consumer perceptions of price,quality,and value_图文

Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis ofEvidenceAuthor(s): Valarie A. ZeithamlSource:

The Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 52, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 2-22Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: /stable/1251446Accessed: 25/10/2010 08:59Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at/page/info/about/policies/. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at/action/showPublisher?publisherCode= copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@an Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheJournal of ://

Valarie A. Zeithaml

of

Consumer

Perceptions

Price,

A

Means-End Value:

Quality,

and

and

Model

Synthesis

of

Evidence

Evidence from

past

research and

insights

from an

exploratory investigation

are combined

in a

conceptual

model 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. Discussion

centers 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

and

Dickson

1984,

Schlechter

1984),

research on these

concepts

and their

linkages

has

provided

few conclu-

sive

findings.

Research efforts

have been criticized for

inadequate

definition and

conceptualization

(Monroe

and Krishnan

1985;

Zeithaml

1983),

inconsistent

measurement

procedures

(Monroe

and Krishnan

1985),

and

methodological problems

(Bowbrick

1982;

Olson

1977;

Peterson and

Wilson

1985).

One fundamental

problem limiting

work in the area

involves the mean-

ing

of the

concepts: quality

and value are

indistinct

and elusive

constructs that often

are mistaken

for im-

precise adjectives

like

"goodness,

or

luxury,

or shi-

niness,

or

weight"

(Crosby

1979).

Quality

and value

are not well

differentiated

from each other

and from

similar constructs

such as

perceived

worth and

utility.

School of

Business,

is Associate

A.

Zeithaml

Valarie

Professor,

Fuqua

financial

the

The author

Duke

sup-

acknowledges

gratefully

University.

Sci-

the

research

for this

and

by

Marketing

provided

port

cooperation

also thanks

The author

of

its

and one

Institute

ence

sponsors.

corporate

Diane

Whan

C.

Schmalensee,

Richard

C. Park,

Orville

Lutz,

Jr.,

Walker,

com-

for

JM reviewers

and three

A.

Parasuraman,

helpful

anonymous

of the

ments on

drafts

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?

Are

they

similar across consumers

and

products?

How do

consumers relate

quality, price,

and value

in their de-

liberations about

products

and services?

This article

is an

attempt

to

provide

answers to these

questions by:

*

defining

the

concepts

of

price, quality,

and

value

from the consumer's

perspective,

*

relating

the

concepts

in a

model,

and

*

developing propositions

about the

concepts,

ex-

amining

the available evidence

in

support

of the

propositions,

and

suggesting

areas where

re-

search is needed.

To

accomplish

these

objectives,

a review of

previous

research was

augmented by

an

exploratory

investi-

gation

of

quality

and value

in the

product

category

of

beverages. Company

interviews,

a focus

group

inter-

view,

and 30

in-depth

consumer

interviews

conducted

by

free-elicitation

approaches generated

qualitative

data

Journal of

Marketing

Vol. 52

(July

1988),

2-22.

2

/

Journal of

Marketing,

July

1988

that

research and served as the

basis for 14

supplemented previous

propositions.

The

Exploratory

Study

In the

focus

exploratory

and

phase

of the

research,

company,

group,

in-depth

consumer

interviews were

conducted to

of

gain insight

into consumer

was obtained

perceptions

from

a national

quality

and value.

that

Cooperation

markets three

distinct

lines of

company

fruit-flavored chil-

product

dren's

of tomato-based

drinks,

beverages:

a line of 100%

a line of 100%

fruit

juices,

and a line

iwith the

juices. In-depth

nterviews

were held

uct

marketing

research

the senior

prod-

ners,

manager

for

director,

and the

juices,

two

president

of the

company strategic plan-

company's

advertising

agency. Open-ended questions

as

about

pertained

to issues such

company knowledge

quality

and value

ceptions

of

those

consumers,

ways

the

company

determined

per-

perceptions,

and how

quality

and value were

communicated to consumers.

A focus

group

interview on the

and value in

was held in a

topics

of

quality

in the Southeast.

beverages

The focus

metropolitan

area

cordance

group

was formed in ac-

with

guidelines

traditionally

followed in the

marketing

research field

(Bellenger,

Bernhardt,

and

Goldstucker

were recruited

to fit

the

1976).

Participants

mato-based

demographic profile

of

of fruit-

and to-

All

purchasers

between the

beverages.

participants

were women

ages

of 25 and

49 and all

had at least one

child

screened

younger

than 10

to ensure current or recent

years

of

age. Participants

were

and

tomato-based

The

usage

of fruit-

beverages.

identity

of the

partici-

pating

firm was not revealed

in the

interview;

discus-

sion about

osumer

price, quality,

and value centered

n con-

and

in

experiences

than to the

perceptions

relating

to

beverages

general

rather

specific

brands of the

sponsoring

company.

The moderator's

ered such

questions

cov-

topics

as the

meaning

of

quality

and

value,

the attributes used

to evaluate

and value

quality

and

value,

and

the role of

A total of 30

price

in

quality

interviews

wjudgments.

ith female con-

sumers were held

in-depth

in three

areas

(one

in

the

metropolitan

Southwest,

one on the East

Coast,

and one in the

Midwest).

Free-elicitation

Olson and

approaches

recommended

by

Reynolds

(1983)

were used

to obtain

information about

the

cognitive

structures

of

con-

sumers.

These

included

triad

sorts and

lad-

In the triad

techniques

dering.

were divided

sorts,

similar brands

in the bev-

erage category

into sets of three

and

subjects

were

initial

probed

for distinctions

among

them. This

process

uncovered the

important

distinctions

that

respondents

used to

discriminate

among products.

The

laddering

volved a

process,

which followed

the triad

sorts,

in-

of

the consumer

sequence

in-depth probes

designed

to force

up

the ladder

of abstraction.

As

these

procedures

had

tant

successfully

elicited the more

in

impor-

higher

levels of abstraction

and Alden

Fiedler

1985;

previous

studies

(Gutman

1984;

Reynolds,

Gutman,

and

Reynolds

and

Jamieson

1985),

and value. After these indirect

attributes,

they

were

used to reveal the links

among product

quality,

methods,

sub-

jects responded

to

open-ended questions

covering

such

topics

as information needed

to make

and

value,

judgments

about

quality

impact

of related

factors

(e.g.,

ad-

vertising

and

tions of the

packaging)

on

perceptions,

and defini-

and

concepts.

Before

data were collected from

debriefing, demographic

dents.

beverage usage

respon-

As is

typical

in

exploratory

studies

using

means-

end chains

generated

,

Olson and

ere not numerical.

Reynolds

1983),

the data

in the form of

and means-end

Instead,

the data were

protocols maps

for in-

dividual consumers. Patterns of

served similarities across individuals form the "re-

responses

and ob-

sults" of this

type

of When combined

with the

exploratory

data from the executive and

study.

descriptive

focus

group

vide a framework

interviews,

the observations

and

for

insights pro-

and their

speculating

about the

concepts

relationships

(Figure

1).

The Model

Figure

Dodds and

1,

an

Madaptation

of a model first

onroe

(1985),

affords

an overview of the

proposed

by

relationships among

the

concepts

of

price, perceived

quality,

and

perceived

value. In the

following

sec-

tions,

relevant literature

and evidence from the

ex-

ploratory investigation

are

used to define and

describe

each

concept

in the model. To differentiate

between

proposed relationships

and

empirically supported

re-

lationships,

discussion of each

into two

proposition

is divided

the basis of the

parts.

First,

propositions

are

data from the

developed

on

and other

qualitative

exploratory

study

Second,

for each

conceptual

work from the literature.

proposition,

empirical

evidence that

supports

and refutes the

proposition

is reviewed.

The

Concept

of Perceived

Quality

Quality

can be defined

cellence.

broadly

as

superiority

or ex-

By

extension,

perceived quality

can be de-

fined as the consumer's

overall

excellence or

judgment

about a

different from

superiority.1

Perceived

product's

quality

is

(1)

objective

or actual

quality,

(2)

a

higher

level abstraction

rather than

a

specific

attribute

of a

product,

(3)

a

global

assessment that

in some cases

'Lewin's

(1936)

field theoretic

of actions and

approach

to

evaluating

the instru-

mentality

objects

in

achieving

ends could

be viewed

as a foundation

for this definition.

In his

view,

instrumentality

is the

extent 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 1

A Means-End Model

Relating

Price,

Quality,

and Value

I

I

Lower-level attributes

Perceptions

of lower-

level attributes

0

GO

Higher-level

attributes

resembles

attitude,

and

(4)

a

judgment usually

made

within a consumer's evoked set.

Monroe Garvin

and

researchers

eral

1984; 1983;

(Dodds

Holbrook and

Corfman

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-

mechanistic and humanistic

between

ample, distinguish

jective aspect

or feature

of a

thing

or

event;

human-

of

peo-

istic

[quality]

involves the

subjective response

ple

to

objects

and is therefore a

highly

relativistic

phenomenon

that differs between

judges" (p.

33).

1984;

Monroe and Krishnan

(e.g., Hjorth-Anderson

or

1985)

to describe the actual technical

superiority

excellence of the

products.

the term "ob-

As it has been used in the

literature,

su-

refers to measurable and

verifiable

jective quality"

ideal standard

or

periority

on some

predetermined

from sources such

standards. Published

ratings

quality

the

as Consumer

Reports

are used to

operationalize

studies

(see

of

objective quality

in research

construct

4

/

Journal

of

Marketing,

1988

July

"Objective quality"

is the term used in the literature

quality:

". .. mechanistic

[quality]

involves an ob-

Objective quality

versus

perceived quality.

Sev-

and Faulds

1986).

In recent

years,

researchers

Curry

have debated the use of these measures

of

quality

on

methodological grounds (Curry

and Faulds

1986;

1984, 1986;

Maynes

1976;

Sproles

Hjorth-Anderson

1986).

