Valarie A.

Zeithaml

Consumer Perceptionsof Price,

Quality, and Value: A Means-End
Model and Synthesis of Evidence
Evidence from research and from an are combined in a
past insights exploratory investigation 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 of Because definition is difficult, researchers often de-pend on

perceptions price, quality, and
value are considered pivotal determinants of shopping unidimensional self-report measures to cap-ture the concepts
behavior and product choice (Bishop 1984; Doyle 1984; (Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock 1973; McConnell 1968; Shapiro
and
Jacoby and Olson 1985, Sawyer Dickson 1984, 1973) and thus must as-sume shared meanings among
Schlechter 1984), research on these consumers.
and their has few conclu- What do consumers mean by quality and value? How are
concepts linkages provided
sive findings. Research efforts have been criticized for perceptions of quality and value formed? Are they similar
inadequate definition and conceptualization (Monroe and across consumers and products? How do consumers relate
Krishnan 1985; Zeithaml 1983), inconsistent
Krishnan quality, price, and value in their de-liberations about
measurement procedures (Monroe and 1985), is an to
Olson products and services? This article attempt provide
and methodological problems (Bowbrick 1982; answers to these
questions by:
1977; Peterson and Wilson 1985). One fundamental * the of and value
defining concepts price, quality, from
problem limiting work in the area involves the mean-ing of the consumer's perspective,
the concepts: quality and value are indistinct and elusive *
constructs that often are mistaken for im- relating the concepts in a model, and
like or or
precise adjectives
shi-
"goodness, luxury,
and value
*
developing propositions
about the
concepts,
ex-
amining
niness, or weight" (Crosby 1979). Quality are and
the available evidence in support of the propositions,
not well differentiated from each other and from
areas where re-
similar constructs such as perceived worth and utility. suggesting search is needed.

Schoolof Business,
To these a review of
ValarieA. Zeit ha mlis AssociateProfessor,F uqua
accomplish objectives,
Duke Theauthor thefinancial
Uni versity.

forthis research the Sci-

gratefullyacknowledges
sup-

previous research was augmented by an exploratory

and
by Marketing of and value in the of
investi-gation quality product category
port cooperationprovi ded

Theauthoralsothanks
enceInstituteandoneof itscorporatesponsors.

Richard C.Whan DianeSchmalensee, focus inter-

OrvilleC.W alker,Jr., Lut z, Par k, beverages. Company interviews, a group view, and
A. andthree for com- JMreviewers

Parasuraman, anonymous helpful

30 in-depth consumer interviews conducted
mentson draftsof the manuscript.
free-elicitation data
by approaches generated qualitative

Journal of Marketing
2 / Journalof Marketing,July 1988 Vol. 52 (July 1988), 2-22.
that supplementedprevious researchand had elicited the more
procedures successfully impor-tant higher
basis for 14 levels of abstractionin previous studies
served as the propositions. Fiedler
(Gutman and Alden 1985; Reynolds, Gutman, and 1984;
The Reynolds and Jamieson1985), they were
used to reveal the links
Exploratory Study
among product attributes, quality, and value. After these
In the exploratory phase of the research, company, focus group, and indirectmethods, sub-
in-depth consumer interviews were conducted to gain insight into to such
jects responded open-endedquestionscovering topics
consumer perceptions of quality and value. Cooperationwas
as informationneeded to makejudgmentsabout quality and
obtained from a nationalcompany that marketsthree distinct value, impact of related factors (e.g., ad-
product and on and defini-
vertising packaging) perceptions,
lines of beverages: a line of 100% fruit-flavoredchil-dren's tions of the Before
concepts. debriefing, demographic and
drinks, a line of 100% fruit juices, and a line
of tomato-based interviews were held juices. In- beverage usage data were collected from respon-dents.
As is in studies means-end
depth typical exploratory using
with the marketingresearchdirector, the senior prod-
uct
manager
for chains Olson and the data
(e.g., Reynolds 1983),
two of the generatedwere not numerical. Instead, the data were in the
juices, company strategic plan-ners, and the president
company's advertising to issues such
form of protocols and means-end maps for in-dividual
agency. Open-endedquestionspertained consumers. Patterns of responses and ob-served similarities
as about and value across individuals form the "re-
company knowledge quality per-ceptions of
the determined sults"of this
type of exploratorystudy. Whencombined
consumers, ways company those perceptions,
and how quality and value were communicatedto consumers. with the descriptivedata from the executive and focus
group interviews, the observations and insights pro-vide a
A focus group interview on the topics of quality and
and value in was held in a area frameworkfor speculating about the concepts
beverages metropolitan their
in the Southeast. The focus group was formed in ac-cordance
relationships(Figure 1).
with guidelines traditionallyfollowed in the
The Model
marketing research field (Bellenger, Bernhardt, and Goldstucker first
1976). Participantswere recruited to fit Figure 1, an adaptationof a model proposed by Dodds and
the of of fruit- and to- Monroe (1985), affords an overview of the
demographicprofile purchasers mato-based
the of and
beverages. All participantswere women between the ages of 25 relationshipsamong concepts price, perceived quality,
value. In the sec-
and 49 and all had at least one perceived following tions, relevant literature
child than 10 of were
younger years age. Participants screenedto and evidence from the ex-ploratoryinvestigationare used to
ensure currentor recent usage of fruit- and define and describe each
The of the concept in the model. To
tomato-based beverages. identity partici-pating differentiatebetween
firm was not revealed in the interview; discus-sion about and re-
proposed relationships empirically supported lationships,
price, quality, and value centered on con- discussion of each propositionis divided into two parts. First,
and to on
sumerexperiences perceptionsrelating beverages in general propositions are developed the basis of the qualitative data
The
rather than to the specific brands of the sponsoringcompany. from the exploratory study and other conceptual work from
moderator's cov- evidence
questions ered such topics as the meaning of the literature. Second, for each proposition, empirical
quality and value, the attributesused to evaluate quality and that
supportsand refutes the proposition is reviewed.
value, and the role of price in quality and value judgments.
A total of 30 in-depthinterviews with female con-sumers
were held in three metropolitanareas (one in the Southwest, one on
The Concept of Perceived Quality
can be defined as or ex-
the East Coast, and one in the Midwest). Free-elicitation Quality broadly superiority cellence. By
can be de-
extension, perceived quality fined as the consumer's
approaches recommended by Olson and Reynolds (1983) were
judgment about a product's
used to obtain information about the cognitive structures of con-
overall excellence or Perceivedquality is
sumers. These techniquesincluded triad sorts and lad-dering. In superiority.1
a
the triad sorts, similar brands in the bev-erage category were (1) different from objective or actual quality, (2) higher level
divided into sets of three and subjectswere probedfor abstractionratherthan a specific attribute
distinctionsamong them. This of a product,(3) a global assessmentthat in some cases
initial process uncoveredthe important
distinctionsthat
used to discriminate The instru-
respondents among products.
'Lewin's (1936) field theoretic approach to evaluating the mentality
of actions and objects in achieving ends could be viewed as a foundation for
ladderingprocess, which followed the triad sorts, in-volved a this definition. In his view, instrumentality is
the
extent to which an object or
of to force action will achieve an end. In this case,
sequence in-depthprobesdesigned the consumer up
the ladder of abstraction. As these be viewed as
quality could instrumentality.

and Value 3
ConsumerPerceptionsof Price,Quality, /
 FIGURE1
A Means-End Model Relating Price, Quality, and Value

I Lower-level attributes

Perceptions of lower-
0 level attributes

GO Higher-level attributes

resembles attitude, and (4) a judgment usually Curry and Faulds 1986). In recent years, researchers
made within a consumer's evoked set. have debated the use of these measures of quality on
methodological grounds (Curry and Faulds 1986;
Objective quality versus perceived quality. Sev- Hjorth-Anderson1984, 1986; Maynes 1976; Sproles
eral researchers(Dodds and Monroe 1984; Garvin1983; 1986). Concern centers on the selection of attributes
and to measure researchers and
Holbrookand Corfman 1985; Jacoby and Olson 1985, weights objective quality;
Parasuraman,Zeithaml, and Berry 1986) have em- Consumer do not on
experts (e.g., Reports) agree what the
phasized the difference between objective and per-ceived quality. ideal standardor standardsshould be. Others
Holbrookand Corfman(1985), for ex-ample, distinguishbetween
as claim
(such Maynes 1976) that objective quality
mechanisticand humanistic
does not exist, that all quality evaluations are subjec-
quality: ". .. mechanistic [quality] involves an ob- tive.
istic The term is related to-
jective aspect or feature of a thing or event; human- "objectivequality" closely but not
involves the of technical
[quality] subjective response peo-ple to the same as-other concepts used to describe
objects and is therefore a highly relativistic phenomenon that of a For Gar-
superiority product. example, vin (1983)
differs between judges" (p. 33). discusses product-basedquality and man-
ufacturing-based Product-based refers

