consumer perception of price quality and value a mean end model and synthesis of evidence valarie a...

Valarie A. ZeithamI

Consumer Perceptions of Price,Quality, and Value: A Means-EndModel and Synthesis of Evidence

Evidence fronn past research and insights from an exploratory investigation are combined in a conceptualmodel that defines and relates price, perceived quality, and perceived value. Propositions about the con-cepts and their relationships are presented, then supported with evidence from the literature. Discussioncenters on directions for research and implications for managing price, quality, and value.

THOUGH consumer perceptions of price, quality,and value are considered pivotal determinants of

shopping behavior and product choice (Bishop 1984;Doyle 1984; Jacoby and Olson 1985, Sawyer andDickson 1984. Schlechter 1984), research on theseconcepts and their linkages has provided few conclu-sive findings. Research efforts have been criticized forinadequate definition and conceptualization (Monroeand Krishnan 1985; ZeithamI 1983), inconsistentmeasurement procedures (Monroe and Krishnan 1985),and methodological problems (Bowbrick 1982; Olson1977; Peterson and Wilson 1985). One fundamentalproblem limiting work in the area involves the mean-ing of the concepts: quality and value are indistinctand elusive constructs that often are mistaken for im-precise adjectives like "goodness, or luxury, or shi-niness, or weight" (Crosby 1979). Quality and valueare not well differentiated from each other and fromsimilar constructs such as perceived worth and utility.

Valarie A. ZeithamI is Associate Professor, Fuqua School of Business,Duke University. The author gratefully acknowledges the financial sup-port and cooperation provided for this research by the Marketing Sci-ence Institute and one of its corporate sponsors. The author also thanksOrville C. Walker, Jr., Richard Lutz, C. Whan Park, Diane Schmalensee,A. Parasuraman, and three anonymous JM reviewers for helpful com-ments on drafts of the manuscript.

Because definition is difficult, researchers often de-pend on unidimensional self-report measures to cap-ture the concepts (Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock 1973;McConnell 1968; Shapiro 1973) and thus must as-sume shared meanings among consumers.

What do consumers mean by quality and value?How are perceptions of quality and value formed? Arethey similar across consumers and products? How doconsumers relate quality, price, and value in their de-liberations about products and services? This articleis an attempt to provide answers to these questions by:

• defining the concepts of price, quality, and valuefrom the consumer's perspective,

• relating the concepts in a model, and

• developing propositions about the concepts, ex-amining the available evidence in support of thepropositions, and suggesting areas where re-search is needed.

To accomplish these objectives, a review of previousresearch was augmented by an exploratory investi-gation of quality and value in the product category ofbeverages. Company interviews, a focus group inter-view, and 30 in-depth consumer interviews conductedby free-elicitation approaches generated qualitative data

2 / Journal of Marketing, July 1988Journal of MarketingVol. 52 (July 1988), 2-22.

that supplemented previous research and served as thebasis for 14 propositions.

The Exploratory StudyIn the exploratory phase of the research, company,focus group, and in-depth consumer interviews wereconducted to gain insight into consumer perceptionsof quality and value. Cooperation was obtained froma national company that markets three distinct productlines of beverages: a line of 100% fruit-flavored chil-dren's drinks, a line of 100% fruit juices, and a lineof tomato-based juices. In-depth interviews were heldwith the marketing research director, the senior prod-uct manager for juices, two company strategic plan-ners, and the president of the company's advertisingagency. Open-ended questions pertained to issues suchas company knowledge about quality and value per-ceptions of consumers, ways the company determinedthose perceptions, and how quality and value werecommunicated to consumers.

A focus group interview on the topics of qualityand value in beverages was held in a metropolitan areain the Southeast. The focus group was formed in ac-cordance with guidelines traditionally followed in themarketing research field (Bellenger, Bemhardt, andGoldstucker 1976). Participants were recruited to fitthe demographic profile of purchasers of fruit- and to-mato-based beverages. All participants were womenbetween the ages of 25 and 49 and all had at least onechild younger than 10 years of age. Participants werescreened to ensure current or recent usage of fruit- andtomato-based beverages. The identity of the partici-pating firm was not revealed in the interview; discus-sion about price, quality, and value centered on con-sumer experiences and perceptions relating to beveragesin general rather than to the specific brands of thesponsoring company. The moderator's questions cov-ered such topics as the meaning of quality and value,the attributes used to evaluate quality and value, andthe role of price in quality and value judgments.

A total of 30 in-depth interviews with female con-sumers were held in three metropolitan areas (one inthe Southwest, one on the East Coast, and one in theMidwest). Free-elicitation approaches recommendedby Olson and Reynolds (1983) were used to obtaininformation about the cognitive structures of con-sumers. These techniques included triad sorts and lad-dering. In the triad sorts, similar brands in the bev-erage category were divided into sets of three andsubjects were probed for distinctions among them. Thisinitial process uncovered the important distinctions thatrespondents used to discriminate among products. Theladdering process, which followed the triad sorts, in-volved a sequence of in-depth probes designed to forcethe consumer up the ladder of abstraction. As these

procedures had successfully elicited the more impor-tant higher levels of abstraction in previous studies(Gutman and Alden 1985; Reynolds, Gutman. andFiedler 1984; Reynolds and Jamieson 1985). they wereused to reveal the links among product attributes,quality, and value. After these indirect methods, sub-jects responded to open-ended questions covering suchtopics as information needed to make judgments aboutquality and value, impact of related factors (e.g.. ad-vertising and packaging) on perceptions, and defini-tions of the concepts. Before debriefing, demographicand beverage usage data were collected from respon-dents.

As is typical in exploratory studies using means-end chains (e.g., Olson and Reynolds 1983), the datagenerated were not numerical. Instead, the data werein the form of protocols and means-end maps for in-dividual consumers. Patterns of responses and ob-served similarities across individuals form the "re-sults" of this type of exploratory study. When combinedwith the descriptive data from the executive and focusgroup interviews, the observations and insights pro-vide a framework for speculating about the conceptsand their relationships (Figure 1).

The ModelFigure 1. an adaptation of a model first proposed byDodds and Monroe (1985). affords an overview of therelationships among the concepts of price, perceivedquality, and perceived value. In the following sec-tions, relevant literature and evidence from the ex-ploratory investigation are used to define and describeeach concept in the model. To differentiate betweenproposed relationships and empirically supported re-lationships, discussion of each proposition is dividedinto two parts. First, propositions are developed onthe basis of the qualitative data from the exploratorystudy and other conceptual work from the literature.Second, for each proposition, empirical evidence thatsupports and refutes the proposition is reviewed.

The Concept of Perceived QualityQuality can be defined broadly as superiority or ex-cellence. By extension, perceived quality can be de-fined as the consumer's judgment about a product'soverall excellence or superiority.' Perceived quality is(1) different from objective or actual quality. (2) ahigher level abstraction rather than a specific attributeof a product. (3) a global assessment that in some cases

'Lewin's (1936) field theoretic approach to evaluating the instru-mentality of actions and objects in achieving ends could be viewedas a foundation for this definition. In his view, instrumentality is theextent to which an object or action will achieve an end. In this case,quality could be viewed as instrumentality.

Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value / 3

FIGURE 1A Means-End Model Relating Price, Quality, and Value

ObjectivePrice

High-levelAbstractions

oLower-level attributes

Perceptions of lower-level attributes

Higher-level attributes

resembles attitude, and (4) a judgment usually madewithin a consumer s evoked set.

Objective quality versus perceived quality. Sev-eral researchers (Dodds and Monroe 1984; Garvin 1983;Holbrook and Cortman 1985; Jacoby and Olson 1985,Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1986) have em-phasized the difference between objective and per-ceived quality. Holbrook and Corfman (1985), for ex-ample, distinguish between mechanistic and humanisticquality; " . . . mechanistic [quality] involves an ob-jective aspect or feature of a thing or event; human-istic [quality] involves the subjective response of peo-ple to objects and is therefore a highly relativisticphenomenon that differs between judges" (p. 33)."Objective quality" is the term used in the literature(e.g., Hjorth-Anderson 1984; Monroe and Krishnan1985) to describe the actual technical superiority orexcellence of the products.

As it has been used in the literature, the term "ob-jective quality" refers to measurable and verifiable su-periority on some predetermined ideal standard orstandards. Published quality ratings from sources suchas Consumer Reports are used to operationalize theconstruct of objective quality in research studies (see

Curry and Faulds 1986). In recent years, researchershave debated the use of these measures of quality onmethodological grounds (Curry and Faulds 1986;Hjorth-Anderson 1984, 1986; Maynes 1976; Sproles1986). Concern centers on the selection of attributesand weights to measure objective quality; researchersand experts (e.g., Consumer Reports) do not agree onwhat the ideal standard or standards should be. Others(such as Maynes 1976) claim that objective qualitydoes not exist, that all quality evaluations are subjec-tive.

The term "objective quality" is related closely to—but not the same as—other concepts used to describetechnical superiority of a product. For example, Gar-vin (1983) discusses product-based quality and man-ufacturing-based quality. Product-based quality refersto amounts of specific attributes or ingredients of aproduct. Manufacturing-based quality involves con-formance to manufacturing specifications or servicestandards. In the prevailing Japanese philosophy,quality means "zero defects—doing it right the firsttime." Conformance to requirements (Crosby 1979)and incidence of internal and external failures (Garvin1983) are other definitions that illustrate manufactur-ing-oriented notions of quality.

4 / Journal of Marketing, July 1988

These concepts are not identical to objective qual-ity because they, too, are based on perceptions. Thoughmeasures of specifications may be actual (rather thanperceptual), the specifications themselves are set onthe basis of what managers perceive to be important.Managers' views may differ considerably from con-sumers' or users' views. Consumer Reports ratings maynot agree with managers' assessments in terms of eithersalient attributes or weights assigned to the attributes.In a research study for General Electric, Morgan (1985)points out striking differences between consumer,dealer, and manager perceptions of appliance quality.When asked how consumers perceive quality, man-agers listed workmanship, performance, and form ascritical components. Consumers actually keyed in ondifferent components: appearance, cleanability, anddurability. Similarly, company researchers in the ex-ploratory study measured beverage quality in terms of"flavor roundedness" and "astringency" whereas con-sumers focused on purity (100% fruit juice) andsweetness.

To reiterate, perceived quality is defined in themodel as the consumer's judgment about the superi-ority or excellence of a product. This perspective issimilar to the user-based approach of Garvin (1983)and differs from product-based and manufacturing-based approaches. Perceived quality is also differentfrom objective quality, which arguably may not existbecause all quality is perceived by someone, be itconsumers or managers or researchers at ConsumerReports.

Higher level abstraction rather than an attribute.The means-end chain approach to understanding thecognitive structure of consumers holds that productinformation is retained in memory at several levels ofabstraction (Cohen 1979; Myers and Shocker 1981;Olson and Reynolds 1983; Young and Feigen 1975).The simplest level is a product attribute; the mostcomplex level is the value or payoff of the product tothe consumer. Young and Feigen (1975) depicted thisview in the "Grey benefit chain," which illustrates howa product is linked through a chain of benefits to aconcept called the "emotional payoff."