Concern

centers on the selection of attributes

and

weights

to measure

researchers

objective quality;

and

experts

(e.g.,

Consumer

do not

agree

on

Reports)

what the ideal standard or standards

should be. Others

(such

as

Maynes

1976)

claim that

objective quality

does 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 describe

technical

superiority

of a

product.

For

example,

Gar-

vin

(1983)

discusses

product-based quality

and man-

ufacturing-based quality.

Product-based

quality

refers

to amounts of

specific

attributes or

ingredients

of a

product. Manufacturing-based

quality

involves con-

formance to

manufacturing specifications

or service

standards. In the

prevailing Japanese philosophy,

quality

means "zero

defects-doing

it

right

the first

time." Conformance

to

requirements

(Crosby

1979)

and

incidence

of internal

and

external

failures

(Garvin

manufactur-

1983)

are other definitions

that illustrate

notions of

quality.

ing-oriented

These

concepts

are not identical to

ity

because

they,

too,

are based on

objective qual-

measures of

perceptions. Though

specifications may

be actual

themselves are set on

(rather

than

perceptual),

the

the basis of what

specifications

managers perceive

to be

important.

Managers'

views

sumers' or users'

vmay

differ

iews. Consumer

considerably

from con-

not with

Reports

ratings may

agree

managers'

assessments in terms of either

salient attributes or

for

weights assigned

to the attributes.

In a research

General

out

study

Electric,

Morgan

(1985)

points

dealer,

and

striking

differences between

of

consumer,

When asked how consumers

manager

perceptions appliance quality.

perceive quality,

man-

agers

listed

critical

workmanship,

performance,

and form as

different

components.

Consumers

actually

keyed

in on

components: appearance, cleanability,

and

durability.

Similarly, company

researchers

in the ex-

ploratory study

measured

beverage

quality

in terms

of

"flavor roundedness" and

sumers focused on

"astringency"

whereas con-

purity

(100%

fruit

juice)

and

sweetness.

To

reiterate,

perceived quality

is defined in the

model as the consumer's

or excellence of a

judgment

about the

superi-

ority

similar to the user-based

product.

This

of Garvin

perspective

is

and differs from

approach

(1983)

based

product-based

and

manufacturing-

from

approaches.

Perceived

quality

is also different

because all

objective quality,

which

arguably

may

not exist

consumers or

quality

is

perceived by

someone,

be it

managers

or researchers

at Consumer

Reports.

The means-end chain

Higher

level abstraction

rather than an attribute.

to

understanding

the

cognitive

structure

of consumers holds that

approach

information is retained

in

at several levels of

product

abstraction

memory

(Cohen

1979;

Myers

and Shocker

1981;

Olson and

The

Reynolds

level is a

1983;

Young

and

Feigen

simplest

the most

1975).

level is the value or

product

attribute;

complex

the consumer.

payoff

of the

product

to

view in the

Young

and

Feigen

this

w(1975)

hich

idepicted

a

"Grey

benefit

chain,"

llustrates how

product

is linked

through

a chain of

benefits to a

concept

called the "emotional

payoff."

Product

->

Functional

>

Practical

->

Emotional

Benefit

Benefit

Payoff

Related

conceptualizations

(Table 1)

pose

the same

essential

idea: consumers

organize

information at var-

ious levels

of abstraction

ranging

from

characteristics of

simple product

attributes

(e.g., physical

Myers

and

Shocker

concrete attributes

1981,

defining

attributes of Cohen

1979,

of Olson and

values.

Reynolds

1983)

to

complex personal

Quality

has been included

in multiattribute

models as

attribute

though

it were a lower level

have been leveled

Ahtola

(criticisms

of this

practice

by

1984,

Myers

and Shocker

1981,

and oth-

ers),

but

perceived quality

phenomenon:

an

is instead a

abstract

attribute in Olson and

second-order

nold's

(1983) terms,

a "B"

attribute

(somewhat

Rey-

ab-

stract,

multidimensional but

Shockers'

measurable)

in

Myers

and

(1981)

formulation.

Global assessment

similar to attitude.

(1985)

views

Olshavsky

of a

quality

as a form of overall

evaluation

product,

similar in some

ways

to attitude. Hol-

brook and

Corfman

(1985) concur,

suggesting

that

quality

is a

relatively global

value

two forms of

judgment.

Lutz

(1986)

proposes

quality,

"affective

qual-

ity"

and

allels

"cognitive quality."

Affective

quality par-

of

Olshavsky's

and Holbrook and Corfman's views

perceived quality

as overall attitude.

quality

is the case of a

inferential

Cognitive

asessment of

superordinate

s-

cues and an eventual

quality intervening

between lower order

overall

product

evaluation

(Lutz

attributes that

1986).

In Lutz's

can be assessed before

view,

the

higher

the

proportion

of

purchase

(search

attributes)

to those that can be assessed

only during

consumption

the more

it is that

(experience

attributes),

likely

quality

is a

as the

higher

level

of

cognitive judgment.

Conversely,

proportion experience

attributes

increases,

Lutz extends this line of

quality

tends to be an affective

judgment.

fective

reasoning

to

propose

that af-

and consumer nondurable

quality

is

relatively

more

likely

for services

attributes

goods

(where

experience

for industrial

dominate)

whereas

cognitive quality

is more

likely products

and consumer durable

goods

(where

search attributes

dominate).

Judgment

made within consumer's

evoked set.

Evaluations of

quality usually

take

place

in a com-

parison

context.

evaluations are made within "the set of

Maynes

(1976)

claimed that

quality

goods

which

. . . would in the consumer's

same

judgement

serve the

general purpose

for some maximum

outlay."

On

the basis of the

qualitative study,

and consistent with

Maynes'

contention,

the set of

products

used in com-

paring quality appears

to be the consumer's evoked

set. A

product's quality

is evaluated as

or

high

or low

depending

on its relative excellence

viewed as sub-

superiority

among products

or services that are

stitutes

by

the consumer. It is critical

to note that the

specific

set of

on the

products

used for

not the

comparison

depends

consumer's,

firm's,

assessment

of com-

peting products.

For

example,

consumers in the

ex-

ploratory study compared

the

of

quality

of different brands

orange juice

(which

would be the

comparison

con-

text of the

vs.

firm),

the

quality

of different

forms

(re-

frigerated

canned),

and the

quality

of

versus homemade

purchased

orange juice.

of the

Figure

2

depicts

the

perceived quality

component

conceptual

model in

Figure

1.

PQI:

Consumers use

lower level attribute

cues

to infer

quality.

Consumer

Perceptions

of

Price,

Quality,

and Value

/

5

TABLE 1

Selected

Means-End Chain Models

and Their

Proposed

Relationships

with

Quality

and Value

Personal Value

Level

Attribute Level Value Level

Level

Scheme

Quality

Young

and

Feigin

Emotional payoff

Practical benefit

Functional benefits

(1975)

Choice criteria

Instrumental values Terminal values

Product attributes

Rokeach

(1973)

Howard

(1977)

Task or outcome

User referent

Physical

characteristics

Pseudophysical

Myers

and

characteristics referent

Shocker

(1981)

Geistfeld,

Sproles,

Concrete,

and

Badenhop

unidimensional,

and

measurable

(1977)

attributes

(C)

Cohen

(1979)

Defining

attributes

Attributes

Gutman and

Reynolds

(1979)

Concrete attributes

Olson and

Reynolds

(1983)

Somewhat abstract,

multidimensional but

measurable

(B)

Instrumental attributes

Consequences

Abstract attributes

Va

Functional

consequences

Psychosocial

consequences

Instrumental

values

Terminal values

Abstract, multidimensional,

and difficult

to measure attributes

(A)

Highly

valued

states

Holbrook and Corfman

(1985)

note that

early phi-

losophers

used the word

"quality"

to refer to

explicit

features

(i.e.,

properties

or

characteristics)

of an ob-

ject

as

perceived 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 cites

examples

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

in

cars and

clothes).

In the

exploratory

study,

consumers

repeatedly

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 a

few attributes

from the total

set of attributes

appear

to 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,

intrinsic

cues would

include such

attributes

as

flavor, color,

texture,

and

degree

of sweetness.

Intrinsic

attributes

cannot be

changed

without

altering

the nature

of the

product

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 the

product.

Price,

brand

name,

and level

of

advertising

are

examples

of extrinsic

cues

to

quality.

The intrinsic-extrinsic

dichotomy

of

quality

cues

is useful for

discussing quality

but is not without

con-

ceptual

difficulties.2 A small

number of

cues,

most

notably

those

involving

the

product's package,

are

difficult to

classify

as either intrinsic

or extrinsic.

Package

could be considered

an intrinsic

or an extrin-

sic cue

depending

on whether the

package

is

part

of

the

physical composition

of the

product (e.g.,

a

drip-

less

spout

in

detergent

or a

squeezable

ketchup

con-

tainer),

in which case it

would be an intrinsic

cue,

or

protection

and

promotion

for the

product (e.g.,

a card-

board container

for a

computer),

in which case

it would

be an extrinsic

cue. For

purposes

of the

model,

pack-

age

is considered

an intrinsic

cue but the

information

that

appears

on the

package (e.g.,

brand

name,

price,

logo)

is considered

an extrinsic

cue.

Evidence. Researchers

have identified

key

lower

level attributes

used

by

consumers

to infer

quality

in

only

a few

product

categories.

These lower level

cues

include

price

(Olson

1977;

Olson and

Jacoby

1972),

suds level for

detergents,

size for stereo

speakers

(01-

shavsky

1985),

odor for

bleach and

stockings

(Laird

1932),

and

produce

freshness

for

supermarkets

(Bon-

ner and Nelson

1985).

methods of classification

could have been

used for these

cues.

2Other

Possible alternative classification

schemes include

(1)

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

in the

intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy.

No-

tably,

with each

scheme,

some cues

(particularly package)

would be

difficult to

classify.

Because the

intrinsic/extrinsic

dichotomy

has a

literature

underpinning

it,

because it is

widely

used and

recognized,

and because it

has clear

managerial implications,

it was retained

in

this review.