"Objective quality" is the term used in the literature quality. quality

(e.g., Hjorth-Anderson1984; Monroe and Krishnan 1985) to describe to amounts of specific attributesor ingredients of a product.
involves con-formance to
the actual technical superiority or excellence of the products. Manufacturing-basedquality
or service standards. In the
As it has been used in the literature,the term "ob- manufacturingspecifications
means "zero
jective quality"refers to measurableand verifiable su-periority on prevailing Japanese philosophy, quality defects-
it the first time."
some predetermined ideal standard or doing right Conformance to
requirements(Crosby 1979) and incidence of internaland
standards.Publishedquality ratingsfrom sources such externalfailures (Garvin
as Consumer Reports are used to operationalize the 1983) are other definitions that illustratemanufactur-
in
construct of objective quality
studies
research (see
notions of
ing-oriented quality.
4 Journalof 1988
/ Marketing,July
 These are not identical to
concepts objective qual-ity ers), but perceived quality is instead a second-order
measures of
becausethey, too, are based on perceptions.Though
be actual the phenomenon:an abstractattributein Olson and Rey-nold's
specifications may (ratherthan perceptual), (1983) terms, a "B" attribute(somewhat ab-
themselves are set on
specifications
the basis of what to be stract, multidimensional but measurable) in Myers and
managersperceive important. Managers' Shockers' (1981) formulation.
views differ from con-
may considerably Global assessment similar to attitude. Olshavsky (1985)
sumers'or users' views. ConsumerReportsratingsmay
views quality as a form of overall evaluation of a product,
not agree with managers'assessmentsin termsof either brook and Corfman
In similar in some ways to attitude. Hol-
salient attributesor weights assigned to the attributes. (1985) concur, suggesting that
is a
a researchstudy for GeneralElectric,Morgan(1985) points
out striking differences between consumer, quality relatively global value judgment.
and of Lutz
dealer, managerperceptions appliancequality. When asked (1986) proposes two forms of quality, "affective qual-ity"
listed and Affective
how consumers perceive quality, man-agers "cognitive quality." quality par-allels
and form as critical
workmanship,performance, components. Olshavsky's and Holbrook and Corfman's views
Consumers in on of as overall attitude.
actually keyed perceived quality Cognitive quality is the
different and
components: appearance, cleanability, durability. case of a superordinateinferential as-sessment of quality
researchersin the ex-
Similarly, company ploratorystudy intervening between lower order cues and an eventual overall
measured in terms of
beverage quality productevaluation (Lutz
"flavorroundedness"and whereas con- 1986). In Lutz's
view, the higher the proportion of
"astringency" attributesthat can be assessed before purchase(search
to
attributes) those that can be assessed only during
the more it is that
consumption (experience attributes), likely
is a level
quality higher cognitive judgment.
as the
Conversely, proportion of experience
attributes
increases, quality tends to be an affective judgment.
Lutz extends this line of reasoning to propose that af-
fective quality is relatively more likely for services
and consumer nondurable
goods (where experience
attributes whereas is more
dominate) cognitive quality
likely for industrial products and consumer durable goods
search attributes
(where dominate).
Judgment made within consumer's evoked set. Evaluations of
context.
quality usually take place in a com-parison Maynes
claimed that
(1976) quality evaluations are made within "the set of
goods which
fruit and same
purity (100% juice) . . . would in the consumer's judgement serve the general
Olson and Reynolds 1983; Young and Feigen 1975). The
for some maximum On
purpose outlay." the basis of the
simplest level is a product attribute;the most complex level qualitative study, and consistent with Maynes' contention, the
used in com-
is the value or payoff of the productto the consumer. Young set of products paring quality appears to be
this the consumer's evoked set. A product's quality is evaluated as
and Feigen (1975) depicted view in the "Greybenefit
chain," which illustrateshow a product is linked through a high or low depending on its relative excellence or
superiority among products or services that are viewed as
chain of benefits to a concept called the "emotional payoff."
sub-stitutes by the consumer. It is critical to note that the
Product -> Functional > Practical -> Emotional set of used for
specific products comparison depends on
Benefit Benefit Payoff the consumer's, not the firm's, assessment of com-
peting products. For example, consumers in the ex-ploratory
the same the of different brands of
Related conceptualizations (Table 1) pose study compared quality orange juice
would be the con-
essential idea: consumers organize information at var-ious (which comparison text of the firm), the quality
levels of abstraction ranging from simple product attributes of different forms (re-
vs. and the of
frigerated canned), quality purchased versus
(e.g., physical characteristics of Myers and homemade orange juice.
Shocker 1981, defining attributes of Cohen 1979, concrete 2 the of
attributesof Olson and Reynolds 1983) to complex personal Figure depicts perceived quality component
values. has been included the model in 1.
Quality conceptual Figure
in multiattributemodels as though it were a lower level
PQI: Consumers use lower level attribute cues
attribute(criticisms of this practice have been leveled by Ahtola to infer
1984, Myers and Shocker 1981, and oth- quality.
Consumer of and Value 5
Perceptions Price,Quality, /
 TABLE 1
and Their with and Value
Selected Means-End Chain Models Proposed Relationships Quality
Level Personal Value
Scheme Attribute Level Quality Value Level Level
Young and Feigin
(1975) Functional benefits Practical benefit Emotional payoff
Rokeach (1973) Product attributes Choice criteria Instrumental values Terminal values
Howard (1977)
and
Myers Physical characteristics Pseudophysical Task or outcome User referent
Shocker (1981) characteristics referent
Geistfeld, Sproles, Concrete, Somewhat abstract, Abstract, multidimensional, and difficult
and
Badenhop unidimensional, and multidimensional but to measure attributes (A)
(1977) measurable measurable (B)
attributes (C)
valued
Cohen (1979) Defining attributes Instrumental attributes Highly
states
Gutman and Attributes Consequences Va
Reynolds (1979)
Olson and Concrete attributes Abstract attributes Functional Terminal values
Reynolds (1983) consequences
Psychosocial
consequences
Instrumental values

Holbrook and Corfman (1985) note that early phi-losophers ceptual difficulties.2 A small number of cues, most
used the word to refer to notably those involving the
product's package, are
"quality" explicit features (i.e.,
or of an ob- as a to
properties characteristics) ject perceived by difficult classify as either intrinsic or extrinsic.
Austin Package could be considered an intrinsic or an extrin-sic cue
subject (e.g., 1964, p. 44; Russell 1912). Olshavsky (1985)
terms this ten- depending on whether the package is part of the physical
dency to infer quality from specific attributes of the a
behavior" and cites composition product (e.g., drip-
"sur-rogate-based preference forming in or a con-
of in which a sur- less spout detergent squeezable ketchup tainer), in
examples product categories given rogate is highly
with size in stereo which case it would be an intrinsic cue, or
associated quality (e.g., sig-nals quality speakers, and for the a card-
in protection promotion product (e.g., board
style signals quality cars and clothes). In the exploratory study,
in fruit with container for a computer), in which case it would
consumers repeatedly associated quality juices purity
(e.g., 100% fruit juice with no sugar added) or fresh- be an extrinsic cue. For purposes of the model, pack-age is
ness. In these and other product categories, one or a considered an intrinsic cue but the information
on the brand
few attributes from the total set of attributes appear
reliable of
that appears package (e.g., name,
to serve as signals product quality. Attributes that price, logo) is considered an extrinsic cue.
signal quality have been dichotom- Evidence. Researchers have identified key lower level
ized into intrinsic and extrinsic cues (Olson 1977; Ol-
son and Jacoby 1972). Intrinsic cues involve the phys-ical by consumers to infer quality in only a few
attributes used
of the In a intrinsic product categories. These lower level cues include price
composition product. beverage, cues
would include such attributes as flavor, color, Olson and
(Olson 1977; Jacoby 1972), suds level for
texture, and degree of sweetness. Intrinsic attributes
detergents, size for stereo speakers (01-shavsky 1985),
of the
cannot be changed without altering the nature odor for bleach and stockings (Laird 1932), and produce
product itself and are consumed as the product is con-sumed (Olson freshness for
Extrin- supermarkets (Bon-ner and Nelson 1985).
1977; Olson and Jacoby 1972).
but not of the
sic cues are product-related part phys-ical product 2Othermethods of classification could have been used for these cues.
outside the
itself. They are, by definition, Possible alternative classification schemes include (1) tangible/intan-
and level of and (3) direct/inferen-tial.
However,
product. Price, brand name, advertising are examples gible, (2) distal/proximal (Brunswick 1956),
each of these dichotomies has the same "fuzzy set"
of extrinsic cues to quality. No-tably, with each scheme,
cues problems that are inherent in the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy.
would be difficult to classify. Because the
The intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy of quality is some cues (particularly package)
has a
con- intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy
useful for discussing quality but is not without literature underpinning it, because it is widely
used and
recognized, and because it
it was retained in
has clear managerial implications,
this review.

6 / Journalof Marketing,July1988
 FIGURE2
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- higher in the means-end chains), they become com-
nal are but di- mon to more alternatives. Garvin (1987), for exam-
quality product-specific,
mensions of can be to that can be in
quality generalized ple, proposes product quality captured
classes or dimensions:
product categories. eight performance, features, reliability,
aboutquality across products has been conformance,durability,serviceability,aesthetics, and
Generalizing perceived quality (i.e., image). Abstract dimensions that
difficult for managers and researchers. Specific or concrete intrinsic
capture diverse specific attributeshave been dis-cussed
attributesdiffer widely across prod-ucts, as do the by Johnson(1983) and Achrol, Reve, and Stem
attributesconsumers use to infer qual-
In
(1983). describing the way consumers compare
attributesthat in fruit are not alternatives how
ity. Obviously, signal quality juice noncomparable (e.g., they choose between such
the same as those in diverse alternatives as a stereo and a
indicating quality washing machines or
automobiles. Even within a productcategory, specific Hawaiian vacation), Johnson posited that consumers represent
attributes dif-
may provide ferent signals about quality. For
the attributesin memory at abstractlevels (e.g., using
example, thickness is related to high quality in tomato- entertainmentvalue as the dimension on
basedjuices but not in fruit-flavoredchildren's drinks. The which to compare stereos and Hawaiian vacations).
presence Similarly, Achrol, Reve, and Ster proposed that the
of in but low in multitudeof specific variables affecting a firm in the
pulp suggests high quality orange juice quality
apple juice. environmentcan be capturedin abstractdimensions.
Though the concrete attributesthat signal quality differ across Rather than itemizing specific variables that affect
products, higher level abstract dimen- particularfirms in different industries under varying
sions of can be to of the en-
quality generalized categories products.As circumstances, they proposed conceptualizing vironmentin
attributesbecome more abstract(i.e., are terms of its abstractqualities or dimen-