Product -^ Functional —* Practical —> EmotionalBenefit Benefit Payoff

Related conceptualizations (Table 1) pose the sameessential idea: consumers organize information at var-ious levels of abstraction ranging from simple productattributes (e.g., physical characteristics of Myers andShocker 1981, defining attributes of Cohen 1979,concrete attributes of Olson and Reynolds 1983) tocomplex personal values. Quality has been includedin multiattribute models as though it were a lower levelattribute (criticisms of this practice have been leveledby Ahtola 1984, Myers and Shocker 1981, and oth-

ers), but perceived quality is instead a second-orderphenomenon: an abstract attribute in Olson and Rey-nold's (1983) terms, a "B" attribute (somewhat ab-stract, multidimensional but measurable) in Myers andShockers' (1981) formulation.

Global assessment simitar to attitude. Olshavsky(1985) views quality as a form of overall evaluationof a product, similar in some ways to attitude. Hol-brook and Corfman (1985) concur, suggesting thatquality is a relatively global value judgment. Lutz(1986) proposes two forms of quality, "affective qual-ity" and "cognitive quality." Affective quality par-allels Olshavsky's and Holbrook and Corfman's viewsof perceived quality as overall attitude. Cognitivequality is the case of a superordinate inferential as-sessment of quality intervening between lower ordercues and an eventual overall product evaluation (Lutz1986). In Lutz's view, the higher the proportion ofattributes that can be assessed before purchase (searchattributes) to tho.se that can be assessed only duringconsumption (experience attributes), the more likelyit is that quality is a higher level cognitive judgment.Conversely, as the proportion of experience attributesincreases, quality tends to be an affective judgment.Lutz extends this line of reasoning to propose that af-fective quality is relatively more likely for servicesand consumer nondurable goods (where experienceattributes dominate) whereas cognitive quality is morelikely for industrial products and consumer durablegoods (where search attributes dominate).

Judgment made within consumer's evoked set.Evaluations of quality usually take place in a com-parison context. Maynes (1976) claimed that qualityevaluations are made within "the set of goods which. . . would in the consumer's judgement serve thesame general purpose for some maximum outlay." Onthe basis of the qualitative study, and consistent withMaynes' contention, the set of products used in com-paring quality appears to be the consumer's evokedset. A product's quality is evaluated as high or lowdepending on its relative excellence or superiorityamong products or services that are viewed as sub-stitutes by the consumer. It is critical to note that thespecific set of products used for comparison dependson the consumer's, not the firm's, assessment of com-peting products. For example, consumers in the ex-ploratory study compared the quality of different brandsof orange juice (which would be the comparison con-text of the firm), the quality of different forms (re-frigerated vs. canned), and the quality of purchasedversus homemade orange juice.

Figure 2 depicts the perceived quality componentof the conceptual model in Figure 1.

PQ,: Consumers use lower level attribute cuesto infer quality.


Selected Means-End Chain ModelsTABLE 1

and Their Proposed Relationships with Quality and Value

Scheme Attribute Level Quality Level Value LevelPersonal Value

Level

Young and Feigin(1975)

Rokeach (1973)Howard (1977)

Myers andShocker (1981)

Geistfeld, Sproles,and Badenhop(1977)

Cohen (1979)

Gutman andReynolds (1979)

Olson andReynolds (1983)

Functional benefits

Product attributes

Physical characteristics

Concrete,unidimensional, andmeasurableattributes (C)

Defining attributes

Attributes

Concrete attributes

Practical benefit

Choice criteria

Pseudophysicalcharacteristics

Emotional payoff

Instrumental values Terminal values

Task or outcomereferent

User referent

Somewhat abstract, Abstract, multidimensional, and difficultmultidimensional but to measure attributes (A)measurable (B)

Instrumental attributes

Consequences

Abstract attributes

Highly valuedstates

Values

Functionalconsequences

Psychosocialconsequences

Instrumental values

Terminal values

Holbrook and Corfman (1985) note that early phi-losophers used the word "quality" to refer to explicitfeatures (i.e., properties or characteristics) of an ob-ject as f)erceived by a subject (e.g., Austin 1964, p.44; Russell 1912). Olshavsky (1985) terms this ten-dency to infer quality from specific attributes "sur-rogate-based preference forming behavior" and citesexamples of product categories in which a given sur-rogate is highly associated with quality (e.g., size sig-nals quality in stereo speakers, style signals quality incars and clothes). In the exploratory study, consumersrepeatedly associated quality in fruit juices with purity(e.g., 100% fruit juice with no sugar added) or fresh-ness. In these and other product categories, one or afew attributes from the total set of attributes appearto serve as reliable signals of product quality.

Attributes that signal quality have been dichotom-ized into intrinsic and extrinsic cues (Olson 1977; Ol-son and Jacoby 1972). Intrinsic cues involve the phys-ical composition of the product. In a beverage, intrinsiccues would include such attributes as flavor, color,texture, and degree of sweetness. Intrinsic attributescannot be changed without altering the nature of theproduct itself and are consumed as the product is con-sumed (Olson 1977; Olson and Jacoby 1972). Extrin-sic cues are product-related but not part of the phys-ical product itself. They are, by definition, outside theproduct. Price, brand name, and level of advertisingare examples of extrinsic cues to quality.

The intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy of quality cuesis useful for discussing quality but is not without con-

ceptual difficulties.^ A small number of cues, mostnotably those involving the product's package, aredifficult to classify as either intrinsic or extrinsic.Package could be considered an intrinsic or an extrin-sic cue def)ending on whether the package is part ofthe physical composition of the product (e.g., a dhp-less spout in detergent or a squeezable ketchup con-tainer), in which case it would be an intrinsic cue, orprotection and promotion for the product (e.g., a card-board container for a computer), in which case it wouldbe an extrinsic cue. For purposes of the model, pack-age is considered an intrinsic cue but the informationthat appears on the package (e.g., brand name, price,logo) is considered an extrinsic cue.

Evidence. Researchers have identified key lowerlevel attributes used by consumers to infer quality inonly a few product categories. These lower level cuesinclude price (Olson 1977; Olson and Jacoby 1972),suds level for detergents, size for stereo speakers (Ol-shavsky 1985), odor for bleach and stockings (Laird1932), and produce freshness for supermarkets (Bon-ner and Nelson 1985).

^Other methcxls of classification could have been used for these cues.Possible alternative classification schemes include (I) tangible/intan-gible. (2) distal/proximal (Brunswick 1956). and (3) direct/inferen-tial. However, each of these dichotomies has the same "fuzzy set"problems that are inherent m the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy. No-tably, with each scheme, some cues (particularly package) would bedifficult to classify Because the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy has aliterature underpinning it, because it is widely used and recognized,and because it has clear managerial implications, it was retained inthis review.


FIGURE 2The Perceived Quality Component

BrandName

ObjectivePrke

Level ofAdvertising

Perceived Quality

Extrinsic AttributesIntrinsic Attributes

Perceptions of lower-level attributes

Higher-level abstractions

PQ2: The intrinsic product attributes that sig-nal quality are product-specific, but di-mensions of quality can be generalizedto product classes or categories.

Generalizing about quality across products has beendifficult for managers and researchers. Specific orconcrete intrinsic attributes differ widely across prod-ucts, as do the attributes consumers use to infer qual-ity. Obviously, attributes that signal quality in fruitjuice are not the same as those indicating quality inwashing machines or automobiles. Even within aproduct category, specific attributes may provide dif-ferent signals about quality. For example, thicknessis related to high quality in tomato-based juices butnot in fruit-flavored children's drinks. The presenceof pulp suggests high quality in orange juice but lowquality in apple juice.

Though the concrete attributes that signal qualitydiffer across products, higher level abstract dimen-sions of quality can be generalized to categories ofproducts. As attributes become more abstract (i.e., are

higher in the means-end chains), they become com-mon to more alternatives. Garvin (1987), for exam-ple, proposes that product quality can be captured ineight dimensions: performance, features, reliability,conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, andperceived quality (i.e., image). Abstract dimensionsthat capture diverse specific attributes have been dis-cussed by Johnson (1983) and Achrol, Reve, and Stem(1983). In describing the way consumers comparenoncomparable alternatives (e.g., how they choosebetween such diverse alternatives as a stereo and aHawaiian vacation), Johnson posited that consumersrepresent the attributes in memory at abstract levels(e.g., using entertainment value as the dimension onwhich to compare stereos and Hawaiian vacations).Similarly, Achrol, Reve, and Stem proposed that themultitude of specific variables affecting a firm in theenvironment can be captured in abstract dimensions.Rather than itemizing specific variables that affectparticular firms in different industries under varyingcircumstances, they proposed conceptualizing the en-vironment in terms of its abstract qualities or dimen-


sions (e.g.. homogeneity heterogeneity, stability in-stability, concentration-dispersion, and turbulence).

Olson (1978) pointed out that consumers may useinformational cues to develop beliefs about productsand that task response (i.e., choice or evaluation) maybe a direct function of these mediating beliefs. Ac-cording to Olson, these beliefs may be of two types:descriptive, which involve a restatement of the orig-inal information in more abstract terms (e.g., "accel-erates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds" generates the belief"high performance") and inferential, which involvean inference to information missing in the environ-ment (e.g., "accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds"generates the belief "probably comers well. too"). Thisdistinction roughly parallels Alba and Hutchinson's(1987) distinction between interpretive and embellish-ment inferences and both dichotomies illustrate the levelat which dimensions of quality can be conceptualized.

Interviews with subjects in the exploratory studysuggested that specific intrinsic attributes used to inferquality could not be generalized across beverages, butthat higher level abstract dimensions could capture themeaning of perceived quality in whole categories orclasses of beverages. Purity, freshness, flavor, andappearance were the higher level abstract dimensionssubjects discussed in defining quality in the beveragecategory.

Evidence. In a study of quality in long distancetelephone, banking, repair and maintenance, and bro-kerage services, Parasuraman. Zeithaml. and Berry(1985) found consistent dimensions of perceived qual-ity across four consumer service industries. These ab-stract dimensions included reliability, empathy, as-surance, responsiveness, and tangibles. Similarly.Bonner and Nelson (1985) found that sensory signalssuch as rich/full flavor, natural taste, fresh taste, goodaroma, and appetizing looks—all higher level abstractdimensions of p)erceived quality—were relevant across33 food product categories. Brucks and Zeithaml (1987)contend on the basis of exploratory work that six ab-stract dimensions (ease of use. functionality, perfor-mance, durability, serviceability, and prestige) can begeneralized across categories of durable goods. Thoughempirical research has not verified the generalizabilityof dimensions for categories of packaged goods otherthan food products, for durable goods, or for indus-trial goods, abstract dimensions spanning these cate-gories could be conceptualized, verified, and then usedto develop general measures of quality in product cat-egories.

PQ3: Extrinsic cues serve as generalized qual-ity indicators across brands, products, andcategories.