1988

of

Marketing,

6

/

Journal

July

FIGURE 2

The Perceived

Quality Component

Perceived

Quality

I

I

Extrinsic Attributes

Intrinsic Attributes

O

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

generalized

to

product

classes or

categories.

about across has been

Generalizing quality

products

difficult for

managers

and researchers.

Specific

or

concrete intrinsic attributes differ

widely

across

prod-

use to infer

qual-

ucts,

as do the attributes consumers

that

signal quality

in fruit

ity. Obviously,

attributes

juice

are not the same as those

indicating quality

in

washing

machines or automobiles. Even within a

product

category, specific

attributes

may provide

dif-

ferent

signals

about

quality.

For

example,

thickness

is related to

high quality

in tomato-based

juices

but

not in fruit-flavored children's drinks. The

presence

of

pulp suggests high quality

in

orange

juice

but low

quality

in

apple juice.

that

signal quality Though

the concrete attributes

differ across

products, higher

level abstract dimen-

sions of

quality

can be

generalized

to

categories

of

As attributes become more abstract

(i.e.,

are

products.

higher

in the means-end

chains),

they

become

com-

mon to more

alternatives. Garvin

(1987),

for exam-

in

ple, proposes

that

product

quality

can be

captured

eight

dimensions:

performance,

features,

reliability,

and

conformance,

aesthetics,

durability,

serviceability,

dimensions

perceived quality (i.e.,

image).

Abstract

that

capture

diverse

specific

attributes have been dis-

cussed

by

Johnson

(1983)

and

Achrol, Reve,

and

Stem

(1983).

In

describing

the

way

consumers

compare

alternatives

(e.g.,

how

they

choose

noncomparable

between such

diverse alternatives

as a stereo and a

Hawaiian

vacation),

Johnson

posited

that consumers

the attributes

in

memory

at abstract

levels

represent

(e.g., using

entertainment value as the dimension

on

which to

compare

stereos and

Hawaiian

vacations).

that the

Similarly,

Achrol, Reve,

and

Ster

proposed

multitude of

specific

variables

affecting

a firm in the

environment can be

captured

in abstract

dimensions.

Rather than

itemizing specific

variables that affect

firms in different

industries under

varying

particular

the en-

circumstances,

they proposed

conceptualizing

vironment in terms

of its abstract

qualities

or dimen-

Consumer

of

Price,

and

Value

Perceptions

Quality, /

7

sions

(e.g.,

homogeneity-heterogeneity,

and

stability-in-

stability, concentration-dispersion,

Olson

turbulence).

informational cues to

(1978)

pointed

out that consumers

beliefs about

may

use

and that task

develop

products

be a direct function of these

response

(i.e.,

choice or

evaluation)

may

mediating

beliefs. Ac-

cording

to

Olson,

these beliefs

may

be of two

types:

descriptive,

which involve a restatement of the

inal information in more abstract terms

orig-

erates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds"

(e.g.,

"accel-

generates

the belief

"high performance")

and

inferential,

which involve

an inference to information

ment

missing

in the environ-

(e.g.,

"accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds"

generates

the belief

"probably

corers

well, too").

This

distinction

roughly parallels

Alba and Hutchinson's

(1987)

distinction between

interpretive

and embellish-

ment inferences and both dichotomies illustrate the level

at which dimensions of

Interviews with

quality

can be

conceptualized.

subjects

in the

exploratory study

suggested

that

specific

intrinsic attributes used to infer

quality

could not be

that

level abstract dimensions could

generalized

across

beverages,

but

higher

of

capture

the

meaning

classes of

perceived quality

in whole

categories

or

beverages. Purity,

freshness, flavor,

and

appearance

were the

higher

level abstract dimensions

subjects

discussed in

defining quality

in the

beverage

category.

Evidence. In a

study

of

quality

in

and

long

distance

telephone, banking, repair

maintenance,

and bro-

kerage

services, Parasuraman,

Zeithaml,

and

Berry

(1985)

found consistent dimensions

of

across four consumer

service industries. These ab-

perceived qual-

ity

stract dimensions included

reliability, empathy,

as-

surance,

Bonner and Nelson

responsiveness,

and

tangibles.

Similarly,

(1985)

found that

such as

natural

sensory signals

rich/full

flavor,

taste,

fresh

taste,

good

aroma,

and

dimensions of

appetizing

looks-all

higher

level abstract

perceived quality-were

relevant across

33 food

product

categories.

Brucks and

Zeithaml

(1987)

contend on the basis

of

stract dimensions

exploratory

work that six ab-

(ease

of

use,

functionality, perfor-

mance,

durability, serviceability,

and

prestige)

can be

generalized

across

categories

of durable

the

goods. Though

empirical

research has not verified

of dimensions for

of

generalizability

than food

categories packaged

goods

other

products,

for durable

goods,

or for indus-

trial

goods,

abstract dimensions

spanning

these cate-

gories

could be

conceptualized,

verified,

and then used

to

develop general

measures of

quality

in

product

cat-

egories.

PQ3:

Extrinsic cues

serve as

generalized qual-

ity

indicators across

brands,

products,

and

categories.

Extrinsic attributes

(e.g.,

price,

brand

name)

are

8

/

Journal

of

Marketing,

July

1988

not

tors of

product-specific

and can serve as

across all

general

indica-

quality

types

of

products.

Price,

brand

name,

and level of

associated with

advertising

are three extrinsic cues

frequently

other

extrinsic cues are

useful to consumers. Of

quality

in

research,

yet many

cial note

are extrinsic

cues such as

spe-

product

warranties

and seals of

the extrinsic cue

approval (e.g.,

Good

Housekeeping).

Price,

(see

Olson 1977 for

receiving

the most

research attention

a

complete

review of this liter-

ature),

when the consumer

appears

to function as a

has

surrogate

for

quality

inadequate

information about

intrinsic attributes.

"shorthand" for

Similarly,

brand name serves as a

quality by providing

consumers with

a bundle of information

about the

al.

product (Jacoby

et

1978;

Level of

Jacoby, Szybillo,

and Busato-Schach

1977).

economists Nelson

advertising

has been related to

product qual-

ity by

Roberts

(1970, 1974),

Milgrom

and

(1986),

and Schmalensee

(1978).

The basic

argument

holds that for

goods

whose attributes are de-

termined

levels of

largely during

use

(experience goods), higher

see

advertising signal higher

that level of

quality.

Schmalen-

argues

advertising,

rather than actual

claims

believes the

made,

informs consumers that

the

company

goods

are worth

this

advertising

(i.e.,

of

high

quality). Supporting

argument

is the

finding

that

many subjects

in the

exploratory study perceived

heavily

advertised brands to be

generally higher

in

quality

than brands with less

The

advertising.

vided evidence that form of the

exploratory investigation

of

beverages pro-

product (e.g.,

frozen

vs. canned vs.

extrinsic cue in

refrigerated)

is an additional

important

beverages.

Consumers held consistent

perceptions

of the relative

of fruit

quality

of different forms

juice: quality perceptions

were

next

highest

for fresh

products, highest

for

refrigerated products,

then

bottled,

then

frozen,

then

canned,

and lowest for

forms.

dry

product

Evidence. The literature on hedonic

surement Griliches

quality

mea-

is the best measure of

(Court 1939;

1971)

maintains that

price

product quality.

Consid-

erable

empirical

research has

investigated

the rela-

tionship

between

for a review of this literature in

price

and

quality

(see

Olson 1977

marketing)

and has

shown that consumers use

it is the

price

to infer

quality

when

only

available cue. When

the evidence is less

price

is combined

with other

(usually

intrinsic) cues,

convincing.

In

forming impressions

about

quality

of merchan-

dise,

respondents

in a

selected brand name

study by

more

Mazursky

and

Jacoby

(1985)

other information. Gardner

frequently

than

found

any

(1970,

1971)

nificant main effects on

due to brand

sig-

name.

quality perceptions

Kirmani and

Wright

(1987a,b)

found

for the

empirical

support

relationship

between level of

spending

on

advertising

and

expenditures

on media

quality

inferences.

nd on

Manipulating

ments in

fects of both on consumers'

advertisements,

budgets

aproduction

ele-

they

found

significant

ef-

Bonner and Nelson

quality perceptions.

form

relates

to

(1985)

confirm that

revealed the same

quality perceptions.

An

product

hierarchy

of

empirical study

(fresh,

frozen, bottled, canned, dried)

quality

in

package

form

as

was found in the

refrigerated,

son conclude: "The

exploratory

study.

Bonner and Nel-

sensory

maintenance

ability

of

packaging

differs

that can best deliver a

by type

and those

packaging

forms

rich/full

flavor,

natural and

fresh

taste,

ance,

are

good

aroma,

and an

likely

to

gain

market

share"

appetizing appear-

(p.

75).

PQ4:

Consumers

on intrinsic

attributes

more than extrinsic attributes

depend

(a)

at the

in

point

of

consumption,

(b)

situations when

in-

trinsic

prepurchase

attributes are search

attributes

(rather

than

and

experience

attributes),

(c)

when

the intrinsic attributes

have

high

predictive

value.

Which

type

of cue-intrinsic

or extrinsic-is more

important

in

answer to this

signaling quality

to the consumer?

An

to invest resources

question

would

help

firms

decide

whether

in

product

improvements

(intrinsic

cues)

or in

marketing

(extrinsic

cues)

to

improve

per-

ceptions

of

answer

to this

quality. Finding

a

simple

and definitive

question

is

unlikely,

but the

study

suggests

the

type

of attribute

that

dominates

exploratory

de-

pends

on several

The first

key contingencies.

contingency

relates to

the

point

in the

purchase

decision and

consumption

process

at which

quality

evaluation occurs.

Consumers

may

evaluate

quality

at the

or at the

point

of

purchase

(buying

a

point

of

consumption

(drinking

a

beverage)

beverage).

