of a state–action pair is the same quantity after taking that action. Bellman's dynamic programming gave the recursion that defines it (the value of now equals the immediate reward plus the discounted value of next) and Sutton and Barto made estimating this function the centre of the field. A value function is a computed object, defined relative to a reward signal that someone else supplies. It says nothing about whether the rewards are worth wanting.[7][8]
Desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in a person's life. Rokeach fixed the idea of a value as an enduring belief about preferable end-states and modes of conduct, ranked against one another. Schwartz specified the content: ten basic values (power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, security) arranged on a circle so that adjacent values are compatible and opposite ones conflict, replicated across dozens of countries. Values here are plural, are properties of persons, and are measured by asking people to rank or rate them.[9][10]
What makes something good, and in what way. Korsgaard showed that the usual contrast between intrinsic and instrumental value runs together two distinctions: whether a thing has its value in itself or from some other source (intrinsic versus extrinsic), and whether it is valued for its own sake or for the sake of something else (final versus instrumental). A thing can be valued for its own sake and still have its value conferred from outside. The question is normative (what ought to be valued) and no survey of what people do value can settle it.[12]
Next
Combine items across the 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