Extrinsic attributes (e.g.. price, brand name) are

not product-specific and can serve as general indica-tors of quality across all types of products. F*rice. brandname, and level of advertising are three extrinsic cuesfrequently associated with quality in research, yet manyother extrinsic cues are useful to consumers. Of spe-cial note are extrinsic cues such as product warrantiesand seals of approval (e.g.. Good Housekeeping). Price,the extrinsic cue receiving the most research attention(see Olson 1977 for a complete review of this liter-ature), appears to function as a surrogate for qualitywhen the consumer has inadequate information aboutintrinsic attributes. Similarly, brand name serves as a"shorthand" for quality by providing consumers witha bundle of information about the product (Jacoby etal. 1978; Jacoby. Szybillo. and Busato-Schach 1977).Level of advertising has been related to product qual-ity by economists Nelson (1970. 1974). Milgrom andRoberts (1986). and Schmalensee (1978). The basicargument holds that for goods whose attributes are de-termined largely during use (exjierience goods), higherlevels of advertising signal higher quality. Schmalen-see argues that level of advertising, rather than actualclaims made, informs consumers that the companybelieves the goods are worth advertising (i.e., of highquality). Supporting this argument is the finding thatmany subjects in the exploratory study perceivedheavily advertised brands to be generally higher inquality than brands with less advertising.

The exploratory investigation of beverages pro-vided evidence that form of the product (e.g.. frozenvs. canned vs. refrigerated) is an additional importantextrinsic cue in beverages. Consumers held consistentperceptions of the relative quality of different formsof fruit juice: quality perceptions were highest for freshproducts, next highest for refrigerated products, thenbottled, then frozen, then canned, and lowest for dryproduct forms.

Evidence. The literature on hedonic quality mea-surement (Court 1939; Griliches 1971) maintains thatprice is the best measure of product quality. Consid-erable empirical research has investigated the rela-tionship between price and quality (see Olson 1977for a review of this literature in marketing) and hasshown that consumers use price to infer quality whenit is the only available cue. When price is combinedwith other (usually intrinsic) cues, the evidence is lessconvincing.

In forming impressions about quality of merchan-dise, respondents in a study by Mazursky and Jacoby(1985) selected brand name more frequently than anyother information. Gardner (1970. 1971) found sig-nificant main effects on quality perceptions due to brandname.

Kirmani and Wright (1987a.b) found empiricalsupport for the relationship between level of spending


on advertising and quality inferences. Manipulatingexpenditures on media budgets and on production ele-ments in advertisements, they found significant ef-fects of both on consumers' quality perceptions.

Bonner and Nelson (1985) confirm that productform relates to quality perceptions. An empirical studyrevealed the same hierarchy of quality in package form(fresh, refrigerated, frozen, bottled, canned, dried) aswas found in the exploratory study. Bonner and Nel-son conclude: "The sensory maintenance ability ofpackaging differs by type and those packaging formsthat can best deliver a rich/full flavor, natural andfresh taste, good aroma, and an appetizing appear-ance, are likely to gain market share" (p. 75).

PQ4: Consumers depend on intrinsic attributesmore than extrinsic attributes(a) at the point of consumption,(b) in prepurchase situations when in-

trinsic attributes are search attributes(rather than experience attributes),and

(c) when the intrinsic attributes have highpredictive value.

Which type of cue—intrinsic or extrinsic—is moreimportant in signaling quality to the consumer? Ananswer to this question would help firms decide whetherto invest resources in product improvements (intrinsiccues) or in marketing (extrinsic cues) to improve per-ceptions of quality. Finding a simple and definitiveanswer to this question is unlikely, but the exploratorystudy suggests the type of attribute that dominates de-pends on several key contingencies.

The first contingency relates to the point in thepurchase decision and consumption process at whichquality evaluation occurs. Consumers may evaluatequality at the point of purchase (buying a beverage)or at the point of consumption (drinking a beverage).The salience of intrinsic attributes at the point of pur-chase depends on whether they can be sensed andevaluated at that time, that is, whether they containsearch attributes (Nelson 1970). Where search attri-butes are present (e.g., sugar content of a fruit juiceor color or cloudiness of a drink in a glass jar), theymay be important quality indicators. In their absence,consumers depend on extrinsic cues.

At the point of consumption, most intrinsic attri-butes can be evaluated and therefore become acces-sible as quality indicators. Many consumers in the ex-ploratory study on beverages used taste as the signalof quality at consumption. If a beverage did not tastefresh or tasted "tinny" or too thin, the evaluation wasthat quality was low.

Consumers depend on intrinsic attributes when thecues have high predictive value (Cox 1962). Manyrespondents in the exploratory study, especially those

expressing concern for their chidren's health and teeth,unequivocally stated that purity (100% juice, no sugar)was the criterion they used to judge quality across thebroad fruit juice category. The link between qualityand this intrinsic attribute was clear and strong: allfruit beverages with 100% juice were high qualitybeverages and all others were not.

Evidence. Researchers addressing this question(Darden and Schwinghammer 1985; Etgar and Mal-hotra 1978; Olson and Jacoby 1972; Rigaux-Bricmont1982; Szybillo and Jacoby 1974) have concluded thatintrinsic cues were in general more important to con-sumers in judging quality because they had higherpredictive value than extrinsic cues. This conclusiondoes not account for the fact that many assessmentsabout quality are made with insufficient informationabout intrinsic cues. Selected individual studies (e.g..Sawyer, Worthing, and Sendak 1979) have shown thatextrinsic cues can be more important to consumers thanintrinsic cues. Conflicting evidence about the impor-tance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues becomes clearerif the conditions under which each type of cue be-comes important are investigated.

PQ5: Consumers depend on extrinsic attri-butes more than intrinsic attributes(a) in initial purchase situations when

intrinsic cues are not available (e.g.,for services),

(b) when evaluation of intrinsic cues re-quires more effort and time than theconsumer perceives is worthwhile,and

(c) when quality is difficult to evaluate(experience and credence goods).

Extrinsic cues are posited to be used as qualityindicators when the consumer is operating without ad-equate information about intrinsic product attributes.This situation may occur when the consumer (1) haslittle or no experience with the product, (2) has in-sufficient time or interest to evaluate the intrinsic at-tributes, and (3) cannot readily evaluate the intrinsicattributes.

At point of purchase, consumers cannot alwaysevaluate relevant intrinsic attributes of a product. Un-less free samples are being provided, consumers can-not taste new food products before buying them. Con-sumers do not know for certain how long a washingmachine or automobile will last until they purchaseand consume it. In these and similar situations, theconsumer relies on extrinsic attributes such as war-ranty, brand name, and package as surrogates for in-trinsic product attributes.

At other times, intrinsic attributes on which toevaluate quality are available but the consumer is un-


willing or unable to expend the time and effort toevaluate them. Working women, men, and singleshoppers, for example, have been reported to use su-permarket product information significantly less thanother demographic segments (Zeithaml 1985), in partbecause these segments are more time-conscious thanother segments (Zeithaml 1985; Zeithaml and Berry1987). Working women interviewed in the explora-tory study reported that they shopped quickly and couldnot study nutritional information carefully on bever-age containers. They selected beverages on the basisof the freshness or quality conveyed by packages orbrand names.

In other situations, intrinsic product attributes in-dicating quality are simply too difficult for the con-sumer to evaluate. Evaluation may be difficult priorto purchase, as with haircuts, restaurant meals, andother experience goods. Complex stereo equipment,insurance policies, and major auto repairs are exam-ples of products that for many consumers are difficultto evaluate even after purchase and consumption. Forthese "credence goods" (Darby and Kami 1973), con-sumers may rely on extrinsic cues because they aresimpler to access and evaluate.

Evidence. Research has shown that price is usedas a quality cue to a greater degree when brands areunfamiliar than when brands are familiar (Smith andBroome 1966; Stokes 1985). Research also has shownthat when perceived risk of making an unsatisfactorychoice is high, consumers select higher priced prod-ucts (Lambert 1972; Peterson and Wilson 1985; Shap-iro 1968, 1973).

PQ(,: The cues that signal quality change overtime because of(a) competition,(b) promotional efforts of companies,(c) changing consumer tastes, and(d) information.

As improved technology and increasing competi-tion lead to the development of technically betterproducts, the features that signal superiority change.The exploratory study suggested that the attribute cuessignaling quality in beverages are not static, but in-stead change over time. The shift from canned orangejuice to frozen orange Juice to refrigerated orange juiceis one example of the evolving standards of quality inbeverages. The replacement of saccharin with Nutra-sweet in beverages is another.

Harness (1978, p. 17) illustrates the forces of changeand the responses made by Procter & Gamble to keepTide detergent the highest quality brand in the pack-aged soap category:

Since Tide was first introduced in 1947, consumershave changed, washing machines have changed, fab-

rics have changed, laundry habits have changed, andcompetition has changed. . . . These are just a fewof the more significant changes in the householdlaundry market, and every one of these changes hasa meaning for the performance and the marketmg plansfor Tide. The product which we are selhng today isimportantly different from the Tide product which weintroduced in 1947. It is different in its cleaning per-formance, m sudsing characteristics, aesthetics,physical properties, packaging. In total, there havebeen 55 significant modifications in this one brandduring its 30-year lifetime.

The Concept of Perceived PriceFrom the consumer's perspective, price is what is givenup or sacrificed to obtain a product. This definition iscongruent with Ahtola's (1984) argument against in-cluding monetary price as a lower level attribute inmultiattribute models because price is a "give" com-ponent of the model, rather than a "get" component.Defining price as a sacrifice is consistent with con-ceptualizations by other pricing researchers (Chapman1986; Mazumdar 1986; Monroe and Krishnan 1985).

Figure 1 delineates the components of price: ob-jective price, perceived nonmonetary price, and sac-rifice. Jacoby and Olson (1977) distinguished be-tween objective price (the actual price of a product)and perceived price (the price as encoded by the con-sumer). Figure 1 emphasizes this distinction: objec-tive monetary price is frequently not the price encodedby consumers. Some consumers may notice that theexact price of Hi-C fruit juice is $1.69 for a 6-pack,but others may encode and remember the price onlyas "expensive" or "cheap." Still others may not en-code price at all.

A growing body of research supports this distinc-tion between objective and perceived price (Allen,Harrell, and Hutt 1976; Gabor and Granger 1961;Progressive Grocer 1964). Studies reveal that con-sumers do not always know or remember actual pricesof products. Instead, they encode prices in ways thatare meaningful to them (Dickson and Sawyer 1985;Zeithaml 1982, 1983). Levels of consumer attention,awareness, and knowledge of prices appear to be con-siderably lower than necessary for consumers to haveaccurate internal reference prices for many products(Dickson and Sawyer 1985; Zeithaml 1982). Dicksonand Sawyer reported that the proportions of con-sumers checking prices of four types of products(margarine, cold cereal, toothpaste, and coffee) at pointof purchase ranged from 54.2 to 60.6%. Among thegroups of consumers not checking prices in thesestudies, a large proportion (from 58.5 to 76.7% in thefour product categories) stated that price was just notimportant. Another recent study indicates that priceawareness differs among demographic groups, thegreatest levels of awareness being in consumers whoare female, married, older, and do not work outside

10/Journal of Marketing, July 1988

the home (Zeithaml and Berry 1987). Attention to pricesis likely to be greater for higher priced packaged goods,durable goods, and services than for low priced bev-erages, but other factors in these categories—com-plexity, lack of price information, and processing timerequired—may interfere with accurate knowledge ofprices. An additional factor contributing to the gapbetween actual and perceived price is price disper-sion, the tendency for the same brands to be priceddifferently across stores or for products of the sametype and quality to have wide price variance (Maynesand Assum 1982).