The salience

of intrinsic

attributes

at the

chase

on whether

point

of

pur-

depends

at that

they

can be sensed

and

evaluated

attributes

time,

that

is,

whether

they

contain

search

(Nelson

1970).

Where search

attri-

butes are

or color or

present

cloudiness of

(e.g., sugar

content of a fruit

a drink

in a

juice

glass jar),

they

may

be

quality

indicators.

In their

absence,

consumers

important

At the

depend

on extrinsic cues.

point

of

consumption,

most intrinsic

attri-

butes can be

evaluated and

therefore

become acces-

sible as

quality

indicators.

Many

consumers

in the

ex-

ploratory

of

study

on

beverages

used taste

as the

If a

signal

fresh or tasted

quality

at

consumption.

beverage

did not

taste

or too

thin,

the evaluation

was

that

"tinny"

Consumers

quality

was low.

cues have

depend

on intrinsic

attributes when

the

high predictive

value

(Cox

1962). Many

respondents

in the

exploratory

study, especially

those

expressing

concern for their

chidren's health

and

teeth,

was the criterion

unequivocally

stated that

purity

(100%

juice,

no

sugar)

broad fruit

they

used to

judge quality

across the

and this intrinsic attribute

juice category.

The link between

was clear and

quality

fruit

strong:

all

beverages

with 100%

juice

were

high quality

beverages

and all others were not.

Evidence. Researchers

addressing

this

(Darden

and

question

hotra

Schwinghammer

1985;

1978;

Olson and

Etgar

and Mal-

1982;

Jacoby

1972;

have concluded

Rigaux-Bricmont

Szybillo

and

Jacoby

1974)

that

intrinsic cues were in

general

more

important

to con-

sumers in

judging quality

because

they

had

higher

predictive

value than extrinsic cues. This conclusion

does not account for the fact that

about

are made with insufficient information

many

assessments

about iquality

ntrinsic

cues. Selected individual studies

(e.g.,

Sawyer,

and Sendak

extrinsic cues can be more

Worthing,

1979)

have shown that

important

to consumers than

intrinsic cues.

Conflicting

evidence about the

tance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues becomes clearer

impor-

if the conditions under which each

are

type

of cue be-

comes

important

investigated.

PQ5:

Consumers

depend

on extrinsic attri-

butes more than intrinsic

attributes

(a)

in initial

cues are

purchase

situations when

intrinsic not available

for

(e.g.,

services),

(b)

when evaluation

of intrinsic

cues re-

quires

more effort and time than

the

consumer

and

perceives

is

worthwhile,

(c)

when

quality

is difficult to evaluate

(experience

and credence

goods).

Extrinsic cues are

indicators

when the consumer

posited

to be used as

is

operating

without

quality

ad-

equate

information about intrinsic

attributes.

This situation

product

may

occur when the consumer

(1)

has

little or no

sufficient time or interest

experience

with the

to evaluate the

product,

intrinsic

(2)

has in-

at-

tributes,

and

(3)

cannot

readily

evaluate

the intrinsic

attributes.

At

point

of

evaluate

relevant

purchase,

consumers cannot

intrinsic

attributes of

a

always

less free

product.

Un-

not taste new food

samples

are

being provided,

consumers

can-

before

sumers do not know

products

for certain

how

buying

them. Con-

long

a

machine or automobile

will last until

washing

and consume it.

In these and similar

situations,

they purchase

the

consumer relies

on extrinsic attributes

such as war-

ranty,

brand

for in-

trinsic

name,

and

attributes.

package

as

surrogates

At other

product

evaluate

times,

intrinsic attributes

on which

to

quality

are available

but the consumer

is un-

Consumer

Perceptions

of

Price,

Quality,

and

Value

/

9

willing

or unable to

evaluate them.

expend

the time and effort to

Working

women,

men,

and

single

shoppers,

for

example,

have been

information

reported

to use su-

permarket product

significantly

less than

other

demographic segments

(Zeithaml 1985),

in

because these

part

other

segments

are more time-conscious than

segments

(Zeithaml

1985;

Zeithaml and

Berry

1987).

Working

women interviewed

in the

explora-

tory study reported

that

not

they shopped quickly

and could

study

nutritional information

carefully

on bever-

age

containers.

of the freshness or

They

selected

beverages

on the basis

quality conveyed by packages

or

brand names.

In other

situations,

intrinsic

product

attributes in-

dicating quality

are

sumer to evaluate.

Evaluation

simply

too difficult for the con-

may

be difficult

to

as with

prior

purchase,

haircuts,

restaurant

meals,

and

other

experience goods.

Complex

stereo

insurance

equipment,

policies,

and

major

auto

consumers are difficult

repairs

are exam-

ples

of

to evaluate even after

products

that for

many

purchase

and

and Karni

consumption.

For

these "credence

goods"

(Darby

1973),

con-

sumers

may rely

on extrinsic cues

because

they

are

simpler

to access and evaluate.

Evidence. Research

has shown that

price

is used

as a

quality

cue to a

unfamiliar than

when brands

greater degree

when brands

are

are familiar

(Smith

and

Broome

1966;

Stokes

1985).

Research also

has shown

that when

perceived

risk of

making

an

unsatisfactory

choice is

high,

consumers

select

higher priced

prod-

ucts

(Lambert

1972;

Peterson and

Wilson

1985;

Shap-

iro

1968, 1973).

PQ6:

The cues that

signal quality

change

over

time because

of

(a)

competition,

(b)

promotional

efforts

of

companies,

(c)

changing

consumer

tastes,

and

(d)

information.

As

improved

technology

and

of

increasing competi-

tion lead to

the

development

technically

better

products,

the features

that

signal superiority

change.

The

exploratory

study suggested

that the

attribute cues

signaling

quality

in

over time.

beverages

are not

static,

but

in-

stead

change

The shift

from canned

orange

juice

to frozen

orange juice

to

refrigerated

orange juice

is one

example

of the

evolving

standards of

quality

in

beverages.

The

replacement

of saccharin with

Nutra-

sweet in

Harness

beverages

is another.

(1978,

p. 17)

illustrates

the forces of

change

and the

responses

made

by

Procter & Gamble to

keep

Tide

detergent

the

highest

quality

brand in the

pack-

aged soap

category:

Since Tide

have

was first

introduced

in

1947,

consumers

changed,

washing

machines

have

changed,

fab-

10

/

Journal of

Marketing,

July

1988

rics have

changed, laundry

habits have

changed,

and

competition

of the more

has

changed.

. . . These are

just

a few

laundry

a

market,

significant changes

and

in the household

every

one of these

for Tide. The

meaning

for the

performance

and the

changes

has

importantly

introduced in 1947. It is different in its

different from the Tide

product

which we are

marketing

selling today

plans

which we

is

product

formance,

in

sudsing

characteristics, aesthetics,

cleaning per-

physical properties, packaging.

been 55

In

total,

there have

its

significant

modifications in this one brand

during

30-year

lifetime.

The

Concept

of Perceived Price

From the consumer's

perspective, price

is what is

given

up

or sacrificed to obtain a

product.

This definition is

congruent

with Ahtola's

(1984)

argument against

in-

cluding monetary price

as a lower level attribute

in

multiattribute models because

price

is a

"give"

com-

ponent

of the

model,

rather than a "get"

as a sacrifice is consistent with

component.

Defining price

con-

ceptualizations by

other

Mazumdar

pricing

researchers

(Chapman

1986;

1986;

Monroe and Krishnan

1985).

Figure

1 delineates the

components

of

price:

ob-

jective price, perceived

nonmonetary price,

and sac-

rifice.

tween

Jacoby

and Olson

(1977)

distinguished

be-

and

objective price

(the

actual

price

of a

product)

perceived price

(the

price

as encoded

by

the con-

sumer).

Figure

1

emphasizes

this distinction:

not the

objec-

tive

monetary price

is

frequently

price

encoded

by

consumers. Some consumers

exact

may

notice that the

but others

price

of Hi-C fruit

juice

is

$1.69

for a

6-pack,

as

may

encode and remember the

price only

"expensive"

or

"cheap."

Still others

may

not en-

code

A

price

at all.

tion between

growing body

of research

supports

this distinc-

objective

and

Gabor and

perceived

price

(Allen,

Harrell,

and Hutt

1976;

Granger

1961;

Progressive

Grocer

1964).

Studies

reveal that

con-

sumers do not

of

always

know or remember

actual

prices

products.

Instead,

they

encode

prices

in

ways

that

are

meaningful

to them

(Dickson

and

Sawyer

1985;

Zeithaml

1982, 1983).

Levels of consumer

attention,

awareness,

and

knowledge

of

prices

for consumers

appear

to be con-

siderably

lower than

necessary

to have

accurate internal

reference

prices

for

many products

(Dickson

and

and

Sawyer

1985;

Zeithaml

1982).

Dickson

sumers

Sawyer reported

that the

proportions

of con-

checking prices

of four

types

of

products

(margarine,

cold

cereal,

toothpaste,

and

coffee)

at

point

of

purchase

ranged

from 54.2 to

60.6%.

Among

the

groups

of consumers

not

checking prices

in these

studies,

a

four

large proportion

(from

58.5

to 76.7%

in the

product

categories)

stated that

price

was

just

not

important.

Another recent

differs

study

indicates

that

price

awareness

levels of

awareness

among demographic

groups,

the

greatest

being

in consumers

who

are

female, married, older,

and do not

work

outside

the

home

is o be

(Zeithaml

and

Berry

1987).

Attention to

prices

durable

likely

tgreater

for

and services than for low

higher

priced

packaged goods,

goods,

priced

bev-

erages,

but other factors in these

plexity,

lack of

price

information,

and

categories-com-

required-may

interfere

with accurate

processing

time

factor

knowledge

of

prices.

An additional

to the

between actual and

contributing

gap

perceived price

is

the

price disper-

sion,

tendency

for the same brands

to be

priced

differently

across stores or for

products

of the same

type

and

and Assum

quality

to have wide

price

variance

(Maynes

1982).