Consumer of andValue 7
Perceptions Price,Quality, /
sions not product-specific and can serve as general indica-tors of
(e.g.,
quality across all types of products. Price, brand name, and
homogeneity-heterogeneity, stability-in-
stability, concentration-dispersion, and turbulence). level of advertising are three extrinsic cues frequently
associated with in
Olson (1978) pointed out that consumers may use quality research, yet many other extrinsic
and cues are useful to consumers. Of spe-cial note are extrinsic cues
informational cues to develop beliefs about products
that task choice or such as product warranties
response (i.e., evaluation) may be a direct and seals of Good
to approval (e.g., Housekeeping). Price,
function of these mediating beliefs. Ac-cording Olson, these
the extrinsic cue receiving the most research attention
beliefs may be of two types: descriptive, which involve a
(see Olson 1977 for a complete review of this liter-ature), appears
restatement of the orig-inal information in more abstract terms
to function as a surrogate for quality when the consumer has
(e.g., "accel-erates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds" generates the inadequate information about intrinsic attributes. Similarly,
belief "high performance") and inferential, which involve an
inference to information missing in the environ- brand name serves as a "shorthand" for quality by providing
ment (e.g., "accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds" generates the consumers with a bundle of information about the product
corers al.
belief "probably well, too"). This distinction roughly (Jacoby et 1978; Jacoby, Szybillo, and Busato-Schach 1977).
parallels Alba and Hutchinson's (1987) distinction between Level of advertising has been related to product qual-ity by
economists Nelson
interpretive and embellish-ment inferences and both dichotomies (1970, 1974), Milgrom and Roberts (1986),
illustrate the level
and Schmalensee (1978). The basic argument holds that for
at which dimensions of quality can be conceptualized. termined use
Interviews with in the goods whose attributes are de- largely during
subjects exploratory study suggested levels of
(experience goods), higher advertising signal higher
that specific intrinsic attributes used to infer Schmalen-
could not be across but quality. see argues that level of advertising, rather
quality generalized beverages, that higher
level abstract dimensions could capture the than actual claims made, informs consumers that the company
of in whole or believes the are worth of
meaning perceived quality categories classes of goods advertising (i.e., high
and this is the that
beverages. Purity, freshness, flavor, appearance were the quality). Supporting argument finding
discussed in in the advertised
higher level abstract dimensions subjects defining many subjects exploratory study perceived heavily
in the brands to be in than brands with less
quality beverage generally higher quality
advertising.
category. The of
exploratory investigation beverages pro-vided evidence
Evidence. In a study of quality in long distance telephone,
bro- that form of the product (e.g., frozen vs. canned vs. refrigerated)
banking, repair and maintenance, and kerage services,
and is an additional important extrinsic cue in beverages. Consumers
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, Berry (1985) found consistent
held consistent perceptions of the relative quality of different
dimensions of perceived qual-ity across four consumer service of fruit were for fresh
forms juice: quality perceptions highest
industries. These ab-stract dimensions included reliability, next for then
products, highest refrigerated products,
empathy, as- and lowest for
and bottled, then frozen, then canned, dry
surance, responsiveness, tangibles. Similarly, Bonner and Nelson
forms.
(1985) found that sensory signals such as rich/full flavor, natural product
taste, fresh taste, good aroma, and appetizing looks-all higher Evidence. The literature on hedonic quality mea-surement
level abstract dimensions of perceived quality-were relevant (Court 1971)
1939; Griliches price is the best
maintains that
across
measure of product quality. Consid-erable empirical
33 food product categories. Brucks and Zeithaml (1987) and
research has investigated the rela-tionship between price
contend on the basis of exploratory work that six ab-stract Olson 1977
dimensions (ease of use, functionality, perfor- quality (see for a review of this literature in
and
mance, durability, serviceability, prestige) can marketing) and has shown that consumers use price to infer
be across of durable
generalized categories goods. Though quality when it is the only available cue. When price is
research has not verified the of is less
empirical generalizability combined with other (usually intrinsic) cues, the evidence
dimensions for of other convincing.
categories packaged goods than food In about of merchan-
forming impressions quality dise,
products, for durable goods, or for indus-trial goods, abstract in a and
respondents study by Mazursky Jacoby (1985) selected
dimensions spanning these cate-gories could be conceptualized,
and then used measures of brand name more frequently than any other information.
verified, to develop general
in cat- Gardner (1970, 1971) found sig-nificant main effects on quality
quality product
egories. perceptions due to brand name.
cues serve as Kirmani and found
Wright (1987a,b) empirical
PQ3: Extrinsic generalized qual-ity
and for the between level of
indicators across brands, products, support relationship spending
categories.

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

8 / Journalof Marketing,July1988
on and inferences.
advertising quality Manipulating expressingconcernfor their chidren'shealthand teeth,
on media and on ele- stated that no
expenditures budgets production ments unequivocally purity (100% juice, sugar)
in advertisements, they found significant ef-fects of both on was the criterionthey used to judge quality across the broad fruit
consumers' quality perceptions. juice category. The link between quality and this intrinsic
Bonner and Nelson (1985) confirm that product attributewas clear and strong: all
form relates to An fruit with 100% were
qualityperceptions. empiricalstudy beverages juice high quality
revealedthe same of in form hierarchy quality beverages and all others were not.
package
as Evidence. Researchers addressing this question
(fresh, refrigerated,frozen, bottled, canned, dried) was found in and
(Darden Schwinghammer 1985; Etgar and Mal-hotra
the exploratorystudy. Bonner and Nel-son conclude: "The 1978; Olson and Jacoby 1972; Rigaux-Bricmont 1982; Szybillo
differs and and Jacoby 1974) have concluded that intrinsic cues were in
sensory maintenance ability of packaging by type sumers in
those forms general more importantto con- judging quality
packaging that can best deliver a rich/full flavor,
natural and because had
they higher predictive value than extrinsic
and an
fresh taste, good aroma, appetizing appear- cues. This conclusion does not account for the fact that many
ance, are likely to gain market share" (p. 75).
assessments about quality are made with insufficient
PQ4:Consumersdepend on intrinsicattributes information about intrinsiccues. Selected individual studies
and Sendak have shown
more than extrinsic attributes (e.g., Sawyer, Worthing, 1979)
at the of that
(a) point consumption,
extrinsiccues can be more to consumersthan
(b) in prepurchase situations when important
in-trinsic attributesare search
attributes (rather than experience intrinsic cues. Conflicting evidence about the impor-tance
attributes), and of intrinsic and extrinsic cues becomes clearer
(c) when the intrinsicattributeshave high if the conditions under which each type of cue be-
value. comes are
predictive important investigated.
Which type of cue-intrinsic or extrinsic-is more PQ5:Consumers depend on extrinsic attri-
in to the consumer? An
important signaling quality answerto this butes more than intrinsic attributes
questionwould help firmsdecide whether (a) in initial purchase situations when
to invest resources in productimprovements(intrinsic for
to of intrinsiccues are not available (e.g.,
cues) or in marketing(extrinsic cues) improve per-ceptions services),
a and definitive this is
quality. Finding simple answerto question
but the (b) when evaluationof intrinsiccues re-
unlikely, exploratory study suggests the type of
on several quires more effort and time than the
attributethat dominatesde-pends key contingencies. consumer perceives is worthwhile, and
The first contingency relates to the point in the purchase
decision and at which (c) when quality is difficult to evaluate
consumptionprocess quality and credence
evaluation occurs. Consumers may evaluate quality at the (experience goods).
of a
point purchase (buying beverage) Extrinsic cues are posited to be used as quality
a indicatorswhen the consumeris operatingwithout ad-equate
or at the point of consumption(drinking beverage). The
salience of intrinsic attributesat the point of informationabout intrinsic product attributes.
pur- This situation may occur when the consumer (1) has
chase depends on whether they can be sensed and has in-
little or no experience with the product, (2) sufficient
time or interest to evaluate the intrinsic at-
evaluated at that time, whether they contain
tributes, and (3) cannot readily evaluate the intrinsic
search attributes(Nelson 1970). Where search attri-butes are attributes.
consumers cannot
present (e.g., sugar content of a fruit juice or color or At point of purchase, always
evaluate relevant intrinsic attributesof a product. Un-
cloudiness of a drink in a glass jar), they may be
less free samples are being provided, consumers can-not
importantquality indicators.In their absence,
consumers depend on extrinsic cues. taste new food productsbefore buying them. Con-sumers do
not know for certain how long a washing
At the point of consumption, most intrinsic attri- machine or automobile will last until they purchase
butes can be evaluated and therefore become acces-
and consume it. In these and similar situations, the
sible as quality indicators.Many consumersin the ex-
taste as the consumer relies on extrinsic attributessuch as war-
ploratorystudy on beverages used signal as for in-
If a did not taste ranty, brand name, and package surrogates trinsic
of quality at consumption. beverage fresh or
product attributes.
tasted "tinny"or too thin, the evaluation was
At other times, intrinsic attributes on which to evaluate
that quality was low.
quality are available but the consumer is un-
Consumersdepend on intrinsicattributeswhen
the cues have high predictive value (Cox 1962). Many
those
respondentsin the exploratorystudy, especially