Ppii Monetary price is not the only sacrificeperceived by consumers.

Full price models in economics (e.g., Becker 1965)acknowledge that monetary price is not the only sac-rifice consumers make to obtain products. Time costs,search costs, and psychic costs all enter either explic-itly or implicitly into the consumer's perception ofsacrifice. If consumers cannot find products on theshelf, or if they must travel distances to buy them, asacrifice has been made. If consumers must expendeffort to assemble durable products or time to preparepackaged goods, and if this time and effort does notprovide satisfaction to the consumer in the form ofrecreation or a hobby, a sacrifice has been made.

Evidence. Research in economics, home econom-ics, and marketing supports the proposition that othercosts—time, effort, search, psychic—are salient toconsumers (Down 1961; Gronau 1973; Leibowitz 1974;Leuthold 1981; Linder 1970; Mabry 1970; Mincer 1963;Nichols, Smolensky, and Tideman 1971; Zeithaml andBerry 1987).

The Price-Quality RelationshipNearly 90 research studies in the past 30 years havebeen designed to test the general wisdom that priceand quality are positively related. Despite the expec-tation of a positive relationship, results of these stud-ies have provided mixed evidence.

PpQi: A general price-perceived quality re-lationship does not exist.

Price reliance is a general tendency in some con-sumers to depend on price as a cue to quality (Lam-bert 1972; Shapiro 1968, 1973). The body of litera-ture summarized by Olson (1977) is based on theassumption that a general price-perceived quality re-lationship exists. Despite a multitude of experimentalstudies on the topic, however, the relationship has notsurfaced clearly except in situations where methodo-logical concems such as demand artifacts (Sawyer 1975)could offer alternative explanations for the results

(Monroe and Krishnan 1985; Olson 1977). Bowbrick(1982) questioned the universality of the price-per-ceived quality relationship, called the stream of stud-ies on the topic "pseudoresearch," and claimed thatthe price-perceived quality hypothesis is too generaland untestable to produce anything other than trivialresults. Peterson and Wilson (1985) argue that the re-lationship between price and perceived quality is notuniversal and that the direction of the relationship maynot always be positive.

Evidence. Monroe and Krishnan (1985) concludedthat a positive price-perceived quality relationship doesappear to exist despite the inconsistency of the statis-tical significance of the research findings. They alsonoted, however, that multiple conceptual problems andmethodological limitations compromised previous re-search. Monroe and Dodds (1988) describe these lim-itations in greater detail and delineate a research pro-gram for establishing the validity of the price-qualityrelationship.

Many empirical studies have produced results thatconflict with Monroe and Krishnan's assessment of apositive relationship. In several studies (Friedman 1967;Swan 1974), overall association between price andperceived quality is low. Other studies show the re-lationship to be nonlinear (Peterson 1970; Peterson andJolibert 1976), highly variable across individuals(Shapiro 1973), and variable across products beingjudged (Gardner 1971). Other research, summarizedby Olson (1977), shows that price becomes less im-portant as a quality indicator when other product qual-ity cues, such as brand name (Gardner 1971) or storeimage (Stafford and Enis 1969), are present. Explor-atory and survey research (Bonner and Nelson 1985;Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985) indicates thatprice is among the least important attributes that con-sumers associate with quality.

Related studies (summarized by Hjorth-Anderson1984) have consistently shown price to be correlatedonly weakly with objective (rather than perceived)quality. Typical of these studies is work by Sproles(1977), who correlated the prices of products withquality ratings obtained through Consumer Reports andConsumers' Research Magazine. Though a positiveprice-objective quality relationship was found in 51 %of the 135 product categories, no relationship was foundin 35% and a negative relationship was found in 14%.Similarly, Riesz found the mean rank correlation be-tween price and objective quality to be .26 for 685product categories reported in Consumer Reports be-tween 1961 and 1975 and .09 for 679 brands of pack-aged foods (Riesz 1978). Geistfeld (1982) found vari-ability among markets and across stores in the price-objective quality relationship. Most recently, Gerstner(1985) assessed the correlation between quality and


price for 145 products and concluded tbat tbe rela-tionsbip appecired to be product-specific and generallyweak.

Botb Peterson and Wilson (1985) and Olsbavsky(1985) argue tbat tbe empbasis in price-quality studiessbould not be on documenting tbe general price-per-ceived quality relationsbip, but on tbe conditions un-der wbicb price information is likely to lead to an in-ference about product quality. One possibility is tbatsome individuals rely beavily on price as a quality sig-nal wbereas others do not. Peterson and Wilson sortedrespondents into groups on tbe basis of tbeir bavinga price-reliance scbema and confirmed in an experi-ment tbat "schematics" perceive a stronger relation-sbip between price and quality than "aschematics."Tbis general tendency on tbe part of some consumersto associate price and quality bas been examined intbe context of covariation assessment by Roedder-Jobn,Scott, and Bettman (1986), who confirmed tbat con-sumers differ in their beliefs about tbe association be-tween the price and quality variables. These studiesprovide evidence tbat some consumers bave a schemaof price reliance, rather than indicating a generalizedtendency in consumers to associate price and quality.

PpQ2: Tbe use of price as an indicator of qual-ity depends on(a) availability of other cues to quality,(b) price variation within a class of

products,(c) product quality variation within a

category of products,(d) level of price awareness of con-

sumers, and(e) consumers' ability to detect quality

variation in a group of products.

Monroe and Krishnan (1985) contend that most pastprice-perceived quality research bas been exploratoryand has not succeeded in resolving the question of wbenprice is used to infer quality. Contingencies affectingtbe use of price as a quality indicator fit into tbreegroups: informational factors, individual factors, andproduct category factors.

The first category of factors believed to affect tbeprice-perceived quality relationship consists of otherinformation available to tbe consumer. When intrinsiccues to quality are readily accessible, when brand namesprovide evidence of a company's reputation, or whenlevel of advertising communicates the company's be-lief in the brand, the consumer may prefer to use thosecues instead of price.

Several individual difference factors may accountfor the variation in the use of price as a quality signal.One explanatory variable is price awareness of tbeconsumer: consumers unaware of product prices ob-viously cannot use price to infer quality. Another in-

dividual difference is consumers' ability to detectquality variation among products (Lambert 1972). Iftbe consumer does not have sufficient product knowl-edge (or perhaps even interest) to understand the vari-ation in quality (e.g., French, Williams, and Chance1973), price and other extrinsic cues may be used toa greater degree.

Consumers apf>ear to depend more on price as aquality signal in some product categories than in oth-ers. One explanation for this variation may be differ-ences in price-objective quality relationships by cat-egory (e.g., the low price of Japanese automobiles doesnot diminish the well-established perception of qualityin the category). Another explanation may be pricevariation in a category. In packaged goods categories(such as beverages) where products differ little in price,the consumer may not attribute bigber quality to prod-ucts tbat cost only a few cents more than those ofcompetitors. Respondents in the exploratory study, forexample, did not associate beverage price with qual-ity. Still another category-specific contingency is qualityvariation: in categories wbere little variation is ex-pected among brands (sucb as salt or paper sandwichbags), price may function only as an indication of sac-rifice whereas in categories where quality variation isexpected (such as canned seafood or washing ma-chines), price may function also as an indication ofquality.

Evidence. Olson (1977) showed that availabilityof intrinsic and extrinsic cues other than price typi-cally results in weighting those factors (e.g., brandname) as more important than price. He concludedthat brand name is a stronger cue than price for eval-uating overall quality (Gardner 1971; Jacoby, Olson,and Haddock 1973; Smith and Broome 1966; Stokes1985).

Studies bave indicated that use of price as a qual-ity indicator differs by product category. Except forwine and perfume, most positive links have been foundin durable rather than in nondurable or consumableproducts (Gardner 1970; Lambert 1972; Peterson andWilson 1985). In an experimental setting, Peterson andWilson documented the relationship between pricevariation and price-perceived quality association: tbegreater the price variation, the greater tbe tendency forconsumers to use price as a quality indicator.

In a recent meta-analysis of 41 studies investigat-ing tbe association between price and perceived qual-ity, Rao and Monroe (1987) found tbat tbe type ofexperimental design and tbe magnitude of tbe pricemanipulation significantly influenced the size of tbeprice-f)erceived quality effects obtained. Tbe numberof cues manipulated and tbe price level were not foundto have a significant effect. Because of constraints im-posed by tbe meta-analysis, tbe reviewers included only


consumer products and eliminated several studies asoutliers, so the full range of prices and types of prod-ucts was not investigated.

Considerable empirical research supports individ-ual differences in consumer knowledge of prices.Consumers are not uniformly aware of prices and cer-tain consumer segments (such as working women andmen) are less aware of prices than other segments(Zeithaml 1985; ZeithamI and Berry 1987; Zeithamland Fuerst 1983). Price awareness level has not beenstudied as it relates to quality perceptions, though Rao(1987) documented the impact of prior knowledge ofproducts on the use of price as a quality cue.

The Concept of Perceived ValueWhen respondents in the exploratory study discussedvalue, they used the term in many different ways, de-scribing a wide variety of attributes and higher levelabstractions that provided value to them. What con-stitutes value—even in a single product category—appears to be highly personal and idiosyncratic. Thoughmany respondents in the exploratory study agreed oncues that signaled quality, they differed considerablyin expressions of value. Patterns of responses from theexploratory study can be grouped into four consumerdefinitions of value: (1) value is low price, (2) valueis whatever I want in a product, (3) value is the qual-ity I get for the price I pay, and (4) value is what Iget for what I give. Each definition involves a dif-ferent set of linkages among the elements in the modeland each consumer definition has its counterpart in theacademic or trade literature on the subject. The di-versity in meanings of value is illustrated in the fol-lowing four definitions and provides a partial expla-nation for the difficulty in conceptualizing andmeasuring the value construct in research.

Value is low price. Some respondents equated valuewith low price, indicating that what they had to giveup was most salient in their perceptions of value. Intheir own words:

• Value is price—which one is on sale.• When I can use coupons, I feel that the juice is

a value.• Value means low price.• Value is whatever is on special this week.

In industry studies, Schechter (1984) and Bishop (1984)identified subsets of consumers that equate value withprice. Other industry studies, including Hoffman's(1984), reveal the salience of price in the value equa-tions of consumers.