Ppl:

Monetary price

is not the

only

sacrifice

perceived

by

consumers.

Full

price

models

in economics

acknowledge

that

is not the

(e.g.,

Becker

1965)

rifice consumers

mmonetary

ake to obtain

price

Time

only

sac-

costs,

search

and

products.

or

costs,

psychic

costs all enter

either

explic-

itly

sacrifice. If consumers

implicitly

into the consumer's

cannot find

perception

of

products

on the

shelf,

or if

they

must travel distances

to

made. If consumers

must

buy

them,

a

sacrifice has been

effort to assemble

durable

products

or time to

expend

prepare

packaged

satisfaction

goods,

and if this time

and effort does not

provide

to the consumer

in the form of

recreation

or a

hobby,

a sacrifice has been

made.

Evidence. Research

in

economics,

home econom-

ics,

and

marketing

supports

the

proposition

that other

costs-time,

effort, search,

psychic-are

salient to

consumers

Gronau

1973;

Leibowitz

1974;

Leuthold

(Down

1981;

Linder

1961;

1970;

Mincer

1963;

Nichols,

Smolensky,

a1nd Tideman

970;

Mabry

1971;

Zeithaml

and

Berry

1987).

The

Price-Quality

Relationship

Nearly

90 research

studies in the

past

30

wisdom that

years

have

been

and

designed

to test the

general

price

tation

quality

are

of a

positively

related.

Despite

the

results

of these stud-

expec-

ies have

positive

relationship,

provided

mixed evidence.

PPQI:

A

general price-perceived

quality

re-

lationship

does not exist.

Price reliance

is a

sumers

to

general

tendency

in some con-

depend

on

price

as a cue to

The

quality

(Lam-

bert

ture summarized

1972;

Shapiro

1968, 1973).

Olson

body

of litera-

by

(1977)

is based on the

assumption

that a

general

price-perceived

quality

re-

lationship

exists.

Despite

a multitude

of

studies

on the

experimental

topic,

however,

the

relationship

has not

surfaced

clearly except

in situations

where methodo-

logical

concerns

such

as demand

artifacts

(Sawyer

1975)

could offer alternative

explanations

for the results

(Monroe

and Krishnan

1985;

Olson

(1982)

1977).

Bowbrick

ceived

questioned

the

universality

of the

price-per-

quality

relationship,

called the stream

of stud-

ies on the

the

topic "pseudoresearch,"

and claimed that

price-perceived quality

hypothesis

is too

and untestable

to

general

results. Peterson

aproduce

nd Wilson

anything

other than trivial

(1985)

lationship

between

argue

that the re-

hat the direction

price

and

perceived quality

is not

universal and

tof the

not

relationship may

always

be

positive.

Evidence. Monroe and Krishnan

that

(1985)

concluded

apositive

price-perceived quality

does

appear

to exist

relationship

tical

despite

the

inconsistency

of the statis-

noted, however,

significance

of the research

that

findings. They

also

and

methodological

limitations

multiple conceptual problems

search. Monroe

and Dodds

compromised

describe

previous

re-

(1988)

these lim-

itations

in

greater

detail and delineate a research

pgram

for

establishing

the

validity

of the

ro-

price-quality

relationship.

studies

have

conflict with Monroe and Krishnan's

Many empirical produced

results

that

assessment

of a

positive

In several studies

Swan

relationship.

overall association between

(Friedman 1967;

1974),

price

and

perceived quality

is low. Other studies show the re-

lationship

to be nonlinear

Jolibert

(Peterson

1970;

Peterson

and

1976),

highly

variable across individuals

(Shapiro

1973),

and variable across

products being

judged

(Gardner

1971).

Other

research,

summarized

by

Olson

(1977),

shows that

price

becomes less im-

portant

as a

ity

cues,

such as brand

quality

indicator when other

name

1p971)

roduct qual-

image

(Stafford

and Enis

(Gardner

or store

1969),

are

present. Explor-

atory

and

survey

research

Parasuraman,

Zeithaml,

and

(Bonner

and Nelson

1985;

Berry

1985)

indicates

that

price

is

attributes that

con-

sumers associate with

among

the least

important

Related studies

quality.

have

(summarized

by Hjorth-Anderson

1984)

consistently

shown

with

price

to be correlated

only weakly

objective

(rather

than

perceived)

quality. Typical

of these studies is work

by Sproles

(1977),

who correlated

the

quality

obtained

prices

of

Consumer

products

with

Reports

and

Consumers'

ratings

Research

through

Magazine. Though

a

price-objective quality

was found

positive

iof the 135

relationship

n 51%

in 35%

and

product categories,

no

a

relationship

was found

negative

relationship

was found

in 14%.

Similarly,

Riesz found the mean

rank

correlation

be-

tween

price

and

objective quality

to be .26

for 685

product

in Consumer

tween 1961 and

categories reported

Reports

be-

1975 and .09

for 679 brands

of

foods

pack-

aged

(Riesz 1978).

Geistfeld

(1982)

found vari-

ability among

markets

and across stores

in the

objective

Most

price-

assessed the

quality

relationship.

correlation

recently,

Gerstner

(1985)

between

quality

and

Consumer

Perceptions

of

Price,

Quality,

and

Value

/

11

price

for 145

products

and concluded that the rela-

tionship

weak.

appeared

to be

product-specific

and

generally

Both Peterson and Wilson

(1985)

and

(1985)

that the

in

Olshavsky

should not be on

argue emphasis

price-quality

studies

ceived

documenting

the

general

price-per-

der which

quality

relationship,

but on the conditions un-

ference about

price

information is

likely

to lead to an in-

product

quality.

One

possibility

is that

some individuals

nal whereas others

rely heavily

on

do not. Peterson

price

as a

and Wilson sorted

quality sig-

respondents

into

a

groups

on the basis of their

having

ment that "schematics"

price-reliance

schema and confirmed in an

perceive

a

relation-

experi-

and

stronger

ship

between

This

price

quality

than "aschematics."

to associate

general tendency

on the

part

of some consumers

the context

f covariation assessment

price

and

quality

has been examined in

oand Bettman

by

Roedder-John,

Scott,

sumers differ in their

(1986),

who confirmed that con-

beliefs about

the association

be-

tween the

price

and

quality

variables. These studies

provide

evidence that

some consumers

have a schema

of

price

reliance,

rather than

a

tendency

in consumers to associate

indicating

and

generalized

price

quality.

PPQ2:

The use of

price

as an indicator

of

on

qual-

ity depends

(a)

availability

of other

cues to

quality,

(b)

price

variation within a class of

products,

(c)

product

quality

variation within a

category

of

level of

products,

(d)

price

awareness of con-

sumers,

and

(e)

consumers'

variation

in a

ability

to detect

of

quality

group

products.

Monroe

and

Krishnan

(1985)

contend

that

most

past

price-perceived

and

has

not

succeeded in

quality

research

has been

the

exploratory

is used to infer

resolving

question

of when

price

the use

of

quality. Contingencies

affecting

price

as a

quality

indicator

fit into three

groups:

informational

factors,

individual

factors,

and

product

The first

category

factors.

category

of factors

believed to

affect the

price-perceived

consists of other

information available

quality

to the consumer.

relationship

When intrinsic

cues

to

quality

are

when brand names

provide

evidence of a

readily

accessible,

level of

company's

reputation,

or when

lief in the

advertising

communicates

the

company's

be-

tto use those

cues instead

brand,

he consumer

of

may prefer

Several individual

price.

difference factors

for the variation

in the use of

may

account

One

price

as a

quality

signal.

consumer:

explanatory

variable

is

unaware

price

awareness of the

consumers

of

product

prices

ob-

viously

cannot

use

price

to infer

quality.

Another

in-

12

/

Journal

of

Marketing,

July

1988

dividual difference is

consumers'

variation

ability

to detect

quality

the consumer

does not have

among products

(Lambert

1972).

If

sufficient

edge

even

product

knowl-

ation in

(or

perhaps

interest)

to understand the vari-

quality (e.g.,

French, Williams,

and Chance

a

1973),

price

and other extrinsic

cues

may

be used to

greater

Consumers

degree.

appear

to

depend

more on

price

as a

quality signal

in some

ers. One

product

categories

than in oth-

explanation

for this variation

ences in

may

be differ-

price-objective quality

relationships

by

cat-

egory

not diminish

(e.g.,

the low

the well-established

price

of

Japanese

automobiles does

of

in the

Another

perception

quality

variation

category).

in a

In

explanation may

be

price

(such

as

category.

the consumer

beverages)

where

packaged

products

differ

goods categories

little

in

price,

ucts that cost

may

not attribute

higher quality

to

prod-

only

a few cents more than those of

competitors. Respondents

in the

did not associate

exploratory study,

for

example,

beverage price

with

ity.

Still

another

is

qual-

variation: in

category-specific

contingency

quality

categories

where little variation is ex-

pected among

brands

(such

as salt or

paper

sandwich

bags), price may

function

of sac-

rifice whereas in

only

as an indication

categories

where

quality

variation

is

expected

(such

as canned seafood or

chines),

washing

ma-

price may

function also as an indication of

quality.

Evidence. Olson

(1977)

showed that

of intrinsic and extrinsic cues other than

availability

results in

price typi-

cally weighting

those factors

(e.g.,

brand

name)

as more than

that brand name is a

important

stronger

cue than

price.

He concluded

price

for eval-

uating

overall

and Haddock

1971;

Jacoby,

Olson,

1973;

quality

Smith and Broome

(Gardner

1966;

Stokes

1985).

Studies have indicated

that

use of

ity

indicator differs

price

as a

qual-

wine and

by product

category. Except

for

in durable

perfume,

most

rather than in nondurable

positive

links

have been found

or consumable

products

Wilson

(Gardner

1970;

Lambert

1972;

Peterson

and

1985).