Consumer of Price, andValue 9 /

Perceptions Quality,
 rics have habits have and
willing or unable to expend the time and effort to changed, laundry changed,
evaluate them. Working women, men, and single shoppers, competition
has changed. . . . These are just a few
for have been to use su- of the more significant changes in the household laundry
example, reported permarket
market, and every one of these changes has
information less than a meaning for the performanceand the marketingplans for Tide.
product significantly
in The product which we are selling today is importantly different
other demographic segments (Zeithaml 1985), part because
from the Tide product which we introduced in 1947. It is different
these segments are more time-conscious than other segments in
Zeithaml and women in its cleaning per-formance, sudsing characteristics, aesthetics,
(Zeithaml 1985; Berry 1987). Working physical properties, packaging. In total, there have been
interviewed in the that
explora-tory study reported they 55 significant modifications in this one brand during
and could its lifetime.
shopped quickly not study nutritional information 30-year
carefully on bever-age containers. They selected beverages on
the basis
of the freshness or or
quality conveyed by packages The Concept of Perceived Price
brand names.
From the consumer's perspective, price is what is given up or
In other situations, intrinsic product attributes in- with
sacrificed to obtain a product. This definition is congruent
dicating quality are simply too difficult for the con-sumer to Ahtola's in-
(1984) argument against cluding monetary price as
evaluate. Evaluation may be difficult prior to purchase, as with
and a lower level attribute in multiattribute models because price is a
haircuts, restaurant meals,
other stereo "give" com-
experience goods. Complex equipment, insurance of rather than a "get"
ponent the model, component.
policies, and major auto repairs are exam-ples of Defining price as a sacrifice is consistent with con-
products that for many consumers are difficult to evaluate other researchers
ceptualizations by pricing (Chapman 1986;
even after purchase and consumption. For these "credence Mazumdar 1986; Monroe and Krishnan 1985).
con- 1 delineates the of
goods" (Darby and Karni 1973), sumers may rely on Figure components price: ob-
and sac-rifice.
extrinsic cues because they are simpler to access and evaluate. jective price, perceived nonmonetary price,
and Olson be-
Evidence. Research has shown that price is used as a Jacoby (1977) distinguished tween objective price
actual of a as
quality cue to a greater degree when brands are (the price product) and perceived price (the price
unfamiliar than when brands are familiar (Smith and Broome encoded the con- 1 this
by sumer). Figure emphasizes
1966; Stokes 1985). Research also has shown distinction: tive is not the
objec- monetary price frequently
risk of an encoded
that when perceived making unsatisfactory choice is price by consumers. Some consumers may notice that
select the
high, consumers higher priced prod-ucts (Lambert
1972; Peterson and Wilson 1985; Shap- exactprice of Hi-C fruit juice is $1.69 for a 6-pack, but others
iro 1968, 1973). or
cues that over may encode and remember the price only as "expensive"
PQ6: The signal quality change Still others not en-
"cheap." may code price at all.
time because of
A growing body of research supports this distinc-tion
(a) competition, and
efforts of between objective perceived price (Allen, Harrell, and Hutt
(b) promotional companies, 1976; Gabor and Granger 1961;
and
(c) changing consumer tastes,
(d) information. Progressive Grocer 1964). Studies reveal that con-sumers
and do not always know or remember actual prices of products.
As improved technology increasing competi-tion lead to encode in that
better Instead, they prices ways
the development of technically to them and
are meaningful (Dickson Sawyer 1985;
products, the features that signal superiority change. The exploratory
attribute cues Zeithaml 1982, 1983). Levels of consumer attention,
study suggested that the of to be con-
awareness, and knowledge prices appear siderably
in are not static, but in-
signaling quality beverages stead change lower than necessary for consumers to have accurate internal
over time. The shift from canned orange
to reference prices for many products (Dickson and Sawyer 1985;
juice to frozen orange juice refrigerated orange juice is one Dickson
Zeithaml 1982).
in
example of the evolving standards of quality beverages. and Sawyer reported that the proportions of con-
The replacement of saccharin with Nutra-sweet in beverages of four of
sumers checking prices types products
is another. and at
of (margarine, cold cereal, toothpaste, coffee) point of purchase
Harness (1978, p. 17) illustrates the forces change the
ranged from 54.2 to 60.6%. Among
and the responses made by Procter & Gamble to keep Tide
brand in the groups of consumers not checking prices in these studies, a large
detergent the highest quality pack- 58.5 to 76.7% in the
aged soap category: proportion (from
stated that was not
four product categories) price just important.
Since Tide was first introducedin 1947, consumers indicates that
Another recent study price
fab- the
have changed,washingmachineshave changed, awareness differs among demographic groups,
who
greatest levels of awareness being in consumers
not work outside
are female, married, older, and do

1988
10 / Journalof Marketing,July
the home (Zeithamland Berry 1987). Attentionto prices (Monroe and Krishnan 1985; Olson 1977). Bowbrick
is likely to be greater for
higherpricedpackagedgoods, (1982) questioned universality
the of the
price-per-ceived quality
durablegoods, and services than for low priced bev-erages, but relationship, called the stream of stud-ies on the topic
other factors in these categories-com- "pseudoresearch,"and claimed that
plexity, lack of price information,and processingtime the is too
interfere with accurate of price-perceived quality hypothesis general and
required-may knowledge
untestable to produce anything other than trivial results.
prices. An additional factor contributing to the gap
between actual and is Peterson and Wilson (1985) argue that the re-lationship
perceived price price disper-sion, the between is not and
price universaland perceived quality
tendency for the same brands to be priced differently not be
and to that the directionof the relationshipmay always
across stores or for products of the same type quality positive.
have wide variance
price (Maynes and Assum 1982). that a
Evidence. Monroe and Krishnan(1985) concluded does
positive price-perceivedquality

is not the relationship

Ppl: Monetary price only appear
to exist
despite
the
inconsistency
of the statis-tical
sacrifice consumers. of the research also
perceived by significance findings. They
Full price models in economics (e.g., Becker 1965) noted, however, that multipleconceptualproblemsand
that is not the sac- limitations re-
acknowledge monetaryprice only rifice methodological compromisedprevious search. Monroe
and Dodds (1988) describe these lim-itations in greaterdetail and
consumersmake to obtainproducts.Time costs, search costs,
or delineate a researchpro-
and psychic costs all enter either explic-itly implicitly for the of the
into the consumer's of gram establishing validity price-quality
perception sacrifice. If consumers relationship.
cannot find products on the shelf, or if they must travel Many empirical studies have producedresults that
distances to buy them, a sacrifice has been made. If consumers conflict with Monroe and Krishnan'sassessment of a
must expend effort to assemble durableproductsor time to In severalstudies(Friedman1967;
positiverelationship.
prepare packaged goods, and if this time and effort does not Swan 1974), overall association between price and
provide satisfaction to the consumer in the form of perceived quality is low. Other studies show the re-
recreationor a hobby, a sacrifice has been made. lationshipto be nonlinear(Peterson1970; Petersonand Jolibert
Evidence. Research in economics, home econom- 1976), highly variable across individuals
and variable across
the that other (Shapiro 1973), products being judged
ics, and marketingsupports proposition costs- (Gardner 1971). Other research, summarized by Olson (1977),
salient to as a
time, effort, search, psychic-are consumers(Down shows that price becomes less im-portant quality
1961; Gronau1973; Leibowitz 1974; indicatorwhen other
productqual-ity cues, such as brandname
Leuthold1981;Linder1970;Mabry1970;Mincer1963; or store
Nichols, Smolensky, and Tideman 1971; (Gardner1971)
and are
image (Stafford and Enis 1969), present. Explor-atory and
Zeithaml Berry 1987). survey research (Bonner and Nelson 1985;
and indicatesthat
Parasuraman,Zeithaml, Berry 1985) price is
The Price-QualityRelationship among the least importantattributesthat con-sumers associate
with quality.
Nearly 90 research studies in the past 30 years have been Related studies
(summarizedby Hjorth-Anderson 1984) have
designed to test the general wisdom that price and quality consistently shown price to be correlated
related. the than of
are positively Despite expec-tation of a positive only weakly with objective (rather perceived) quality. Typical
these studies is work
relationship,results of these stud-ies have provided mixed by Sproles (1977), who correlated the prices
evidence. of products with
obtained Consumer and
A re- qualityratings through Reports Consumers'
PPQI: general price-perceived quality lationship Research a
Magazine. Though positive
does not exist. was found in 51%
price-objective quality relationship
Price reliance is a general tendency in some con- of the 135 no was found
productcategories, relationship

sumers to depend on price as a cue to quality (Lam-bert 1972; in 35% and a negative relationshipwas found in 14%. Similarly,
Riesz found the mean rank correlationbe-
Shapiro 1968, 1973). The body of litera-ture summarized by
Olson (1977) is based on the tween price and objective quality to be .26 for 685 product
that a re- in Consumer be-
assumption general price-perceived quality categories reported Reports tween 1961 and
a multitudeof
lationshipexists. Despite experimental 1975 and .09 for 679 brandsof pack-
not aged foods (Riesz 1978). Geistfeld (1982) found vari-ability
studies on the topic, however, the relationshiphas surfaced
among marketsand across stores in the price-
clearly except in situations where methodo-logical Most Gerstner
concernssuch as demandartifacts(Sawyer 1975) could offer objective quality relationship. recently,
alternative explanations for the results (1985) assessed the correlation between quality and

Consumer of andValue 11
Perceptions Price,Quality, /
price for 145 products and concluded that the rela- dividual difference is consumers' ability to detect
variation
to be and quality among products (Lambert 1972). If
tionship appeared product-specific generally weak.
the consumer does not have sufficient productknowl-
Both Peterson and Wilson (1985) and Olshavsky (1985) edge (or perhapseven interest)to understandthe vari-
that the in should not be on ation in
argue emphasis price-qualitystudies quality (e.g., French, Williams, and Chance 1973), price and
the
documenting general price-per-ceived quality relationship, other extrinsic cues may be used to
a
but on the conditions un-der which price informationis likely to greaterdegree.
ference about One is Consumers appear to depend more on price as a
lead to an in- product quality. possibility
that some individuals on as a in some than
rely heavily price quality sig-nal quality signal productcategories in oth-ers. One
whereas others do not. Petersonand Wilson sorted explanationfor this variationmay be differ-
into on the basis of their ences in cat-
respondents groups having price-objective quality relationshipsby egory (e.g.,
a price-relianceschema and confirmed in an experi-ment that the low price of Japaneseautomobilesdoes not diminish the well-
in the Another
"schematics"perceive a stronger relation-ship between price and establishedperceptionof quality category).
be variationin a In
explanation may price category. packaged
quality than "aschematics." This general tendency on the part as
goods categories (such beverages)where productsdiffer little in
of some consumers to associate price and quality has been price,
the consumer may not attribute to prod-
examined in the contextof covariationassessment by Roedder-John, higher quality