Value is whatever I want in a product. Other re-spondents emphasized the benefits they received fromthe product as the most important components of value:

• Value is what is good for you.• Value is what my kids will drink.• Little containers because then there is no waste.• Value to me is what is convenient. When I can

take it out of the refrigerator and not have tomix it up, then it has value.

This second definition is essentially the same as theeconomist's definition of utility, that is, a subjectivemeasure of the usefulness or want satisfaction that re-sults from consumption. This definition also has beenexpressed in the trade literature. Value has been de-fined as "whatever it is that the customer seeks inmaking decisions as to which store to shop or whichproduct to buy" (Chain Store Age 1985). Schechter(1984) defines value as all factors, both qualitativeand quantitative, subjective and objective, that makeup the complete shopping experience. In these defi-nitions, value encompasses all relevant choice crite-ria.

Value is the quality I get for the price I pay. Otherrespondents conceptualized value as a tradeoff be-tween one "give" component, price, and one "get"component, quality:

• Value is price first and quality second.• Value is the lowest price for a quality brand.• Value is the same as quality. No—value is af-

fordable quality.

This definition is consistent with several others thatappear in the literature (Bishop 1984; Dodds andMonroe 1984; Doyle 1984; Shapiro and Associates1985).

Value is what I get for what I give. Finally, somerespondents considered all relevant "get" componentsas well as all relevant "give" components when de-scribing value:

• Value is how many drinks you can get out of acertain package. Frozen juices have more be-cause you can water them down and get moreout of them.

• How many gallons you get out of it for whatthe price is.

• Whatever makes the most for the least money.

• Which juice is more economical.• Value is what you are paying for what you are

getting.• Value is price and having single portions so that

there is no waste.

This fourth definition is consistent with Sawyer andDickson's (1984) conceptualization of value as a ratioof attributes weighted by their evaluations divided by


price weighted by its evaluation. This meaning is alsosimilar to the utility per dollar measure of value usedby Hauser and Urban (1986), Hauser and Simmie(1981), Hauser and Shugan (1983), and others.

These four consumer expressions of value can becaptured in one overall definition: perceived value isthe consumer's overall assessment of the utility of aproduct based on perceptions of what is received andwhat is given. Though what is received varies acrossconsumers (i.e., some may want volume, others highquality, still others convenience) and what is givenvaries (i.e., some are concerned only with money ex-pended, others with time and effort), value representsa tradeoff of the salient give and get components.

Value and qttality. In the means-end chains, value(like quality) is proposed to be a higher level abstrac-tion. It differs from quality in two ways. First, valueis more individualistic and personal than quality andis therefore a higher level concept than quality. Asshown in Table 1, value may be similar to the "emo-tional payoff of Young and Feigen (1975), to "ab-stract, multi-dimensional, difficult-to-measure attri-butes" of Geistfeld, Sproles, and Badenhop (1977),and to "instrumental values" of Olson and Reynolds(1983). Second, value (unlike quality) involves atradeoff of give and get components. Though manyconceptualizations of value have specified quality asthe only "get" component in the value equation, theconsumer may implicitly include other factors, sev-eral that are in themselves higher level abstractions,such as prestige and convenience (see Holbrook andCorfman 1985 for a discussion of the difficulty in-volved in separating these abstractions in the valueconstruct).

Pvi: The benefit components of value includesalient intrinsic attributes, extrinsic at-tributes, perceived quality, and other rel-evant high level abstractions.

Differences among the benefit or get componentsshown in the model and listed in Pvi can be illustratedby findings from the exploratory study of fruit juices.As discussed before, perceived quality in fruit juiceswas signaled by the attribute "100% fruit juice" plussensory attributes such as taste and texture.

Some intrinsic attributes of fruit juices—other thanthose signaling quality—were cited as providing valueto respondents. Color was one important intrinsic at-tribute. Most mothers knew which colors or fiavorsof juice their children would drink; only those flavorswere considered to be acceptable to the child andtherefore to have value for the mother. Other intrinsicattributes (e.g., absence of pulp and visible consis-tency of the drinks) also affected value perceptions.

In addition to perceived quality and these intrinsic

attributes, other higher level abstractions contributedto perceptions of value. A frequently mentioned higherlevel abstraction for fruit juice was convenience. Sonieconsumers did not want to reconstitute the juice. Oth-ers wanted self-serve containers so that children couldget juice from the refrigerator by themselves. For thisreason, small cans with difficult-to open tops were notas convenient as little boxes with insertable straws.Fully reconsituted, ready-to-serve, and easy-to-opencontainers were keys to adding value in the category.These intrinsic and extrinsic lower level attributes addedvalue through the higher level abstraction of conve-nience.

Another higher level abstraction important in pro-viding value in children's fruit juices was apprecia-tion. When children drank beverages the mothers se-lected, when they mentioned them to mother orevidenced thanks, the mothers obtained value. Thisparticular psychological benefit was not evoked di-rectly in any of the consumer interviews, but camethrough strongly in the laddering process. The valueperceptions filtered through the higher level abstrac-tion of appreciation and did not come directly throughintrinsic or extrinsic attributes. This indirect inferenc-ing process illustrates a major difficulty in using tra-ditional multiattribute or utility models in measuringperceived value. The intrinsic attributes themselvesare not always directly linked to value, but insteadfilter through other personal benefits that are them-selves abstract.

Evidence. Though no empirical research has beenreported on the pivotal higher level abstractions re-lated to value, several dimensions have been proposedin selected categories. Bishop (1984), for example,claimed that value in supermarket shopping is a com-posite of the higher level abstractions of variety, ser-vice, and facilities in addition to quality and price.Doyle (1984) identified convenience, freshness, andtime as major higher level abstractions that combinewith price and quality to produce value perceptions insupermarket consumers.

Pv2: The sacrifice components of perceivedvalue include monetary prices and non-monetary prices.

Consumers sacrifice both money and other re-sources (e.g., time, energy, effort) to obtain productsand services. To some consumers, the monetary sac-rifice is pivotal: some sup>ermarket shoppers will in-vest hours clipping coupons, reading food advertisingin the newspaper, and traveling to different stores toobtain the best bargains. To these consumers, any-thing that reduces the monetary sacrifice will increasethe perceived value of the product. Less price-con-scious consumers will find value in store proximity.


ready-to-serve food products, and bome delivery—evenat tbe expense of bigber costs—because time and ef-fort are perceived as more costly.

Evidence. Recent researcb reveals tbat saving timebas become a pivotal concern of consumers in super-market sbopping and cooking. Supermarket sboppershave cited fast cbeckout as more important tban lowprices in selecting grocery stores (Food Marketing In-stitute 1985, 1986). Studies also sbow tbat consumersare willing to spend money to get more convenientpackaging in food products (Morris 1985).

Pv3: Extrinsic attributes serve as "value sig-nals" and can substitute for activeweigbing of benefits and costs.

How carefully do consumers evaluate tbese com-ponents of products in making assessments of value?To judge from tbe product category of beverages,cognitive assessment is limited. Ratber tban carefullyconsidering prices and benefits, most respondents de-pended on cues—often extrinsic cues—in formingimpressions of value. A few respondents carefullycalculated tbe cheapest brand in tbeir set on a regularbasis, but most seemed to follow Langer's (1978) no-tion of mindlessness: most respondents bougbt bev-erages witb only minimal processing of available in-formation. They repeatedly bougbt a brand they trustedor used extrinsic value cues to simplify tbeir choiceprocess.

Tbese value triggers were present regardless of tbeway consumers defined value. Many consumers whodefined value as low price reported using a coupon asa signal to low price without actually comparing tbereduced price of tbe couponed brand with tbe pricesof other brands, or tbey reported tbat "cents-off" or"everyday low price" signs or a private label brandtriggered tbe value p)erception. Respondents wbo de-fined value in terms of wbat tbey wanted in productscited small containers, single-serving portions, andready-to-serve containers. Consumers wbo definedvalue as tbe quality tbey get for the price they payused signals sucb as 100% fruit juice on special orbrand name on special. Finally, consumers who de-fined value as what tbey get for wbat they pay de-pended on form (frozen vs. canned juice) and econ-omy-sized packages as signals.

Not all consumers responded in tbis mindless way—many saw their role as economical sbopper to beimportant enougb to spend time and effort to weigbcarefully the give and get components in tbeir ownequations of value. Moreover, not all products are assimple or inexpensive as beverages. One would ex-pect to find more rational evaluation in situations ofhigb information availability, processing ability, timeavailability, and involvement in purcbase.

Evidence. To date, no reported empirical studiesbave investigated tbe potential of triggers tbat lead toperceptions of value.

Pv4: Tbe perception of value depends on theframe of reference in wbich tbe con-sumer is making an evaluation.

Holbrook and Corfman (1985) maintain that valueperceptions are situational and binge on tbe contextwitbin wbicb an evaluative judgment occurs. Tbis viewmay belp explain tbe diversity of meanings of value.In tbe beverage category, for example, tbe frame ofreference used by tbe consumer in providing mean-ings included point of purchase, preparation, and con-sumption. Value meant different tbings at eacb of thesepoints. At tbe point of purcbase, value often meantlow price, sale, or coupons. At tbe point of prepa-ration, value often involved some calculation aboutwhether tbe product was easy to prepare and bow mucbtbe consumer could obtain for wbat she paid. At con-sumption, value was judged in terms of wbether tbecbildren would drink tbe beverage, wbetber some oftbe beverage was wasted, or wbether tbe cbildren ap-preciated tbe mother for buying tbe drinks.

Evidence. No empirical studies bave been con-ducted to investigate tbe variation in value perceptionsacross evaluation contexts.

Pvs: Perceived value affects tbe relationsbipbetween quality and purcbase.

As Olsbavsky (1985) suggested, not all consumerswant to buy tbe bigbest quality item in every cate-gory. Instead, quality appears to be factored into tbeimplicit or explicit valuation of a product by manyconsumers (Dodds and Monroe 1985; Sawyer andDickson 1984). A given product may be bigb quality,but if tbe consumer does not bave enougb money tobuy it (or does not want to spend tbe amount re-quired), its value will not be perceived as being asbigb as tbat of a product with lower quality but a moreaffordable price. In other words, wben get̂ — give^> getb - giveb but the shopper bas a budget con-straint, tben givea > budget constraints > givet, andhence b is chosen. The same logic may apply to prod-ucts tbat need more preparation time than the consum-er's time constraint allows.

The respondents in the beverage study illustratedthis point as they discussed their typical purchasingbehavior. For respondents with several children, bev-erages accounted for a large portion of their weeklyfood bill. Though most believed that pure fruit juicewas of higher quality than fruit drinks, many of tbeserespondents did not buy only pure fruit juice becauseit was too expensive. Tbey tended to buy some pro-portion of pure fruit juice, tben round out these more


expensive purchases with fruit drinks. In their eval-uation, high quality was not worth its expense, so lowerlevels of quality were tolerated in a portion of theweekly beverages. These consumers obtained morevalue from the lower quality juices because the lowcosts compensated for the reduction in quality.