In an

experimental setting,

Peterson

and

Wilson documented the

variation

and

relationship

between

association:

price

greater

the

price-perceived

quality

the

consumers

price

to use

variation,

the

greater

the

tendency

for

In a recent

price

as a

quality

indicator.

meta-analysis

of 41 studies

investigat-

ing

the association

between

price

and

perceived

qual-

ity,

Rao and Monroe

(1987)

found that the

type

of

experimental

design

and the

magnitude

of the

price

manipulation

significantly

influenced the

size of the

price-perceived

quality

effects obtained.

The number

of cues

to have a

manipulated

and

the

price

level were

not found

significant

effect. Because

of constraints

im-

posed

by

the

meta-analysis,

the reviewers

included

only

consumer

products

and eliminated several studies as

outliers,

so the full

ucts was not

range

of

prices

and

types

of

prod-

Considerable

investigated.

ual differences in consumer

empirical

research

supports

individ-

Consumers are not

knowledge

of

prices.

tain consumer

uniformly

aware of

prices

and cer-

segments

(such

as

working

women and

men)

are less aware of

Zeithaml and

prices

than other

segments

(Zeithaml 1985;

Price awareness level has not been

Berry

1987;

Zeithaml

and Fuerst

1983).

studied as it relates to

quality perceptions,

of

though

Rao

(1987)

documented the

on the use of

impact

prior knowledge

of

products

price

as a

quality

cue.

The

Concept

of Perceived Value

When

respondents

in the

used the term in

exploratory study

discussed

value,

they

many

different

ways,

de-

scribing

a wide

variety

of attributes and

higher

level

abstractions that

provided

value to them. What

con-

stitutes value-even

in a

single product category-

appears

to be

highly personal

and

in the

idiosyncratic. Though

many respondents

cues that

exploratory

study agreed

on

signaled quality,

they

differed

of

considerably

in

expressions

of value. Patterns

responses

from the

exploratory

definitions of

study

can be

value:

grouped

into four consumer

(1)

value is low

want in a

price,

(2)

value

is whatever I

product,

(3)

value is the

qual-

ity

I

get

for the

price

I

pay,

and

(4)

value is what I

get

for what I

ferent set of

give.

Each definition involves a dif-

and each consumer definition

linkages among

the elements in the

model

has its

counterpart

in the

academic or trade literature

on the

subject.

The di-

versity

in

meanings

of value is illustrated

in the fol-

lowing

four definitions and

provides

a

nation for the

partial expla-

difficulty

in

conceptualizing

and

measuring

the value construct

in research.

Value is low

with low

price.

Some

respondents equated

value

was most salient

price,

indicating

that what

in their

they

had to

give

up

perceptions

of value. In

their own words:

*

Value is

price-which

one is on sale.

*

When I can use

a value.

coupons,

I feel that the

juice

is

*

Value means low

price.

*

Value is whatever is on

special

this week.

In

identified subsets of

industry

studies,

Schechter

(1984)

and

consumers that

Bishop

(1984)

equate

value with

price.

Other

industry

studies,

of

including

Hoffman's

(1984),

reveal the salience

tions of consumers.

price

in the value

equa-

Value is whatever

I want in a

product.

Other re-

spondents emphasized

the benefits

they

received from

the

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 to

mix it

up,

then it has value.

This second definition is

economist's definition of

essentially

the same as the

utility,

that

measure of the usefulness or want satisfaction that re-

is,

a

subjective

sults from

consumption.

This definition also has been

expressed

in the trade literature. Value has been de-

fined as "whatever it is that the customer seeks in

making

decisions as to which store to

shop

or which

product

to

buy"

(Chain

Store

Age

1985).

Schechter

(1984)

defines value as all

factors,

both

and

qualitative

the

quantitative, subjective

and

objective,

that make

up 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.

Other

respondents 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

fordable

quality.

No-value

is af-

quality.

This definition is consistent with several

others that

appear

in the literature

Monroe

(Bishop

1984;

Dodds and

1984;

Doyle

1984;

Shapiro

and Associates

1985).

Value is what I

get for

what I

give. Finally,

some

respondents

considered all relevant

as well as all relevant

"get" components

value:

"give" components

when de-

scribing

*

Value is how

certain

many

drinks

you

can

get

out of a

package.

Frozen

juices

have more be-

cause

you

can water them down and

get

more

out of them.

*

How

many gallons you get

out of it for what

the

price

is.

*

Whatever makes the most for the

least

money.

*

Which

juice

is more economical.

0

Value is what

you

are

paying

for what

you

are

getting.

*

Value is

price

and

there is no waste.

having single portions

so that

This fourth definition is consistent with

Sawyer

and

Dickson's

(1984)

conceptualization

of value as a ratio

of attributes

weighted by

their evaluations divided

by

Consumer

Perceptions

of

Price,

Quality,

and Value

/

13

price weighted

to the

by

its evaluation. This

similar

meaning

is also

utility per

dollar measure of value used

by

Hauser and Urban

nd

(1986),

Hauser and Simmie

(1981),

Hauser aShugan

(1983),

and others.

These four consumer

expressions

of value can be

captured

in one overall definition:

the consumer's overall

assessment of the

perceived

value is

utility

of a

product

based on

perceptions

of what is received and

what is

consumers

given. Though

what is received varies across

still others

(i.e.,

some

may

want

volume,

others

convenience)

and what is

high

quality,

varies

(i.e.,

some are concerned

given

only

with

money

ex-

pended,

others with time and

a tradeoff

of the salient

effort),

value

represents

give

and

get components.

Value and

quality.

In the means-end

c(like

quality)

is to be a

hains,

value

tion. It differs from

proposed higher

level abstrac-

is more individualistic

quality

in two

and

ways.

First,

value

is therefore

a

personal

than

quality

and

higher

level

concept

than

quality.

As

shown in Table

of

1,

value

may

be similar to the "emo-

tional

payoff"

Young

and

Feigen

(1975),

to "ab-

stract, multi-dimensional,

difficult-to-measure attri-

butes" of

and to "instrumental values" of Olson and

Geistfeld,

Sproles,

and

Badenhop

(1977),

value

Reynolds

(1983).

Second,

(unlike

quality)

involves a

tradeoff of

give

and

conceptualizations

of value have

get components. Though many

the

specified quality

as

only "get" component

in the value

equation,

the

consumer

may implicitly

include other

factors,

sev-

eral that are in themselves

such as

higher

level

abstractions,

prestige

and convenience

(see

Holbrook

and

Corfman 1985 for a discussion of the

volved in

difficulty

in-

separating

these abstractions

in the value

construct).

Pv1:

The benefit

salient intrinsic

components

of value include

attributes,

extrinsic at-

tributes,

evant

perceived

quality,

and other rel-

high

level abstractions.

Differences

among

the benefit or

shown in the model

and listed in

get components

Pvl

can be illustrated

by findings

from the

As discussed

study

of fruit

juices.

before,

exploratory

was

perceived quality

in fruit

juices

signaled by

the attribute

"100% fruit

juice" plus

sensory

attributes

such as taste and

texture.

Some intrinsic attributes

of fruit

those

cited as

juices-other

than

to

signaling

quality-were

providing

value

tribute. Most

respondents.

Color was

one

mothers knew

which colors or flavors

important

intrinsic

at-

of

juice

their

children

would

to be

drink;

only

those flavors

were considered

therefore

to have value

for the mother.

acceptable

to the child and

Other intrinsic

attributes

(e.g.,

absence of

also affected

pulp

and visible consis-

tency

of the

In addition

drinks)

value

to

perceptions.

perceived

quality

and these intrinsic

14

/

Journal

of

Marketing,

July

1988

attributes,

other

to

higher

level abstractions

contributed

level abstraction for

perceptions

of value. A

fruit

frequently

mentioned

higher

consumers did not

want to reconstitute the

juice

was convenience.

Some

ers wanted

self-serve containers

o that

children

juice.

Oth-

scould

get juice

from the

small cans with

refrigerator by

themselves. For this

reason,

as convenient

as little boxes with

difficult-to-open tops

were not

insertable straws.

Fully

containers

reconsituted,

were

ready-to-serve,

and

to

easy-to-open

These

intrinsic and

keys

extrinsic lower

adding

value in the

level attributes

category.

added

value

through

the

higher

level abstraction of conve-

nience.

Another

in

value in children's fruit

higher

level abstraction

important

pro-

viding

drank

juices

was

tion. When children

apprecia-

mentioned them to mother or

beverages

the mothers se-

lected,

when

evidenced

thanks,

they

the mothers obtained value. This

particular

psychological

benefit was not evoked di-

rectly

in

any

of the consumer

interviews,

but came

through

strongly

in the

laddering pperceptions

filtered

tion of

through

the

rocess.

The value

higher

level abstrac-

intrinsic

appreciation

and did not come

or extrinsic

attributes. This indirect

directly

inferenc-

through

ing process

illustrates a

ditional multiattribute or

major difficulty

in

using

tra-

utility

models in

perceived

value. The intrinsic attributes

tmeasuring

hemselves

are not

filter

always directly

linked to

value,

but instead

selves abstract.

through

other

personal

benefits that are them-

Evidence.

Though

no

empirical

research has been

reported

on the

pivotal higher

level abstractions re-

lated to

in selected

value,

several

dimensions

have been

proposed

claimed that

categories. Bishop

value in

(1984),

for

example,

supermarket shopping

is a com-

posite

of the

higher

level abstractions of

variety,

ser-

vice,

and facilities in addition to

quality

and

price.

Doyle

time as

(1984)

identified

convenience, freshness,

and

that combine

with

major

and

higher

level abstractions

price

quality

to

value

perceptions

in

supermarket

consumers.

produce

Pv2:

The sacrifice

value include

components

of

perceived

monetary prices

and non-

monetary

prices.

Consumers sacrifice both

money

and other re-

sources

and services. To some

(e.g.,

time,

energy,

effort)

to obtain

products

sac-

rifice is

some

consumers,

the

monetary

vest hours

pivotal:

supermarket shoppers

will in-

food

in the

clipping coupons, reading

and

advertising

newspaper,

traveling

to different

stores to

obtain the best

bargains.