Scott, and Bettman (1986), who confirmed that con-sumers differ in ucts that cost only a few cents more than those of
their beliefs about the association be- in the for did
competitors.Respondents exploratorystudy, example,
tween the price and quality variables. These studies provide not associate with
beverage price qual-
evidence that some consumershave a schema of price reliance, ity. Still another is
a category-specificcontingency quality
ratherthan indicating generalized tendency in consumers to variation: in categories where little variation is ex-pected among
associate price and quality. brands as salt
(such or paper sandwich bags), price may
PPQ2:The use of price as an indicatorof qual- function only as an indicationof sac-rifice whereas in categories
on as
ity depends where quality variationis expected (such canned seafood or
of other cues to
(a) availability quality,
washing ma-chines), price may function also as an indication of
(b) price variation within a class of
quality.
products,
(c) product quality variation within a category Evidence. Olson (1977) showed that availability of
of
products, intrinsic and extrinsic cues other than price typi-cally
as
(d) level of price awareness of con- results in weighting those factors (e.g., brand name)
sumers, and more than He concluded
important price. that brand
(e) consumers' ability to detect quality overall
variationin a group of products. name is a strongercue than price for eval-uating
quality (Gardner1971; Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock 1973;
Monroeand Krishnan(1985) contendthatmost past Smith and Broome 1966; Stokes
researchhas been 1985).
price-perceived quality exploratory
and has not succeededin resolvingthe questionof when Studies have indicated that use of price as a qual-ity
price is used to infer quality. Contingencies affecting the indicator differs for
by product category. Except wine and
use of price as a quality indicator fit into three groups: perfume,most positive links have been found in durable rather
informationalfactors, individual factors, and than in nondurableor consumable
factors. and
productcategory products(Gardner1970; Lambert 1972; Peterson Wilson
In an Petersonand
The first category of factors believed to affect the price- 1985). experimentalsetting, Wilson
consists of other documented the relationship between price variationand price-
perceived quality relationship
informationavailable to the consumer. When intrinsic perceived quality association: the
when brandnames greaterthe price variation,the greater
the
tendency
for
consumers
cues to qualityarereadilyaccessible,
of a or when to use price as a quality indicator.
provide evidence company's reputation, level of
of 41 studies
advertisingcommunicatesthe company's be-lief in the In a recent meta-analysis investigat-ing the
brand,the consumermay preferto use those between and
association price perceived qual-ity, Rao and
cues instead of price. Monroe (1987) found that the type of
and the of the
Several individual difference factors may account experimental design magnitude price
for the variationin the use of price as a quality signal. manipulationsignificantly influenced the size of the price-
One explanatory variable is price awareness of the perceived quality effects obtained. The number
consumer: consumers unaware of product prices ob- of cues manipulated
and the price level were not found
viously cannot use price to infer quality. Another in- to have a significanteffect. Because of constraintsim-
posed by the meta-analysis,the reviewersincludedonly

12 / Journalof Marketing,July1988
consumer products and eliminated several studies as * Value is what is good for you.
outliers, so the full range of prices and types of prod- * Value is what my kids will drink.
ucts was not * Little containers because then there is no waste.
investigated.
* Value to me is what is convenient. When I can take it

Considerable empirical research supports individ-ual out of the refrigerator and not have to mix it up,
then it has value.
differences in consumer knowledge of prices. Consumers are
tain consumer essentially the same as the
This second definition is
not uniformly aware of prices and cer-
as women and are less aware economist's definition of
segments (such working men) utility, that is, a
of than other subjective measure of the usefulness or want
prices segments (Zeithaml 1985; Zeithaml and
satisfaction that re-
Berry 1987; Zeithaml and Fuerst1983). Price awareness level
studied as it relates to sults from consumption. This definition also has been
has not been quality perceptions,
Rao documented the of expressed in the trade literature. Value has been de-fined as
though (1987) impact prior
of on the use of as a cue. "whatever it is that the customer seeks in
knowledge products price quality to
making decisions as to which store to shop or which product
Store Schechter
buy" (Chain Age 1985). (1984) defines value as all
The Concept of Perceived Value factors,
both
qualitative
and
quantitative, subjective
and
objective,
When in the discussed that make
respondents exploratory study value,
they used the term in many different ways, de-scribing a wide the In these defi-
up complete shopping experience.
variety of attributes and higher level abstractions that choice crite-
stitutes value-even in a nitions, value encompasses all relevant ria.
provided value to them. What con-
single product category- Value is the I the I Other
to be and quality get for price pay.
appears highly personal idiosyncratic. Though value as a tradeoff be-
in the on respondents conceptualized
many respondents exploratory study agreed cues that
differed tween one and one
signaled quality, they considerably in expressions of "give" component, price, "get"
can be component, quality:
value. Patterns of responses from the exploratory study
into four consumer * Value is price first and quality second.
grouped definitions of value: (1) value is
low price, (2) value is whatever I want in a product, (3) value is * Value is the lowest price for a quality brand.
I and value is what I
the qual-ity I get for the price pay, (4) get * Value is the same as quality. No-value is af-
for what I give. Each definition involves a dif-ferent set of fordable
quality.
linkages among the elements in the model and each consumer This definition is consistent with several others that
definition has its counterpart in the academic or trade Dodds and
appear in the literature (Bishop 1984; Monroe
literature on the subject. The di-versity in meanings of value and Associates
definitions and a 1984; Doyle 1984; Shapiro
is illustrated in the fol-lowing four provides 1985).
partial expla-
nation for the in and
Value is what I get for what I give. Finally, some
difficulty conceptualizing respondents
considered all relevant
"get" components as
measuring the value construct in research. well as all relevant "give" components when de-scribing
Value is low Some value value:
price. respondents equated
that what had to
with low price, indicating they give up was * Value is how many drinks you can get out of a
most salient in their perceptions of value. In their own words: certain package. Frozen juices have more be-cause
you can water them down and get more out of them.
* Value is price-which one is on sale.
* How many gallons you get out of it for what the
* When I can use coupons, I feel that the juice is
price is.
a value.
* Whatever makes the most for the least money.
* Value means low price.
* Which juice is more economical.
* Value is whatever is on special this week.
0
and Value is what you are paying for what you
In industry studies, Schechter (1984) Bishop (1984) are getting.
identified subsets of consumers that equate value with price. * Value is and so that
price having single portions
Hoffman's there is no waste.
Other industry studies, including (1984), reveal
the salience of price in the value equa-tions of consumers. This fourth definition is consistent with Sawyer and
Dickson's of value as a ratio
(1984) conceptualization
Value is whatever I want in a product. Other re-
the benefits received from of attributes weighted by their evaluations divided by
spondents emphasized they
the as the most of value:
product important components

Consumer of andValue 13
Perceptions Price,Quality, /
price weighted by its evaluation. This meaning is attributes,other higher level abstractionscontributed
also similar to the utility per dollar measure of value to of value. A
perceptions frequentlymentionedhigher level
used by Hauser and Urban (1986), Hauser and Simmie abstractionfor fruitjuice was convenience. Some consumersdid not
(1981), Hauser and Shugan (1983), and others. want to reconstitutethe juice. Oth-ers wanted self-serve
These four consumer expressions of value can be capturedin containersso that childrencould
from the
one overall definition: perceived value is the consumer's overall get juice refrigeratorby themselves. For this reason,
assessment of the utility of a productbased on perceptionsof small cans with difficult-to-opentops were not as
convenient as little boxes with insertable straws.
what is received and what is given. Though what is received and
varies across consumers (i.e., some may want volume, others high
Fully reconsituted, ready-to-serve, easy-to-open
still others and what is containerswere keys to adding value in the category. These
quality, convenience) given varies (i.e.,
others with intrinsicand extrinsiclower level attributesadded
some are concernedonly with money ex-pended,
time and value through the higher level abstractionof conve-
effort), value represents a tradeoff of the salient give nience.
and get components. Another higher level abstractionimportantin pro-viding
Value and quality. In the means-endchains, value (like value in children's fruit juices was apprecia-tion. When children
is to be a level abstrac-
quality) proposed higher tion. It differs drankbeverages the mothers se-lected, when they mentioned
them to mother or
from quality in two ways. First, value is more individualisticand evidenced thanks, the mothers obtained value. This
personal than quality and is therefore a higher level concept in
particularpsychological benefit was not evoked di-rectly
than quality. As shown in Table 1, value may be similar to the of the
any consumer interviews, but came
"emo- in the The value
tional of and to "ab- through strongly ladderingprocess. perceptions
payoff" Young Feigen (1975), stract, filtered the level abstrac-
through higher
multi-dimensional, difficult-to-measure attri- tion of and did not come
butes" of Geistfeld, Sproles, and Badenhop (1977), and to appreciation directly through
intrinsicor extrinsic attributes.This indirect inferenc-
"instrumentalvalues" of Olson and Reynolds (1983). Second, illustratesa in tra-
involves a tradeoff of and ing process major difficulty using ditional
value (unlike quality) give get
components. Though many multiattributeor utility models in measuring perceived
of value have as the value. The intrinsic attributes themselves are not always
conceptualizations specified quality only directly linked to value, but instead filter through other
in the value the
"get" component equation, consumer may
implicitly include other factors, sev-eral that are in themselves
personal benefits that are them-selves abstract.
Evidence. Though no empirical researchhas been
higher level abstractions, such as prestige and convenience
(see Holbrook and Corfman 1985 for a discussion of the reported on the pivotal higher level abstractionsre-lated to
in
difficulty in-volved in separating these abstractions in the value, several dimensionshave been proposed selected
value for
categories. Bishop (1984), example, claimed that value in
construct). is a com-
supermarketshopping posite of the higher level
Pv1: The benefit componentsof value abstractionsof variety, ser-vice, and facilities in addition to
include salient intrinsic attributes, extrinsic at- quality and price. Doyle (1984) identified convenience,
and other rel- freshness, and time as major higher level abstractionsthat
tributes,perceived quality, evant
combine
high level abstractions. with and to value in
price quality produce perceptions
consumers.