Evidence. Several empirical studies have inves-tigated the relationship between quality and purchase,but no empirical studies have investigated explicitlythe role of value as an intervening factor between qualityand purchase. However, studies on the use of unit priceinformation (e.g., Aaker and Ford 1983; Dickson andSawyer 1985; Zeithaml 1982) suggest that many con-sumers use unit price information (i.e., a measure ofvalue) in making product choices in supermarkets.

Research ImplicationsThe preceding propositions raise questions about waysin which quality and value have been studied in thepast and suggest avenues for future research.

Current Practices m Measuring Quality

Academic research measuring quality has dependedheavily on unidimensional rating scales, allowingquality to be interpreted in any way the respondentchooses. This practice does not ensure that respon-dents are interpreting quality similarly or in the waythe researcher intends. Hjorth-Anderson (1984) claimsthat unidimensional scales are methodologically in-valid by showing that the concept of overall qualityhas many dimensions. Holbrook and Corfman (1985)call for ambiguous quality measures to be replacedwith scales based on conceptual definitions of quality.An example of the approach they recommend is il-lustrated by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985).who investigated service quality in an extensive ex-ploratory study, conceptualized it in dimensions basedon that investigation, and operationalized it using theconceptual domain specified in the first phase (Para-suraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1986). In that streamof research, quality was defined as a comparison be-tween consumer expectations and perceptions of per-formance based on those dimensions, an approach thatallows for individual differences across subjects in theattributes that signal quality.

The research approach used by Parasuraman. Zei-thaml, and Berry (1985) could be used in differentcategories of products (e.g., packaged goods, indus-trial products, durable goods) to find the abstract di-mensions that capture quality in those categories. Suchan attempt is currently underway by Brucks and Zeith-mal (1987) for durable goods. Studies also are neededto determine which attributes signal these dimensions,when and why they are selected instead of other cues.

and how they are perceived and combined (see alsoGutman and Alden 1985, Olson 1977, and Olson andJacoby 1972 for similar expressions of needed re-search). Finally, the relationship between the con-structs of attitude and quality should be examined. Theinstrumentality of a product feature (Lewin 1936) andthe quality rating of such a feature in separately de-termining choice may be an interesting research issue.The convergent and discriminant validity of the con-structs of attitude and quality also warrant investiga-tion. Quality measurement scales remain to be devel-oped and validated.

Current Practices in Modeling ConsumerDecision MakingThree aspects of modeling consumer decision makingcan be questioned if the propositions prove to be ac-curate representations: the tendency to use actual at-tributes of products rather than consumer f)erceptionsof those attributes, the practice of duplicating andcomingling physical attributes with higher order at-tributes (Myers and Shocker 1981), and the failure todistinguish between the give and get (Ahtola 1984)components of the model.

Howard (1977, p. 28) clearly states the first prob-lem.

It is essential to distinguish between the attributes perse and consumers' perceptions of these attributes, be-cause consumers differ in their p»erceptions. It is theperception that affects behavior, not the attribute it-self. "Attribute" is often used to mean choice crite-na. but this leads to confusion. To use "attribute"when you mean not the attribute itself but the con-sumer's mental image of it. is to reify what is in theconsumer's mind.

Jacoby and Olson (1985) concur, claiming that the fo-cus of marketers should not be objective reality butinstead consumer perceptions, which may be alteredeither by changing objective reality or by reinterpret-ing objective reality for consumers.

Myers and Shocker (1981) f>oint out that comin-gling quality, a higher level abstraction, with lowerlevel physical attributes in models limits the validityand confounds the interpretation of many studies, es-pecially when this practice duplicates lower level at-tributes. Therefore, it is necessary to use attributes fromthe same general classification or level in the hier-archy in modeling consumer decision making. Ahtola(1984) confirms that when the hierarchical nature ofattributes is not recognized in consumer decisionmodels, double and triple counting of the impact ofsome attributes results. Techniques to elicit and or-ganize attributes, in his opinion, should precede mod-eling of the attributes. Myers and Shocker (1981) dis-cuss different consumer decision models appropriatefor the levels and ways attributes should be presentedin research instruments and analyzed later. Huber and


McCann (1982) reveal the impact of inferential beliefson product evaluations and acknowledge that under-standing consumer inferences is essential both in get-ting information from consumers and in giving infor-mation to consumers. Finally, Ahtola (1984) calls forexpanding and revising models to incorporate the sac-rifice aspects of price. Sacrifice should not be limitedto monetary price alone, especially in situations wheretime costs, search costs, and convenience costs aresalient to the consumer.

Methods Appropriate for Studying Qualityand Value

The approach used in the exploratory investigation isappropriate for investigating quality in other productcategories. Olson and Reynolds (1983) developedmethods to aggregate the qualitative data from indi-vidual consumers. Aggregate cognitive mapping,structural analysis, cognitive differentiation analysis,and value structure mapping are all techniques de-signed esf)ecially to analyze and represent higher or-der abstractions such as quality. These techniques aremore appropriate than preference mapping or mul-tiattribute modeling for investigating concepts likequality and value (for a complete discussion and ex-plication of these techniques, see Gutman and Alden1985 or Reynolds and Jamieson 1985).

Several researchers have developed approaches tolink product attributes to perceptions of higher levelabstractions. Mehrotra and Palmer (1985) suggest amethodological approach to relating product featuresto perceptions of quality based on the work of Olsonand Reynolds (1983). In their procedure, lists of cuesand benefits are developed from focus groups or in-depth interviews with consumers, semantic differen-tial scales are constructed to capture the benefits, atradeoff procedure is used to determine the impor-tance of the cues, and respondents match cues toproduct concepts. Through this type of analysis, de-gree of linkage (between cues and benefits), value ofa cue, and competitive brand information are pro-vided.

Mazursky and Jacoby (1985) also recognized theneed for procedures to track the inference process fromconsideration of objective cues to the higher level im-age of quality. Instead of free-elicitation procedures,they used a behavioral processing simulation wherebythey presented attribute information to respondents andasked them to form an impression of quality by choos-ing any information they wished. Though this methodcan be criticized as unrealistic, it provides insights intothe types of information that consumers believe signalquality. Modifications of the method to make tbe en-vironment more realistic (such as by Brucks 1985) arealso possible.

Other researchers have described analytic proce-

dures to link attributes with perceptions. Holbrook(1981) provides a theoretical framework and analyticprocedure for representing the intervening role of per-ceptions in evaluative judgments. Neslin (1981) de-scribes the superiority of statistically revealed impor-tance weights over self-stated importance weights inlinking product features to perceptions.

Researching Value

A major difficulty in researching value is the varietyof meanings of value held by consumers. Building amodel of value requires that the researcher understandwhich of many (at least of four) meanings are implicitin consumers' expressions of value. Utility models arerich in terms of methodological refinements (seeScbmalensee and Thisse 1985 for a discussion of dif-ferent utility measures and equations), but do not ad-dress the distinction between attributes and higher levelabstractions. They also presume that consumers care-fully calculate the give and get components of value,an assumption that did not hold true for most con-sumers in the exploratory study.

Price as a Quality Indicator

Most experimental studies related to quality have fo-cused on price as the key extrinsic quality signal. Assuggested in the propositions, price is but one of sev-eral potentially useful extrinsic cues; brand name orpackage may be equally or more important, especiallyin packaged goods. Further, evidence of a generalizedprice-perceived quality relationship is inconclusive.Quality research may benefit from a de-emphasis onprice as tbe main extrinsic quality indicator. Inclusionof other important indicators, as well as identificationof situations in which each of those indicators is im-portant, may provide more interesting and useful an-swers about the extrinsic signals consumers use.

Management ImplicationsAn understanding of what quality and value mean toconsumers offers the promise of improving brand po-sitions through more precise market analysis and seg-mentation, product planning, promotion, and pricingstrategy. The model presented here suggests the fol-lowing strategies that can be implemented to under-stand and capitalize on brand quality and value.

Close the Quality Perception Gap

Though managers increasingly acknowledge the im-portance of quality, many continue to define and mea-sure it from the company's persf)ective. Closing thegap between objective and perceived quality requiresthat the company view quality the way the consumerdoes. Research that investigates which cues are im-portant and how consumers form impressions of qual-

Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value/ 17

ity based on those technical, objective cues is nec-essary. Companies also may benefit from research thatidentifies the abstract dimensions of quality desired byconsumers in a product class.

Identify Key Intrinsic and Extrinsic AttributeSignalsA top priority for marketers is finding which of themany extrinsic and intrinsic cues consumers use tosignal quality. This process involves a careful look atsituational factors surrounding the purchase and useofthe product. Does quality vary greatly among prod-ucts in the category? Is quality difficult to evaluate?Do consumers have enough information about intrin-sic attributes before purchase, or do they depend onsimpler extrinsic cues until after their first purchase?What cues are provided by competitors? Identifyingthe important quality signals from the consumer'sviewpoint, then communicating those signals ratherthan generalities, is likely to lead to more vivid per-ceptions of quality. Linking lower level attributes withtheir higher level abstractions locates the "driving force'and "leverage point" for advertising strategy (Olsonand Reynolds 1983).

Acknowledge the Dynamic Nature of QualityPerceptionsConsumers' perceptions of quality change over timeas a result of added information, increased competi-tion in a product category, and changing expectations.The dynamic nature of quality suggests that marketersmust track perceptions over time and align productand promotion strategies with these changing views.Because products and perceptions change, marketers

may be able to educate consumers on ways to evaluatequality. Advertising, the information provided inpackaging, and visible cues associated with productscan be managed to evoke desired quality perceptions.

Understand How Consumers EncodeMonetary and Nonmonetary PricesThe model proposes a gap between actual and per-ceived price, making it important to understand howconsumers encode prices of products. Nonmonetarycosts—such as time and effort—must be acknowl-edged. Many consumers, especially the 50 millionworking women in the U.S. today, consider time animportant commodity. Anything that can be built intoproducts to reduce time, effort, and search costs canreduce perceived sacrifice and thereby increase per-ceptions of value.

Recognize Multiple Ways to Add ValueFinally, the model delineates several strategies foradding value in products and services. Each of theboxes feeding into perceived value provides an ave-nue for increasing value perceptions. Reducing mon-etary and nonmonetary costs, decreasing perceptionsof sacrifice, adding salient intrinsic attributes, evok-ing perceptions of relevant high level abstractions, andusing extrinsic cues to signal value are all possiblestrategies that companies can use to affect value per-ceptions. The selection of a strategy for a particularproduct or market segment depends on its customers'definition of value. Strategies based on customer valuestandards and perceptions will channel resources moreeffectively and will meet customer expectations betterthan those based only on company standards.

REFERENCESAaker, David A. and Gary T. Ford (1983), "Unit Pricing Ten

Years Later: A Replication," Journal of Marketing, 47(Winter), 118-22.

Achrol, Ravi Singh, Torger Reve, and Louis Stem (1983),"The Environment of Marketing Channel Dyads: A Frame-work for Comparative Analysis," Journat of Marketing, 47(Fall), 55-67.