To these

consumers,

thing

that

reduces the

the

monetary

sacrifice will increase

any-

scious consumers

perceived

value of the

will find value

product.

Less

in store

price-con-

proximity,

ready-to-serve

food

at the

products,

and

home

delivery-even

expense

of

higher

costs-because time and ef-

fort are

perceived

as more

costly.

Evidence. Recent research reveals that

concern

of consumers

saving

time

has become a

pivotal

in

market

super-

have cited fast checkout as more

shopping

and

cooking. Supermarket shoppers

important

than low

prices

in

stitute

selecting grocery

stores

(Food

Marketing

In-

are

1985, 1986).

Studies

also show that

consumers

willing

to

spend money

to

get

more convenient

packaging

in food

products

(Morris 1985).

Pv3: Extrinsic attributes

serve as "value

nals" and can substitute for active

sig-

weighing

of benefits and costs.

How

carefully

do consumers evaluate these com-

ponents

of in

To

products

making

assessments of value?

judge

from the

product category

of

cognitive

assessment

is limited. Rather than

beverages,

carefully

considering

prices

and

benefits,

most

extrinsic cues-in

respondents

de-

pended

on cues-often

forming

impressions

of value. A few

calculated

the

in their set on a

respondents carefully

basis,

but most seemed to follow

cheapest

brand

regular

Langer's

(1978)

no-

tion of mindlessness: most

minimal

respondents bought

bev-

erages

with

only

processing

of available in-

formation.

a brand

or used extrinsic value cues to

They repeatedly bought

their choice

they

trusted

simplify

process.

These value

triggers

were

present

regardless

of the

way

consumers defined value.

Many

consumers

who

defined value as low

a

price reported using

a

without

coupon

as

reduced

signal

to low

of the

price

actually comparing

the

of other

pbrands,

rice

or

couponed

brand

with the

they reported

that "cents-off" or

prices

"everyday

low

price" signs

or a

private

label brand

triggered

the value

who de-

fined value in terms

perception. Respondents

of what

cited small

they

wanted

in

products

containers,

single-serving portions,

and

ready-to-serve

containers. Consumers who defined

value as the

used

quality they get

for the

price they pay

brand

signals

such as 100% fruit

name on

special. Finally,

consumers who de-

juice

on

special

or

fined value as what

they get

for what

vs. canned

they pay

de-

pended

on form

(frozen

juice)

and econ-

omy-sized packages

as

Not all consumers

signals.

in this mindless

saw their role as economical

responded

way

-many

shopper

to be

important

enough

to

spend

time and effort to

in their own

weigh

carefully

the

give

and

get components

equations

of value.

or

Moreover,

not all

products

are as

simple

inexpensive

as

beverages.

One would ex-

pect

to find more rational

evaluation in situations

of

high

information

availability, processing ability,

time

availability,

and involvement in

purchase.

have

Evidence. To

date,

no

investigated

the

reported

empirical

studies

perceptions

of value.

potential

of

triggers

that

lead to

Pv4:

The

of value

frame of

perception

reference in which the con-

depends

on the

sumer is

making

an evaluation.

Holbrook

and Corfman

(that

value

a1985)

maintain

perceptions

are situational

nd

hich an evaluative

hinge

on the context

within

wjudgment

occurs. This view

may help explain

the

In the

diversity

of

meanings

of value.

reference used

beverage category,

for

example,

the frame of

by

the consumer in

providing

mean-

ings

included

point

of

and

con-

sumption.

Value meant

purchase,

different

preparation,

At the

things

at each of these

points.

point

of

purchase,

value often meant

low

ration,

price,

value often involved some calculation about

sale,

or

coupons.

At the

point

of

prepa-

whether the

product

was

easy

to

for what she

prepare

and how much

the consumer

could obtain

paid.

At con-

sumption,

value was

ould drink

judged

in terms of whether the

children

wthe

the

beverage,

whether some of

beverage

was

wasted,

or whether

the children

preciated

the mother for

ap-

buying

the drinks.

Evidence. No

ducted

to

empirical

studies have been con-

investigate

the variation in value

across evaluation

contexts.

perceptions

Pv5:

Perceived value affects the

between

and

relationship

quality

purchase.

As

want to

Olshavsky

(1985)

suggested,

not all consumers

buy

the

highest quality

item in

every

cate-

gory.

Instead,

quality appears

to be factored into the

implicit

or

explicit

valuation of a

consumers

product by many

Dickson

(Dodds

and Monroe

1985;

be

Sawyer

and

but if the consumer

1984).

A

given product

does not have

may high quality,

enough money

to

buy

it

(or

does not want to

spend

the amount re-

quired),

its value will not be

high

as that f a

perceived

as

being

as

oaffordable

product

with lower

quality

but a more

>

price.

In other

words,

when

geta

-

givea

straint,

getb

-

then

giveb

but the

shopper

has a

budget

con-

givea

> >

hence b is chosen. The same

budget

constraints

giveb

and

ucts that

need more

logic may apply

to

the consum-

prod-

er's time constraint

preparation

time than

allows.

The

this

respondents

in the

beverage study

illustrated

behavior. For

point

as

they

discussed their

with several

typical purchasing

respondents

children,

bev-

erages

accounted for a

food bill.

most believed that

large portion

of their

weekly

was of

Though

rinks,

pure

fruit

juice

higher

quality

than

fruit

dmany

of these

respondents

did not

buy only pure

fruit

juice

because

it was too

expensive. They

tended to

fruit

buy

some

portion

of

pure

juice,

then round

out these more

pro-

Consumer

Perceptions

of

Price,

Quality,

and

Value

/

15

expensive purchases

with fruit drinks. In their eval-

uation,

levels of

high

quality

was not worth its

expense,

so lower

quality

were tolerated in a

portion

of the

weekly beverages.

These consumers obtained more

value from the lower

costs

quality juices

because the low

compensated

for the reduction in

quality.

Evidence. Several

tigated

the

between

empirical

studies have inves-

quality

and

but no

relationship

purchase,

the role

empirical

studies have

of value as an

investigated explicitly

and

intervening

factor between

studies on the use of unit

quality

information

purchase.

However,

Aaker and Ford

1983;

Dickson and

price

sumers

u1985;

(e.g.,

Sawyer

Zeithaml

se unit

1982)

suggest

that

many

con-

price

information

(i.e.,

a measure of

value)

in

making product

choices in

supermarkets.

Research

Implications

The

raise

in which

preceding propositions

questions

about

ways

quality

and value have been studied

in the

past

and

suggest

avenues for future

research.

Current Practices

in

Measuring Quality

Academic research

measuring quality

has

depended

heavily

on unidimensional

rating

quality

to be

in

scales,

allowing

chooses. This

interpreted

any way

the

respondent

dents are

practice

does not ensure that

respon-

the researcher intends.

interpreting quality

Hjorth-Anderson

similarly

or in the

way

that unidimensional

scales are

(1984)

claims

methodologically

in-

valid

by showing

that the

concept

of overall

has

many

dimensions. Holbrook

and Corfman

quality

measures to be

(1985)

call for

with scales based

ambiguous quality

on

An

conceptual

definitions

of

replaced

quality.

lustrated

example

of the

approach

Zeithaml,

they

recommend

is il-

and

who

by

Parasuraman,

in an extensive ex-

Berry

(1985),

investigated

service

quality

ploratory

on that

study, conceptualized

it in dimensions

based

investigation,

and

it

using

the

conceptual

domain

operationalized

specified

in the first

phase

(Para-

suraman,

of

Zeithaml,

and

Berry

1986).

In that stream

tween consumer

research,

quality

was defined as a

comparison

be-

formance based

oen those

xpectations

and

dimensions,

perceptions

of

an

per-

that

allows for individual

differences

across

approach

in the

attributes that

subjects

The research

signal quality.

used

and

approach

by

Parasuraman,

Zei-

thaml,

Berry

(1985)

could be used in different

categories

of

trial

products

(e.g., packaged

goods,

indus-

mensions

products,

durable

di-

that

goods)

to find the abstract

an

capture quality

in those

categories.

Such

mal

attempt

is

currently underway

by

Brucks

and

Zeith-

to determine

(1987)

for durable

hich attributes

goods.

Studies

also are

needed

wwhen and

signal

these

dimensions,

why they

are selected

instead

of other

cues,

16

/

Journal

of

Marketing,

July

1988

and how

Gutman

athey

are

nd Alden

perceived

and combined

(see

also

1972 for similar

1985,

Olson

1977,

and Olson and

Jacoby

the

expressions

of needed re-

search).

structs of attitude

Finally,

relationship

between the con-

and

quality

should

be examined.

instrumentality

of a

The

the

product

feature

(Lewin 1936)

and

quality rating

of such a

termining

choice

feature in

separately

de-

The

may

be an

interesting

research

issue.

convergent

and discriminant

validity

of the con-

structs of attitude

and

quality

also warrant

tion.

Quality

measurement scales remain

to be devel-

investiga-

oped

and validated.

Current Practices in

Modeling

Consumer

Decision

Making

Three

can be

aspects

of

modeling

consumer

decision

making

questioned

if the

the

propositions

prove

to be ac-

curate

representations:

f

tendency

to use actual at-

tributes oproducts

rather than

consumer

of

those

attributes,

the

perceptions

practice

of

comingling physical

attributes with

duplicating

and

and Shocker

higher

order at-

tributes

(Myers

1981),

and the failure

to

distinguish

between the

give

and

get

components

of the model.

(Ahtola 1984)

Howard

(1977,

p.

28)

clearly

states the first

lem.

prob-

It

se and

is essential to

distinguish

between the

cause cconsumers differ

onsumers'

perceptions

of these

aattributes,

ttributes

per

be-

perception

self. "Attribute"

that affects

in their

perceptions.