Differences among the benefit or get components supermarket

shown in the model and listed in Pvl can be illustrated The sacrifice of
from the of fruit Pv2: components perceived value
by findings exploratorystudy juices. As
in fruit include monetary prices and non-
discussed before, perceived quality juices
was signaled by the attribute "100% fruit juice" plus
monetaryprices.
sensory attributessuch as taste and texture. Consumers sacrifice both money and other re-
Some intrinsicattributesof fruitjuices-other than sources (e.g., time, energy, effort) to
obtain
products and services. To
cited as value
those signalingquality-were providing to some consumers, the monetary sac-
rifice is some will in-
respondents. Color was one importantintrinsic at-tribute. pivotal: supermarketshoppers
Most mothers knew which colors or flavors hours food
vest clipping coupons, reading advertising in the
of juice their children would drink;only those flavors were
newspaper, and traveling to different stores to obtain the best
considered to be acceptable to the child and thereforeto have bargains. To these consumers, any-thing that reduces the
value for the mother. Other intrinsic attributes(e.g., absence monetarysacrifice will increase
of pulp and visible consis- the value of the Less
perceived product. price-con-
tency of the drinks) also affected value perceptions. In additionto scious consumers will find value in store proximity,
perceived quality and these intrinsic

14 / Journalof Marketing,July1988
ready-to-serve
food products,
and home delivery-even Evidence. To date, no reportedempirical studies
fort have the of that
at the expense of higher costs-because time and ef- investigated potential triggers lead to
are as more of value.
perceived costly. perceptions
Evidence. Recent researchreveals that saving time has become a Pv4: The perceptionof value depends on the
pivotal concern of consumers in super- frame of reference in which the con-
market and
shopping cooking. Supermarketshoppers have cited sumer is making an evaluation.
in
fast checkout as more importantthan low prices selecting Holbrookand Corfman(1985) maintainthat value
In-
grocery stores (Food Marketing stitute 1985, 1986). Studies also
perceptions are situational and hinge on the context
show that consumers are willing to spend money to get more
convenient within which an evaluative occurs. This view
in food judgment
packaging products (Morris 1985). may help explain
the
diversity
of
meanings
of value. In the
beverage
Pv3: Extrinsic attributesserve as "value sig-nals" for the frame of
category, example, reference used by the consumer
and can substitute for active weighing of included of and
in providing mean-ings point purchase,preparation,
benefits and costs.
con-
sumption.Value meantdifferentthings at each of these points.
How carefully do consumers evaluate these com-
of in assessments of value? At the point of purchase, value often meant
ponents products making low
To from the of price, sale, or coupons. At the point of prepa-ration,
judge product category beverages, cognitive value often involved some calculation about
assessment is limited. Ratherthan carefully whetherthe was easy to and how much
product
prepare
consideringprices and benefits, most respondentsde-
the consumer could obtain for what she paid. At con-sumption,
pended on cues-often extrinsic cues-in forming value was judged in terms of whether the children would drink
of value. A few
impressions respondents carefully calculated the
the beverage, whether some of the beverage was wasted, or
cheapest brandin their set on a regular basis, but most seemed to whether the children ap-preciated the mother for buying the
follow Langer's (1978) no-tion of mindlessness: most respondents drinks.
bought bev-erages with only minimal processing of available in- Evidence. No
empirical studies have been con-
formation. a brand trusted
They repeatedlybought they or used ductedto investigatethe variationin value perceptions
extrinsic value cues to simplify their choice across evaluation contexts.
process. Pv5: Perceived value affects the relationship
These value were of the
triggers presentregardless way between and
consumers defined value. Many consumers who purchase. quality
defined value as low a as As not all consumers
price reportedusing coupon Olshavsky (1985) suggested,
a to low without the
signal price actually comparing reduced want to the item in cate-
buy highest quality every gory.
price of the couponed brand with the prices of other brands, or or
low or a Instead, quality appearsto be factored into the implicit
they reportedthat "cents-off" or "everyday price" signs valuation of a consumers
label brand explicit product by many (Dodds
private
the value who de- and Dickson A
triggered perception. Respondents fined value in and Monroe 1985; Sawyer 1984). given
terms of what they wanted in products productmay be high quality, but if the consumer does not have
and enough money to buy it (or does not want to spend the
cited small containers, single-serving portions, ready-to-
value as the its value will not be as
serve containers. Consumers who defined quality amount re-quired), perceived being
for the as
they get price they pay high as that of a productwith lower qualitybut a more
such as 100% fruit juice or
affordable In -
used signals on special price. other words, when geta givea
brand name on special. Finally, consumers who de-fined value as > - but the has a con- >
getb giveb shopper budget straint, then givea
on form vs. >
what they get for what they pay de-pended (frozen budget constraints giveb and hence b is chosen. The same logic may
canned and econ-
juice) apply to prod-
as ucts that need more time than the consum-

omy-sized packages signals. preparation

Not all consumersrespondedin this mindless way -many saw er's time constraintallows.
to The in the illustrated this
their role as economical shopper to be importantenough spend respondents
beverage study point
time and effort to the and as discussed their
weigh carefully give get components they typical purchasing behavior. For
in their own all
equations of value. Moreover, not products are accounted for a
as respondentswith several children, bev-erages
of their
or as One would ex- large portion weekly food bill. Though most believed that
simple inexpensive beverages. pect to was of than
find more rational evaluation in situations of pure fruit juice higher quality fruit drinks, many of
did not fruit because it
information these respondents buy only pure juice
high availability, processing ability, was too tended to some
time and involvement in expensive. They buy pro-portion of
availability, purchase.
pure fruit juice, then round out these more

Consumer of andValue 15
Perceptions Price,Quality, /
expensive purchases with fruit drinks. In their eval-
uation,high qualitywas not worthits expense, so lower levels and how they are perceived and combined (see also
of quality were tolerated in a portion of the weekly Gutmanand Alden 1985, Olson 1977, and Olson and
Jacoby 1972 for similar expressions of needed re-
beverages. These consumers obtained more value from search). Finally, the relationship between the con-structsof
the lower quality juices because the low costs attitudeand qualityshould be examined. The
compensatedfor the reduction in quality. instrumentality
of a feature (Lewin 1936) and
product

Evidence. Several empirical studies have inves-tigated the quality rating of such a feature in separately de-
the between and but no choice be an
relationship quality purchase, termining may interestingresearchissue. The
studies have
empirical
the role of value as an
investigated explicitly
factorbetween
convergent and discriminantvalidity of the con-structs of
intervening quality and attitude and quality also warrantinvestiga-tion. Quality
purchase.However, studieson the use of unit price
measurementscales remain to be devel-oped and validated.
information(e.g., Aaker and Ford 1983; Dickson and
Sawyer 1985; Zeithaml 1982) suggest that many con- Current Practices in Modeling Consumer
sumers use unit price information(i.e., a measure of Decision Making
in choices in can
value) making product supermarkets. Three aspects of modeling consumer decision making
be if the to be ac-
Research questioned
curate
propositionsprove
the tendency to use actual at-
Implications representations:

tributesof productsratherthan consumer perceptions

The raise about ways of
precedingpropositions questions
those attributes, the practice of duplicating and comingling
in which quality and value have been studied in the past and attributeswith order at-
suggest avenues for future research. physical higher tributes(Myers
and Shocker 1981), and the failure to distinguish between the
Current Practices in Measuring Quality
give and get (Ahtola 1984) components of the model.
Academic research measuring has Howard states the first
quality (1977, p. 28) clearly prob-lem.
depended
It is essentialto betweenthe attributes
heavily on unidimensional rating scales, allowing distinguish per
to be in the se andconsumers' of these attributes,be-

quality interpreted any way respondent chooses. This perceptions

practice does not ensure that respon- cause consumersdiffer in theirperceptions.It is the
are or in the perceptionthat affects behavior,not the attributeit-self.
dents interpretingquality similarly way the "Attribute"is often used to mean choice crite-
researcherintends. Hjorth-Anderson(1984) claims ria, but this leads to confusion. To use "attribute"
when you mean not the attributeitself but the con-
that unidimensional scales are methodologically in-valid by
sumer'smentalimage of it, is to reify what is in the
showing that the concept of overall quality has many consumer'smind.
dimensions. Holbrook and Corfman(1985) and that the fo-
for measures to be Jacoby Olson (1985) concur, claiming cus of
call ambiguous quality replaced with scales
based on conceptualdefinitions of quality. An example of the marketersshould not be objective reality but instead consumer
approach they recommend is il- perceptions, which may be altered
either or
lustrated Parasuraman,Zeithaml,and Berry (1985), by by changing objective reality by reinterpret-ing objective
for consumers.
who investigated service quality in an extensive ex-ploratorystudy, reality
it in dimensionsbased
conceptualized Myers and Shocker (1981) point out that comin-gling
and it the with lower
on that investigation, operationalized using quality, a higher level abstraction, level physical
conceptual domain specified in the first phase (Para-suraman, attributes in models limits the validity and confounds the
In that stream es- when this
Zeithaml, and Berry 1986). interpretation of many studies, pecially practice
was defined as a be- lower level at-
of research, quality comparison tween consumer duplicates tributes. Therefore, it is necessary to
and of
expectations perceptions per-
use attributes from the same general classification or level in the
formancebased on those dimensions,an that
hier-archy in modeling consumer decision making. Ahtola
approach
allows for individualdifferences across subjects in the (1984) confirms that when the hierarchical nature of
attributesthat attributes is not recognized in consumer decision
signal quality.
and of the of
The researchapproachused by Parasuraman,Zei-thaml, and models, double triple counting impact some attributes
Berry (1985) could be used in different results. Techniques to elicit and or-
indus- should mod-
categories of products (e.g., packaged goods, trial products, ganize attributes,in his opinion, precede eling of the
durable goods) to find the abstractdi- attributes.Myers and Shocker (1981) dis-cuss different consumer
in those Such
mensions that capturequality categories. decision models appropriate for the levels and ways
Brucks and Zeith-
an attemptis currentlyunderwayby mal (1987) attributesshould be presented in researchinstrumentsand analyzed
for durablegoods. Studies also are needed later. Huber and
to determinewhich attributessignal these dimensions, when
and why they are selected instead of other cues,