Ahtola, Olli T. (1984), "Price as a 'Give' Component in anExchange Theoretic Multicompnanent Model," in Advancesin Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Thomas C. Kinnear, ed.Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 623-6.

Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), "Dimen-sions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Re-search, 14 (March), 411-54.

Allen, John W., Gilbert D. Harrell, and Michael D. Hutt (1976),Price Awareness Study. Washington, DC: Food MarketingInstitute.

Archibald, Robert B., Clyde Haulman, and Carlisle Moody,Jr. (1983), "Quality, Price, Advertising, and PublishedQuality Ratings," Journal of Consumer Research. 9 (4),347-56.

Austin, J. L. (1964), "A Plea for Excuses," in Ordinary Lan-guage. V. C. Chappell, ed. New York: Dover Publications,41-63.

Becker, Gary S. (1965), "Theory ofthe Allocation of Time,"Economic Journal, 75 (September), 493-517.

Bellenger, Danny, Kenneth Bemhardt, and Jac Goldstucker(1976), Qualitative Research in Marketing. Chicago:American Marketing Association.

Bishop, Willard R., Jr. (1984), "Competitive Intelligence,"Progressive Grocer (March), 19-20.

Bonner, P. Greg and Richard Nelson (1985), "Product Attri-butes and Perceived Quality: Foods," in Perceived Quality,J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks, 64-79.


Bowbrick. P. (1982), "Pseudoresearch in Marketing; The Caseof the Price Perceived-Quality Relationship," EuropeanJournal of Marketing. 14 (8), 466-70.

Brucks, Merrie (1985), "The Effects of Product Class Knowl-edge on Information Search Behavior," Journal of Con-sumer Research. 12 (1 ) , 1-16.

and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1987), "Price as an In-dicator of Quality Dimensions," paper presented at Asso-ciation for Consumer Research Annual Meeting, Boston,MA.

Brunswick, Egon (1956), Perception and the RepresentativeDesign of Psychological Experiments. Berkeley, CA: Uni-versity of California Press.

Chain Store Age (1985), "Consumers Say Value is More ThanQuality Divided By Price" (May), 13.

Chapman, Joseph (1986), "The Impact of Discounts on Sub-jective Product Evaluations," working pap)er, Virginia Po-lytechnic Institute and State University.

Cohen, Joel B. (1979), "The Structure of Product Attributes:Defining Attribute Dimensions for Planning and Evalua-tion," in Analytic Approaches to Product and MarketingPlanning. A. Shocker, ed. Cambridge, MA: MarketingScience Institute.

Court, Andrew T. (1939), "Hedonic Price Indexes and Au-tomotive Examples," in The Dynamics of Automobile De-mand. New York: General Motors Corp>oration, 99-117.

Cox, Donald F. (1962), "The Measurement of InformationValue: A Study in Consumer Decision Making," in Pro-ceedings. Winter Conference. Chicago: American Market-ing Association, 413-21.

Crosby, Philip B. (1979), Quality is Free. New York: NewAmerican Library.

Curry, David J. and David J. Faulds (1986), "Indexing Prod-uct Quality: Issues, Theory, and Results," Journal of Mar-keting. 13 (June), 134-45.

Darby, M. R. and E. Kami (1973), "Free Comp)etition andthe Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Eco-nomics. 16 (April), 67-86.

Darden, William R. and JoAnn K. L. Schwinghammer (1985),"The Influence of Social Characteristics on Perceived Qual-ity in Patronage Choice Behavior," in Perceived Quality.J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks, 161-72.

Dickson, Peter and Alan Sawyer (1985), "Point of PurchaseBehavior and Price Perceptions of Supermarket Shoppers,"Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series.

Dodds, William B. and Kent B. Monroe (1985), "The Effectof Brand and Price Information on Subjective Product Eval-uations," in Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 12,Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, eds. Provo,UT: Association for Consumer Research, 85-90.

Down, S. A. (1961), "A Theory of Consumer Efficiency,"Journal of Retailing. 37 (Winter), 6-12.

Doyle, Mona (1984), "New Ways of Measuring Value," Pro-gressive Grocer-Value. Executive Report, 15-19.

Etgar, Michael and Naresh K. Malhotra (1978), "Consumers'Reliance on Different Product Quality Cues: A Basis forMarket Segmentation," in Research Frontiers in Market-ing: Dialogues and Directions. 1978 Educators' Proceed-ings. Subhash C. Jain, ed. Chicago: American MarketingAssociation, 143-7.

Food Marketing Institute (1985), Trends—Consumer Attitudesand the Supermarket. 1985 Update. Washington, DC: FoodMarketing Institute.

(1986), Trends—Consumer Attitudes and the Su-permarket: 1986 Update. Washington, DC: Food Market-ing Institute.

French, N. D., J. J. Williams, and W. A. Chance (1973), "AShopping Experiment on Price-Quality Relationships,"Journal of Retailing. 48 (Spring), 3-16.

Friedman, L. (1967), "Psychological Pricing in the Food In-dustry," in Prices: Issues in Theory. Practice, and PublicPolicy. A. Phillips and O. Williamson, eds. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Gabor, Andre and C. W. J. Granger (1961), "On the PriceConsciousness of Consumers," Applied Statistics. 10 (2),170-88.

Gardner, D. M. (1970), "An Experimental Investigation of thePrice-Quality Relationship," Journal of Retailing. 46 (Fall),25-41.

(1971), "Is There a Generalized Price-QualityRelationship?" Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (May),241-3.

Garvin, David A. (1983), "Quality on the Line," HarvardBusiness Review. 61 (September-October), 65-73.

(1987), "Competmg on the Eight Dimensions ofQuality," Harvard Business Review, 65 (November-De-cember), 101-9.

Geistfeld, Loren V. (1982), "The Pnce-Quality Relationship-Revisited," Journal of Consumer Affairs, 14 (Winter), 334—46.

, G. B. Sproles, and S. B. Badenhop (1977), "TheConcept and Measurement of a Hierarchy of Product Char-acteristics," in Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 4,W. D Perreault, Jr., ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association forConsumer Research, 302-7.

Gerstner, Eitan (1985), "Do Higher Prices Signal HigherQuality?" Journal of Marketing Research. 22 (May), 209-15.

Griliches, Zvi (1971), "Introduction: Hedonic Price IndexesRevisited," in Price Indexes and Quality Change. Zvi Gril-iches, ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 3—15

Gronau, R. (1973), "The Intrafamily Allocation of Time: TheValue of the Housewife's Time," American Economic Re-view, 63 (4), 634-51.

Gutman, Jonathan and Scott D. Alden (1985), "Adolescents'Cognitive Structures of Retail Stores and Fashion Con-sumption: A Means-End Chain Analysis of Quality," inPerceived Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books, 99-114.

and Thomas J. Reynolds (1979), "An Investigationof the Levels of Cognitive Abstraction Utilized by Con-sumers in Product Differentiation," in Attitude ResearchUnder the Sun, J. Eighmey, ed. Chicago: American Mar-keting Association.

Harness, Edward (1978), "Some Basic Beliefs About Mar-keting," speech to the Annual Marketing Meeting of theConference Board, New York City.

Hauser, J. R. and S. M. Shugan (1983), "Defensive Market-ing Strategies," Marketing Science, 2 (Fall), 319-60.

and P. Simmie (1981, "Profit-Maximizing Percep-tual Positions: An Integrated Theory for the Selection ofProduct Features and Price," Management Science, 27(January), 33-56.

and Glen Urban (1986), "The Value Priority Hy-potheses for Consumer Budget Plans," Journal of Con-sumer Research, 12 (March), 446-62.

Hjorth-Anderson, Chr. (1984), "The Concept of Quality andthe Efficiency of Markets for Consumer Products," Journalof Consumer Research. 11 (2), 708-18 .

(1986), "More on Multidimensional Quality: A Re-p\y,'' Journal of Consumer Research. 13 (June), 149-54.

Hoffman, Gene D. (1984), "Our Competitor Is Our Environ-


ment," Progressive Grocer-Value, Executive Report. 28 -30.

Holbrook. Morris B. (1981). "Integrating Compositional andDecompositional Analyses to Represent the Intervening Roleof Perceptions in Evaluative Judgments." Journal of Mar-keting Research, 18 (February). 13-28.

and Kim P. Corfman (1985). "Quality and Valuein the Consumption Exp)erience: Phaedrus Rides Again." inPerceived Quality, J Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books. 31-57.

Howard. J. A. (1977). Consumer Behavior: Application ofTheory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Huber. Joel and John McCann (1982). "The Impact of Infer-ential Beliefs on Product Evaluations." Journal of Market-ing Research, 19 (August). 324-33.

Jacoby. J.. R. W. Chestnut. W. D. Hoyer. D. W. Sheluga.and M. J. Donahue (1978). "Psychometric Characteristicsof Behavioral Process Data: Preliminary Findings on Va-lidity and Generalizability." in Advances in Consumer Re-search, Vol. 5, H. Keith Hunt. ed. Ann Arbor. MI: As-sociation for Consumer Research. 546-54.

and Jerry C. Olson (1977). "Consumer Responseto Price: An Attitudinal. Information Processing Perspec-tive." in Moving Ahead with Attitude Research. Y. Windand P. Greenberg. eds. Chicago: American Marketing As-sociation. 73-86.

and . eds. (1985). Perceived Quality.Lexington. MA: Lexington Books.

. . and Rafael A. Haddock (1973). "Pnce.Brand Name and Product Com|X)sition Characteristics asDeterminants of Perceived Quality." Journal of AppliedPsychology, 55 (6). 570-9.

-, G. i. Szybillo. and J. Busato-Schach (1977), "In-formation Acquisition Behavior in Brand Choice Situa-tions." Journal of Consumer Research. 3 (March). 209—15.

Johnson. Michael D. (1983). "Decision Processing and Prod-uct Comparability: A Theory of Strategy Selection." un-published doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago.

Kirmani. Amna and Peter Wright (1987a). "Money Talks: Ad-vertising Extravagance and Perceived Product Quality."working paper. Stanford University.

and (1987b). "Schemer Schema: Con-sumers' Beliefs About Advertising and Marketing Strate-gies." working pap)er. Stanford University.

Laird. Donald A. (1932). "How the Consumer Estimates Qualityby Subconscious Sensory Impression." Journal of AppliedPsychology. 16 (2). 241-6.

Lambert. Zarryl (1972). "Price and Choice Behavior." Jour-nal of Marketing Research. 9 (February). 35-40.

Langer. Ellen (1978). "Rethinking the Role of Thought in So-cial Interactions." in New Directions tn Attribution Re-search. John Harvey. William Ickes. and Robert Kidd. eds.Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 35-58.

Leibowitz. Arlene (1974). "Education and Home Production."American Economic Review, 64 (May). 243-50.

Leuthold. Jane (1981). "Taxation and the Consumption ofHousehold Time." Journal of Consumer Research, 1(March). 388-94.