It is the

ria,

is often used to mean

behavior,

not the attribute it-

choice crite-

when

but this leads to confusion.

To use "attribute"

sumer's

you

mean

not the attribute itself but the con-

consumer's mind.

mental

image

of

it,

is to

reify

what is in the

Jacoby

and Olson

cus of marketers

(1985) concur,

should not be

claiming

that the fo-

instead consumer

objective reality

but

either

perceptions,

which

may

be altered

by changing objective reality

or

for consumers.

by reinterpret-

ing objective reality

Myers

and Shocker

level

(1981)

point

out that comin-

gling quality,

a

higher

abstraction,

with lower

level

physical

attributes in models limits the

and confounds the

validity

interpretation

of

many

studies,

es-

pecially

when this

tributes.

practice duplicates

lower level at-

Therefore,

it is

necessary

to use attributes

from

the same

general

classification or level

in the hier-

archy

in

confirms that when the hierarchical

modeling

consumer decision

making.

Ahtola

(1984)

nature of

attributes is not

models,

double and

recognized

in consumer decision

some attributes results.

triple counting

of the

impact

of

ganize

attributes,

in his

Techniques

to elicit and or-

opinion,

should

precede

mod-

eling

of the attributes.

cuss different consumer

Myers

and Shocker

decision models

(1981)

dis-

for the levels and

bappropriate

ways

attributes should

e

in research

instruments and

presented

analyzed

later. Huber

and

McCann

(1982)

reveal the of inferential beliefs

on

impact

product

evaluations and

standing

consumer inferences is essential both in

acknowledge

that under-

get-

ting

information from consumers

and in

mation to consumers.

giving

infor-

expanding

nd

Finally,

Ahtola

(1984)

calls for

arifice of

revising

models to

incorporate

the sac-

to

aspects price.

Sacrifice should not be limited

monetary price

alone,

especially

in situations

where

time

costs,

search

costs,

and convenience costs are

salient to the consumer.

Methods

and Value

Appropriate

for

Studying Quality

The

approach

used in the

is

appropriate

for

exploratory investigation

investigating

quality

in other

product

categories.

Olson and

methods to

Reynolds

(1983)

data from indi-

developed

vidual consumers.

aggregate

the

qualitative

structural

Aggregate cognitive mapping,

and value structure

analysis, cognitive

differentiation

are all

analysis,

mapping

techniques

de-

signed especially

to

der abstractions such as

analyze

and

represent

higher

or-

more

quality.

These

are

tiattribute

appropriate

than

techniques

preference mapping

or mul-

modeling

for

investigating concepts

like

quality

and value

of these

(for

a

complete

discussion and ex-

plication

and Alden

1985 or

techniques,

see Gutman

Several researchers have

Reynolds

and Jamieson

1985).

to

link

to

developed approaches

abstractions.

product

attributes

Mehrotra

and Palmer

perceptions

of

higher

level

(1985)

suggest

a

methodological

to

to

of

approach

relating product

features

and

perceptions

quality

based on the work of Olson

and benefits are

Reynolds

(1983).

In their

procedure,

lists of cues

developed

from focus

groups

or in-

depth

interviews with

tial scales are constructed

consumers,

semantic differen-

to

capture

the

benefits,

a

tradeoff

tance of the

procedure

is used to determine the

cues,

and

impor-

respondents

match cues to

product

of

concepts. Through

this

type

of

analysis,

de-

gree

a

linkage

(between

cues and

benefits),

value of

vided.

cue,

and

competitive

brand information are

pro-

and

need for

Mazursky Jacoby

(1985)

also

recognized

the

consideration of

procedures

to track

the inference

from

ues to the

process

objective

chigher

level im-

age

of

quality.

Instead

of free-elicitation

procedures,

they

used a behavioral

processing

simulation

whereby

they presented

attribute information to

asked them

to form

an

impression

of

respondents

and

quality

by

choos-

ing any

information this method

can be criticized

as

the

unrealistic,

they

wished.

it

Though

onsumers

provides

into

types

of information that

cbelieve

insights

signal

quality.

Modifications of the method to make the en-

vironment more realistic

(such

as

also

by

Brucks

1985)

are

Other researchers

possible.

have described

analytic proce-

dures to link

attributes

with

(1981)

provides

a

theoretical

perceptions.

Holbrook

framework

procedure

for

and

ole of

analytic

ceptions

in evaluative

representing

the

intervening

rper-

scribes the

judgments.

Neslin

(1981)

de-

tance

superiority

of

over self-stated

statistically

revealed

impor-

weights

importance

linking product

features to

weights

in

perceptions.

Researching

Value

A

of

major

difficulty

in

researching

value is the

variety

meanings

of value held

by

consumers.

Building

a

model of value

which of

requires

that the researcher understand

many

(at

least of

four)

meanings

are

in consumers'

implicit

rich in terms of

expressions

of value.

Utility

models are

and Thisse 1985 for a discussion of dif-

methodological

refinements

Schmalensee

(see

ferent

tutility

measures and

he distinction between

equations),

but do not ad-

dress

attributes and

higher

level

abstractions.

They

also

he

presume

that consumers

care-

fully

calculate tgive

and

of

an

get components

value,

assumption

that did not hold true for most con-

sumers

in the

exploratory study.

Price as a

Quality

Indicator

Most

experimental

studies related

to

cused on

quality

have fo-

price

as the

key

extrinsic

quality signal.

As

suggested

in the

useful extrinsic

propositions, price

is but one of sev-

eral

potentially

or more

cues;

brand name or

package

in

may

be

equally important, especially

packaged goods.

Further,

evidence of a

generalized

price-perceived quality relationship

is inconclusive.

Quality

research

may

benefit from a

de-emphasis

on

price

as the main extrinsic indicator.

Inclusion

of other

of situations

in which each of those indicators

indicators,

quality

important

as well as identification

is im-

portant,

swers about

may provide

more and useful an-

the extrinsic

interesting

signals

consumers

use.

Management Implications

An

understanding

of what

ffers the

quality

and value mean to

consumers

opromise

of

improving

brand

sitions

more and

po-

through

mentation,

precise

market

analysis seg-

product

planning, promotion,

and

strategy.

The model

here

pricing

that can be

presented suggests

the fol-

lowing strategies

stand

and

implemented

to under-

capitalize

on brand

quality

and value.

Close the

Quality Perception Gap

Though managers

increasingly acknowledge

the im-

portance

of

sure it from the

quality, many

continue

to define and

mea-

between

company's perspective. Closing

the

gap

that the

objective

and

perceived quality

the

requires

company

view

quality

which cues are im-

way

the consumer

does. Research that

investigates

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 that

identifies the abstract dimensions of

quality

desired

by

consumers in a

product

class.

Identify Key

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Attribute

Signals

A

top priority

for marketers is

finding

which of the

many

extrinsic and intrinsic cues consumers

use to

signal quality.

This

process

involves a careful look at

situational factors

surrounding

the

purchase

and use

of the

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

on

simpler

extrinsic cues until after their

first

purchase?

What cues are

provided by competitors?

Identifying

the

important quality

signals

from the consumer's

viewpoint,

then

communicating

those

signals

rather

than

generalities,

is

likely

to lead to more

vivid

per-

ceptions

of

quality. Linking

lower level attributes

with

locates the

"driving

force"

their

higher

level abstractions

and

"leverage point"

for

advertising strategy

(Olson

and

Reynolds

1983).

Acknowledge

the

Dynamic

Nature

of

Quality

Perceptions

Consumers'

perceptions

of

quality

change

over time

as a result

of added

information,

increased

competi-

tion

in a

product

category,

and

changing expectations.

The

dynamic

nature of

quality

suggests

that marketers

must track

perceptions

over time

and

align product

and

promotion

strategies

with these

changing

views.

Because

products

and

perceptions

change,

marketers

may

be able to educate consumers on

ways

to evaluate

quality. Advertising,

the information

provided

in

packaging,

and visible cues associated with

products

can be

managed

to evoke desired

quality perceptions.

Understand

How Consumers Encode

Monetary

and

Nonmonetary

Prices

The model

proposes

a

gap

between actual and

per-

ceived

price, making

it

important

to understand how

consumers encode

prices

of

products.

Nonmonetary

costs-such as time and effort-must

be acknowl-

edged. Many

consumers,

especially

the 50 million

working

women in the U.S.

today,

consider time an

important commodity. Anything

that can be built into

products

to reduce

time, effort,

and search costs can

reduce

perceived

sacrifice and

thereby

increase

per-

ceptions

of value.

Recognize

Multiple

Ways

to Add Value

Finally,

the model delineates several

strategies

for

adding

value in

products

and services. Each of

the

boxes

feeding

into

perceived

value

provides

an ave-

nue for

increasing

value

perceptions.

Reducing

mon-

etary

and

nonmonetary

costs,

decreasing perceptions

of

sacrifice,

adding

salient intrinsic

attributes,

evok-

ing perceptions

of relevant

high

level

abstractions,

and

using

extrinsic cues to

signal

value are all

possible

strategies

that

companies

can use to affect

value

per-

ceptions.

The selection of

a

strategy

for a

particular

product

or market

segment depends

on its customers'

definition of value.

Strategies

based on customer

value

standards and

perceptions

will channel resources

more

effectively

and will meet

customer

expectations

better

than those based

only

on

company

standards.

REFERENCES

Ten

T. Ford

A. and

David

Pricing

(1983),

"Unit

Aaker, Gary

Years Later:

A

Replication,"

Journal

of

Marketing,

47

(Winter),

118-22.

Achrol,

Ravi

Singh, Torger

Reve,

and Louis

Ster

(1983),

"The Environment

of

Marketing

Channel

Dyads:

A Frame-

work for

Comparative

Analysis,"

Journal

of

Marketing,

47

and Carlisle

Robert

Moody,

B.,

Clyde

Haulman,

Archibald,

and Published

Jr.

(1983), "Quality,

Price,

Advertising,

Quality 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

of the Allocation