16 / Journalof Marketing,July1988
McCann(1982) reveal the impact of inferentialbeliefs on dures to link attributes with perceptions. Holbrook
product evaluations and acknowledge that under-
(1981) provides a theoreticalframeworkand analytic
standingconsumer inferences is essential both in get-ting procedure
for
representing
the
interveningrole of per-ceptions
in
informationfrom consumers and in giving infor-mation to evaluative scribes the of
judgments. Neslin (1981) de- superiority
consumers. Finally, Ahtola (1984) calls for revealed
statistically impor-
and models to the tance over self-stated in
expanding revising incorporate weights importanceweights
sac- features to
rifice aspects of price. Sacrifice should not be linking product perceptions.
limited to monetaryprice alone, especially in Value
situationswhere time costs, search costs, and Researching
convenience costs are salient to the consumer. A in value is the
major difficulty researching variety of
Methods for meanings of value held by consumers. Building a model of
Appropriate Studying Quality which of
and Value value requiresthat the researcherunderstand many
The used in the is (at least of four) meanings are implicit in consumers'
approach exploratoryinvestigation rich in terms of
expressions of value. Utility models are
for in other product refinements
appropriate investigating quality methodological (see Schmalensee and Thisse 1985
categories. Olson and Reynolds (1983) developed methods to for a discussion of dif-
vidual consumers.
aggregate the qualitative data from indi- ferent utility measures and equations), but do not ad-dress the
structural
Aggregate cognitive mapping, analysis, cognitive distinctionbetween attributesand higherlevel
differentiation
analysis, and value structure mapping are all
abstractions.They also presume that consumers care-
techniques de- fully calculate the give and get components of value, an
to and or- sumers
signed especially analyze representhigher der
assumption that did not hold true for most con-
abstractionssuch as quality. These techniques are in the
more than or mul-tiattribute exploratorystudy.
appropriatepreference mapping
for like a Price as a Quality Indicator
modeling investigating concepts quality and value (for
discussion and ex- Most experimentalstudies related to quality have fo-cused
complete plication of these techniques, see
Gutman and Alden 1985 or Reynolds and Jamieson 1985). on price as the key extrinsic quality signal. As
link in the is but one of sev-
Several researchershave developed approachesto suggested propositions, price eral
attributesto of level
product perceptions higher abstractions. potentially useful extrinsic cues; brand name or
be or more in
Mehrotraand Palmer (1985) suggest a methodological package may equally important,especially
to features packagedgoods. Further,evidence of a generalized price-perceived
approach relating product to perceptions of quality is inconclusive.
In their quality relationship Quality research may
based on the work of Olson and Reynolds (1983).
lists of cues benefit from a de-emphasis on price as the main extrinsic
procedure, and benefits are developed from focus
groups or in- depth interviews with consumers, semantic differen- quality indicator.Inclusion
of other importantindicators, as well as identification
tial scales are constructed to capture the benefits, a tradeoff
of situations in which each of those indicatorsis im-
procedure is used to determine the impor-tance of the cues, more and useful an-
portant, may provide interesting swers
and respondents match cues to
this of de- of about the extrinsic signals consumers use.
product concepts. Through type analysis, gree linkage
value of
(between cues and benefits),
a cue, and competitive brand information are pro- Management Implications
vided.
and also the An of what quality and value mean to
Mazursky Jacoby (1985) recognized understanding
sitions
need for to trackthe inferenceprocess from

consumers offers the promise of improvingbrandpo-

procedures more market and
considerationof objective cues to the higher level im-age of through precise analysis seg-
and
mentation, product planning, promotion, pricing strategy.
quality. Instead of free-elicitation procedures, they used a The model here the fol-
behavioralprocessing simulationwhereby presented suggests
that can be to under-
attributeinformationto and lowing strategies implemented stand and
they presented respondents

asked them to form an impressionof quality by choos-ing any capitalize on brand quality and value.
informationthey wished. Though this method can be criticizedas Close the
unrealistic,it providesinsights into the types of informationthat
Quality Perception Gap
the im-
consumersbelieve signal Though managers increasingly acknowledge portanceof
sure it from the
quality. Modifications of the method to make the en- quality, many continue to define and mea-
the
vironmentmore realistic (such as by Brucks 1985) are company's perspective. Closing
also between and
possible. gap objective perceived quality requires that
Other researchershave described analytic proce- the company view quality the way the consumer does.
and
Research that investigates which cues are im-portant
how consumersform of
impressions qual-

ConsumerPerceptionsofPrice,Quality,andValue/ 17
 cues is nec- may be able to educate consumers on ways to evaluate
ity based on those technical, objective the information in
quality. Advertising, provided
essary. Companies also may benefit from research that packaging, and visible cues associated with products
can be to evoke desired
identifies the abstract dimensions of quality desired by managed quality perceptions.
Understand How Consumers Encode
consumers in a product class. and Prices
Monetary Nonmonetary
Identify Key Intrinsic
and The model proposes a gap between actual and per-ceived
Extrinsic Attribute Signals price, making it important to understand how
consumers
A top priority for marketers is finding which of the many encode of
prices products. Nonmonetary
extrinsic and intrinsic cues consumers use to signal quality. This costs-such as time and effort-must be acknowl-
process involves a careful look at situational factors the 50 million
edged. Many consumers, especially working
surrounding the purchase and use
of the
product.
Does
quality vary greatly among prod-ucts in the
women in the U.S. today, consider time an important
that can be built into
category? Is quality difficult to evaluate? Do consumers have commodity. Anything products to
and search costs can
enough information about intrin- reduce time, effort, reduce perceived
sic attributes before purchase, or do they depend on simpler sacrifice and thereby increase per-ceptions of value.
extrinsic cues until after their first purchase?
What cues are
provided by competitors? Identifying the
to Add Value
Recognize Multiple Ways
important quality signals from the consumer's Finally, the model delineates several strategies for adding value in
then those rather boxes into
viewpoint, communicating signals than products and services. Each of the feeding perceived
is to lead to more vivid value an ave-nue for value
generalities, likely per-ceptions of provides increasing perceptions.
mon-
quality. Linking lower level attributes with their higher level Reducing
abstractions locates the "driving force"
for and
and "leverage point" advertising strategy (Olson and etary nonmonetary costs, decreasing perceptions
Reynolds 1983). of sacrifice, adding salient intrinsic attributes, evok-
and
Nature of ing perceptions of relevant high level abstractions, using
Acknowledge the Dynamic Quality that
extrinsic cues to signal value are all possible strategies
Perceptions can use to affect value The selection of
companies per-ceptions.
of over time a for a
strategy particular product or market segment depends
Consumers' perceptions quality change
as a result of added information, increased competi- on its customers' definition of value. Strategies based on customer
in a and
tion product category, changing expectations. The value standards and perceptions will channel resources more
dynamic nature of quality suggests that marketers effectively and will meet customer expectations better than those
over time and
must track perceptions align product and based only on company standards.
with these views.
promotion strategies changing Because
and marketers
products perceptions change,

REFERENCES
Ten Archibald,RobertB., Clyde Haulman,and CarlisleMoody, Jr.
Aaker,David A. and GaryT. Ford(1983), "UnitPricing
47
Years and Published
Later: A Replication," Journal of Marketing,
(1983), "Quality, Price, Advertising,
118-22.
(Winter), Quality Ratings," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (4), 347-
Achrol, Ravi Singh, Torger Reve, and Louis Ster (1983), "The 56.
Environment of Marketing Channel Dyads:
A Frame-
work for
in Lan-
Journal 47
Austin, J. L. (1964), "A Plea for Excuses," Ordinary guage,
Comparative Analysis," of Marketing,
(Fall),
55-67. V. C. Chappell, ed. New York: Dover Publications, 41-63.
in an
Ahtola, Olli T. (1984), "Priceas a 'Give' Component Becker, Gary S. (1965), "Theory of the Allocation of Time,"
Advances
Exchange Theoretic Multicomponent Model," in in Consumer Economic Journal, 75 (September), 493-517.
Kenneth Berhardt, and Jac Goldstucker
Research, Vol. 11, Thomas C. Kinnear, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association Bellenger, Danny,
623-
for Consumer Research, (1976), Qualitative Research in
Marketing. Chicago:
6. American Marketing Association.
Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), Bishop, Willard R., Jr. (1984), "Competitive Intelligence,"
19-20.
"Dimen-sions of Consumer Journal of Progressive Grocer (March),
Expertise," Bonner, P. Greg and Richard Nelson (1985), "Product Attri-
Consumer Re-search, 14 (March), 411-54. butes and Perceived Quality: Foods," in Perceived Quality,
eds. MA:
J. Jacoby and J. Olson, Lexington, Lexington
Allen, John W., Gilbert D. Harrell, and Michael D. Hutt (1976), Price Books, 64-79.
DC: Food
Awareness Study. Washington, Marketing Institute.
18 / Journalof Marketing,July1988
Bowbrick, P. (1982), "Pseudoresearchin Marketing:The Case (1986), Trends-Consumer Attitudes and the Su-
of the
Price-Perceived-Quality Relationship," European
Journal
of
1986 DC: Food Market-
14
permarket: Update. Washington, ing
Marketing, (8), 466-70. Institute.
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.

and the
Brunswick, Egon (1956), Perception Representative
CA: Uni-
Design of Psychological Experiments. Berkeley, versity of
California Press.
Chain Store Age (1985), "Consumers Say Value is More Than Quality Divided
By Price" (May), 13.
"The of Discounts on Sub-
Chapman, Joseph (1986), Impact
jective Product Evaluations," working paper, Virginia Po-lytechnic
Institute and State
University.

Cohen, Joel B. (1979), "The Structure of Product Attributes:

Defining Attribute Dimensions for Planning and Evalua-tion,"
to and
in Analytic Approaches Product Marketing Planning, A.
Shocker, ed. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Court, Andrew T. (1939), "Hedonic Price Indexes and Au-tomotive
Examples," in The Dynamics of Automobile De-mand. New York:
General Motors Corporation, 99-117.
Cox, Donald F. (1962), "The Measurement of Information Value: A
Study in Consumer Decision Making," in Pro-ceedings, Winter
413-21.
Conference. Chicago: American Market-ing Association,
B. is Free. New York: New
Crosby, Philip (1979), Quality

American Library.
J. Faulds
Curry, David J. and David (1986), "Indexing
Prod-
uct Quality: Issues, Theory, and Results," Journal
13 134-45.
of Mar-keting, (June),
E. "Free and
Darby, M. R. and Karni (1973), Competition
the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Eco-
nomics, 16 (April), 67-86.
L.
Darden, William R. and JoAnn K. Schwinghammer (1985), "The Influence of
Social Characteristicson Perceived Qual-
ity in Patronage Choice Behavior," in Perceived Quality, J.
Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books, 161-72.