Lewin, Kurt (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Linder. S. B. (1970). The Harried Leisure Class. New York:Columbia University Press.

Lutz. Richard (1986), "Quality is as Quality Does: An Atti-tudinal Perspective on Consumer Quality Judgments." pre-sentation to the Marketing Science Institute Trustees' Meet-ing, Cambridge. MA.

Mabry, B. D. (1970), "An Analysis of Work and Other Con-straints on Choices of Activities, Western Economic Jour-nal, 8 (3). 213-25.

Maynes. E. Scott (1976). "The Concept and Measurement ofProduct Quality." Household Production and Consump-tion, 40 (5), 529-59.

and Terje Assum (1982), "Informationally Imper-fect Consumer Markets: Empirical Findings and Policy Im-plications." Journal of Consumer Affairs. 16 (Sunnmer). 62-87.

Mazumdar. Tridik (1986). "Expenmental Investigation of thePsychological Determinants of Buyers' Price Awareness anda Comparative Assessment of Methodologies for RetrievingPrice Information from Memory."working paper. VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and State University.

Mazursky. David and Jacob Jacoby (1985). "Forming Impres-sions of Merchandise and Service Quality." in PerceivedQuality. J Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington. MA: Lex-ington Books. 139-54.

McConnell. J. D. (1968). "Effect of Pncing on Perception ofProduct Quality." Journal of Applied Psychology, 52 (Au-gust). 300-3.

Mehrotra. Sunil and John Palmer (1985). "Relating ProductFeatures to Perceptions of Quality: Appliances." in Per-ceived Quality. J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington.MA: Lexington Books. 81-96.

Milgrom. Paul and John Roberts (1986). "Price and Adver-tising Signals of Product Quality." Journal of PoliticalEconomy. 94 (4), 796-821.

Mincer, J. (1963), "Market Prices. Opportunity Costs, and In-come Effects." in Measurement in Economics: Studies inMathematical Economics and Econometrics in Memory ofYehuds Grunfeld. Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press,67-82.

Monroe. Kent B. and R. Krishnan (1985). "The Effect of Priceon Subjective Product Evaluations." in Perceived Quality.J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington. MA: LexingtonBooks, 209-32.

and William B. Dodds (1988). "A Research Pro-gram for Establishing the Validity of the Price-Quality Re-lationship." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,forthcoming.

Morgan. Leonard A. (1985). "The Importance of Quality." inPerceived Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Qlson. eds. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books. 61-4.

Morris. Betsy (1985). "How Much Will People Pay to Savea Few Minutes of Cooking? Plenty." Wall Street Journal(July 25). 23.

Myers. James H. and Allan D. Shocker (1981). "The Natureof Product-Related Attributes." Research in Marketing. Vol.5. Greenwich. CT: JAI Press. Inc., 211-36.

Nelson. Philip (1970). "Information and Consumer Behav-ior." Journal of Political Economy, 78 (20). 311-29.

(1974). "Advertising as Information." Journal ofPolitical Economy, 81 (4). 729-54.

Neslin. Scott (1981). "Linking Product Features to Percep-tions: Self-Stated Versus Statistically Revealed ImportanceWeights." Journal of Marketing Research. 18 (February),80-93.

Nichols. D.. E. Smolensky. and T. N. Tideman (1971). "Dis-crimination by Waiting Time in Merit Goods." AmericanEconomic Review, 61 (June). 312-23.

Olshavsky. Richard W. (1985). "Perceived Quality in Con-sumer Decision Making: An Integrated Theoretical Per-spective." in Perceived Quality. J. Jacoby and J. Olson,eds. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books. 3-29.

Qlson. Jerry C. (1977). "Price as an Informational Cue: Ef-


fects in Product Evaluation," in Consumer and IndustrialBuying Behavior. Arch G. Woodside, Jagdish N. Sheth,and Peter D. Bennet, eds. New York: North Holland Pub-lishing Company, 267-86.

(1978), "Inferential Belief Formation in the CueUtilization Process," Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Con-sumer Research, 706-13.

and Jacob Jacoby (1972), "Cue Utilization in theQuality Perception Process," in Proceedings of the ThirdAnnual Conference of the Association for Consumer Re-search, M. Venkatesan, ed. Iowa City: Association forConsumer Research, 167-79.

and Thomas J. Reynolds (1983), "UnderstandingConsumers' Cognitive Structures: Implications for Adver-tising Strategy," Advertising and Consumer Psychology. L.Percy and A. Woodside, eds. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

Parasurman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard Berry(1985), "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and ItsImplications for Future Research," Journal of Marketing.49 (Fall), 41-50.

, , and (1986), "SERVQUAL:A Scale for Measuring Service Quality," working paper.Marketing Science Institute.

Peterson, Robert A. (1970), "The Price-Perceived QualityRelationship: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Market-ing Research. 1 (November), 525-8.

and A. Jolibert (1976), "A Cross-National Investi-gation of Price Brand Determinants of Perceived ProductQuality," Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 (July),533-6.

and William R. WUson (1985), "Perceived Risk andPrice-Reliance Schema and Price-Perceived-Quality Media-tors," in Perceived Quality. J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 247-68.

Progressive Grocer (1964), "How Much Do Customers KnowAbout Retail Prices?" (February), 103-6.

Rao, Akshay R. (1987), "The Moderating Effect of PriorKnowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations,"working paper. Department of Marketing and Business Law,University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

and Kent B. Monroe (1987), "The Effects of Price,Brand Name and Store Name on Buyers' Subjective Prod-uct Assessments: An Integrative Review," working paper.Department of Marketing and Business Law, University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis.

Reynolds, T. J., J. Gutman, and J. Fiedler (1984), "Trans-lating Knowledge of Consumers' Cognitive Structures intothe Development of Advertising Strategic Operations: A CaseHistory," in Proceedings: Second Annual Advertising andConsumer Psychology Conference. Toronto: AmericanPsychological Association.

and Linda F. Jamieson (1985), "Image Represen-tations: An Analytic Framework," in Perceived Quality, J.Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,115-38.

Riesz, P. (1978), "Price Versus Quality in the Marketplace,1961-1975," Journal of Retailing, 54 (4), 15-28

Rigaux-Bricmont, Benny (1982), "Influences of Brand Nameand Packaging on Perceived Quality," in Advances inConsumers Research. Vol. 9, Andrew A. Mitchell, ed.Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 472-7.

Roedder-John, Deborah, Carol Scott, and James Bettman(1986), "Sampling Data for Covariation Assessment: TheEffect of Prior Beliefs on Search Patterns," yowrna/ of Con-sumer Research. 13 (1). 38-47.

Rokeach, M. J. (1973), The Nature of Human Values. NewYork: The Free Press.

Russell, Bertrand (1912), The Problems of Philosophy. Lon-don: Oxford University Press.

Sawyer, Alan G. (1975), "Demand Artifacts in LaboratoryExperiments in Consumer Research," Journal of ConsumerResearch. 1 (March), 20-30.

and Peter Dickson (1984), "Psychological Perspec-tives on Consumer Response to Sales Promotion," in Re-search on Sales Promotion: Collected Papers, KatherineJocz, ed. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

-, Parker M. Worthing, and Paul E. Sendak (1979),"The Role of Laboratory Exfjeriments to Test MarketingStrategies," Journal of Marketing. 43 (Summer), 60-7.

Schechter, Len (1984), "A Normative Conception of Value,"Progressive Grocer, Executive Repwrt, 12-14.

Schmalensee, Richard (1978), "A Model of Advertising andProduct Quality," Journal of Political Economy. 86 (3),485-503.

and J. Thisse (1985), "Perceptual Maps and the Op-timal Location of New Products," working paper, Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology.

Shapiro and Associates (1985), "Value is a Complex Equa-tion," Chain Store Age (May), 14-59.

Shapiro, B. P. (1968), "The Psychology of Pricing," HarvardBusiness Review. 46 (July-August), 14-25, 160.

(1973), "Price Reliance: Existence and Sources,"Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (August), 286-94.

Smith, E. M. and C. Broome (1966), "Experimental Deter-mination of the Effect of Price and Market-Standing Infor-mation on Consumers' Brand Preferences," in Proceed-ings. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Sproles. George B. (1977), "New Evidence on Price andQuality," Journal of Consumer Affairs. 11 (Summer), 6 3 -77.

(1986), "The Concept of Quality and the Efficiencyof Markets: Issues and Comments," Journal of Marketing.13 (June), 146-7.

Stafford, J. E. and B. M. Enis (1969), "The Price-QualityRelationship: An Extension," Journal of Marketing Re-search. 7 (November), 456-8.

Stevenson, Jim (1984), "An Indifference Toward Value,"Progressive Grocer-Value. Executive Rep>ort, 22-3.

Stokes, Raymond C. (1985), "The Effect of Price, PackageDesign, and Brand Familiarity on Perceived Quality," inPerceived Quality. J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books, 233-46.

Swan, John (1974). "Price-Product Performance CompetitionBetween Retailer and Manufacturer Brands," Journal ofMarketing. 38 (July), 52-9

Szybillo, G. J. and J. Jacoby (1974), "Intrinsic Versus Ex-trinsic Cues as Determinants of Perceived Product Qual-ity," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (February), 74-8.

Young, Shirley and Barbara Feigin (1975), "Using the BenefitChain for Improved Strategy Formulation," Journal ofMarketing. 39 (July), 72-4.

Zeithaml, Valane A. (1982) "Consumer Response to In-StorePrice Information Environments," Journal of ConsumerResearch. 8 (March), 357-69.

(1983), "Conceptualizing and Measuring ConsumerResponse to Price," in Advances in Consumer Research.Vol. 10, R. P. Bagozzi and A. M. Tybout, eds. Ann Ar-bor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 612-16.

(1985), "The New Demographics and Market Frag-mentation," Journal of Marketing. 49 (Summer), 64—75.

and Leonard Berry (1987), "The Time Conscious-

Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value / 2 1

and Leonard Berry (1987). "The Time Conscious- and William L. Fuerst (1983), "Age Differences inness of Supermarket Shoppers." working paper, Texas A&M Response to Grocery Store Price Information." Journal ofUniversity. Consumer Affairs, 17 (2), 403-20.

A M A M E M B E RSH

What does being an American Marketing Association member mean to you?The list goes on and on...

• A subscription to Marketing News (26 issues)• A copy ofthe Marketing Services Guide & AMA Membership Directory (600+ pages)• A reduced rate for the Journal of Marketing Research & Journal of Marketing• Group Insurance Program• Discounts on business publications such as Fortune, Business Week, Working Woman,

Forbes• Academic Placement Service• Access to the AMA information center-3,500 books, 90 periodicals, and a clipping file

of current literature• Conferences-at least 20 continuing education events are held annually• Local chapter programs & activities

...and on. Contact the AMA Membership Department and find out about joining oneof the most prestigious organizations in the marketing world.

American Marketing Association250 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 200

Chicago, IL 60606312/648-0536

-4SBOCMTION


consumer perception of price quality and value a mean end model and synthesis of evidence valarie a...

Documents