Dickson, Peter and Alan Sawyer (1985), "Point of Purchase

Behavior and Price of
Perceptions Supermarket Shoppers,"
Science Institute Series.
Marketing Working Paper

Dodds, William B. and Kent B. Monroe (1985), "The Effect

of Brand and Price Information on Subjective Product
Eval-uations," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
12, ElizabethC. Hirschmanand 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 for Market Segmentation," in Research
Frontiers in Market-ing: Dialogues and Directions, 1978
Educators' Proceed-ings, Subhash C. Jain, ed. Chicago:
American Marketing Association, 143-7.
Food Marketing Institute (1985), Trends-Consumer Attitudes
and the Supermarket, 1985 Update. Washington, DC: Food
Marketing
Institute.
French, N. D., J. J. Williams, and W. A. Chance (1973), "A
on Journal 48 Gronau, R. (1973), "The Intrafamily Allocation of Time: The
Shopping Experiment Price-Quality Relationships," of Retailing,
(Spring), 3-16. Value of the Housewife's Time," American Economic Re-
L. view, 63 (4), 634-51.
Friedman, (1967), "Psychological Pricing in the Food In- Gutman, Jonathan and Scott D. Alden (1985), "Adolescents'
dustry," in Prices: Issues in Theory, Practice, and Public Cognitive Structures of Retail Stores and Fashion Con-
A. and 0.
Policy, Phillips Williamson, eds. Philadelphia: A Means-End Chain of in
of Press. sumption: Analysis Quality,"
University Pennsylvania
Perceived J. MA:
Gabor, Andre and C. W. J. Granger (1961), "On the Price Quality, Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington,
Consciousness of Lexington Books, 99-114.
and Thomas J. "An
Consumers," Applied Statistics, 10
Reynolds (1979), Investigation of
(2), 170-88.
D. M. "An the Levels of Cognitive Abstraction Utilized by Con-sumers in
Gardner, (1970), Experimental Investigation of the
Product Differentiation," in Attitude Research Under the Sun, J.
Journal 46
Price-Quality Relationship," of Retailing, (Fall), 25-41. Eighmey, ed. Chicago: American Mar-keting Association.
(1971), "Is There a Generalized Price-Quality Harness, Edward (1978), "Some Basic Beliefs About Mar-
Relationship?" Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (May),
to the Annual of the
keting," speech Marketing Meeting
241-3. Conference Board, New York City.
Garvin, David A. (1983), "Quality on the Line," Harvard Hauser, J. R. and S. M. Shugan (1983), "Defensive Market-ing
2
Business Review, 61 (September-October), 65-73. Strategies," Marketing Science, (Fall), 319-60.
(1987), "Competing on the Eight Dimensions of and P. Simmie
(1981, "Profit-Maximizing Percep-tual
Quality," Harvard Business Review, 65 (November-De-
cember), 101-9. Positions: An Integrated Theory for the Selection of Product
Loren V. "The 33-56.
Geistfeld, (1982), Price-Quality Features and Price," Management Science, 27 (January),
and Glen Urban
(1986),
"The Value
Priority Hy-
Relationship-Revisited," Journal of Consumer potheses
for Consumer
Budget Plans," Journal of Con-sumer
Affairs, 14 (Winter), 334-46. Research, 12 (March), 446-62.
G. B. and S. B. "The Chr. "The of
, Sproles, Badenhop (1977), Hjorth-Anderson, (1984), Concept
Concept and Measurement of a Hierarchy of Product and
Quality the Efficiency of Markets for Consumer
Char-acteristics," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4,
W. D. Perreault, Jr., ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (2), 708-18.
Consumer Research, 302-7. (1986), "More on Multidimensional Quality: A Re-
Gerstner, Eitan (1985), "Do Higher Prices Signal Higher ply," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (June), 149-54.
Quality?" Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (May), 209- Gene D.
15. Hoffman, (1984), "Our Competitor Is Our
Environ-
Griliches, Zvi (1971), "Introduction: Hedonic Price Indexes
Revisited," in Price Indexes and Quality Change, Zvi Gril-
iches, ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 3-15.

ConsumerPerceptionsofPrice,Quality,andValue/ 19
 ment," Progressive Grocer-Value, Executive Report, 28- B. D.
30. Mabry, (1970), "An Analysis of Work and Other Con-
Morris B. straints on Choices of Activities, Western Economic Jour-
Holbrook, (1981), "Integrating nal, 8 (3), 213-25.
and
Compositional Maynes, E. Scott (1976), "The Concept and Measurement
to the Role of
Decompositional Analyses Represent Intervening Perceptions
in Evaluative Journal Mar-
Judgments," of of Product Quality," Household Production and
keting Research, 18 (February), 13-28. Consump-tion, 40 (5), 529-59.
in the and Assum
and Kim P. Corfman (1985), "Quality and Value Terje (1982), "Informationally Imper-fect
Phaedrus Rides in
Consumption Experience: Again," Perceived
Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington, Consumer Markets: Empirical Findings and Policy Im-
Journal Consumer 16 62-
MA: Lexington Books, 31-57. plications," of Affairs, (Summer), 87.
J. A. Tridik
Howard, (1977), Consumer Behavior: Application of Mazumdar, (1986), "Experimental Investigation of the Psychological
Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Determinantsof Buyers' Price Awareness and
a Assessment of for Price
Huber, Joel and John McCann (1982), "The Impact of Infer- Comparative
Information from
Methodologies Retrieving
ential Beliefs on Product Evaluations," Journal of Market-ing Memory, "working paper, Virginia Polytechnic
Research, 19 (August), 324-33. Institute and State
University.
D. W. David and Jacob
Jacoby, J., R. W. Chestnut, W. D. Hoyer, Sheluga, and M. J. Donahue Mazursky, Jacoby (1985), "Forming Impres-sions of
(1978), "Psychometric Characteristics of Behavioral Process Data: Merchandise and Service Quality," in Perceived

Preliminary Findings on Va-lidity and Generalizability," in Advances Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington, MA: Lex-
in Consumer Re-search, Vol. 5, H. Keith Hunt, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: As- ington Books, 139-54.
sociation for Consumer Research, 546-54. McConnell, J. D. (1968), "Effect of Pricing on Perception of
and Jerry C. Olson (1977),
"Consumer Response to Price: An
Product Journal 52
Quality," of Applied Psychology,
Attitudinal, Information Processing Perspec-tive," in Moving Ahead with 300-3.
eds. Chicago: American (Au-gust),
Attitude Research, Y. Wind and P. Greenberg,
Marketing
As- Mehrotra, Sunil and John Palmer (1985), "Relating Product
Features to of in Per-
sociation, 73-86. Perceived Perceptions Quality: Appliances," ceived
and , eds. (1985), Quality. Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington,
Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books. MA: Lexington Books, 81-96.
and Rafael A. Haddock (1973), "Price,
Milgrom, Paul and John Roberts (1986), "Price and
Brand Name and Product Composition Characteristics as
Perceived Journal
of Product Journal
Adver-tising Signals Quality," of
Determinants of Quality," of Applied
Political 94 796-821.
Psychology, 55 (6), 570-9. Economy, (4),
, G. J. Szybillo, and J. Busato-Schach (1977), "In- Mincer, J. (1963), "Market Prices, Opportunity Costs, and In-
come Effects," in Measurement in Economics: Studies in
formation Acquisition Behavior in Brand Choice Situa-tions,"
Mathematical Economics and Econometrics in Memory of
Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (March), 209-15. Yehuds Grunfeld. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Johnson, Michael D. (1983), "Decision Processing and Prod-uct Press, 67-82.
A of un-
Comparability: Theory Strategy Selection," Monroe, Kent B. and R. Krishnan(1985), "The Effect of Price
of
published doctoral dissertation, University Chicago. Kirmani, Amna and on Subjective Product Evaluations," in Perceived Quality,
Peter Wright (1987a), "Money
Talks: Ad- MA:
J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington, Lexington
Perceived Product
vertising Extravagance and Quality," working paper, Books, 209-32.
Stanford and William B. Dodds (1988), "A Research Pro-
University.
and (1987b), "Schemer Schema: Con- the of the Re-
gram for Establishing Validity Price-Quality
sumers' Beliefs About Advertising and Marketing Strate-gies," the
Stanford lationship," Journal of Academy of Marketing Science,
working paper, University. forthcoming.
Laird, Donald A. (1932), "How the Consumer Estimates Quality by A. "The of in
Journal of Applied Morgan, Leonard (1985), Importance Quality,"
Subconscious Sensory Impression," Perceived Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington,
Psychology, 16 (2), 241-6. MA: Lexington Books, 61-4.
"How Much Will to Save
Morris, Betsy (1985), People Pay a Few Minutes of
Lambert, Zarryl (1972), "Price and Choice Behavior," Jour-nal of
35-40. Cooking? Plenty," Wall Street Journal
Marketing Research, 9 (February), 23.
the Role of in So- (July 25),
Langer, Ellen (1978), "Rethinking Thought cial
Interactions," in New Directions in Attribution Re- Myers, James H. and Allan D. Shocker (1981), "The Nature of
eds. Product-RelatedAttributes,"Research in Marketing, Vol.
search, John Harvey, William Ickes, and Robert Kidd,
5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 211-36.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 35-58.
Leibowitz, Arlene (1974), "Education and Home Production," Nelson, Philip (1970), "Information and Consumer
American Economic Review, 64 (May), 243-50.
and the of
Behav-ior," Journal of Political Economy, 78 (20), 311-29.
Leuthold, Jane (1981), "Taxation Consumption Household Time,"
Journal
(1974), "Advertising as Information," of Political
Journal of Consumer Research, 7 Economy, 81 (4), 729-54.
(March),
388-94. Product Features to
New Neslin, Scott (1981), "Linking Percep-
Lewin, Kurt (1936), Principles of Topological Psychology. tions: Self-Stated Versus Statistically Revealed Importance
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
York:
18
Linder, S. B. (1970), The Harried Leisure Class. New Weights," Journal of Marketing Research,
Columbia University Press.
Lutz, Richard (1986), "Quality is as Quality
Does: An Atti- (February), 80-93. "Dis-crimination
tudinal Perspective on Consumer Quality Judgments," pre-sentation to Nichols, D., E. Smolensky, and T. N. Tideman (1971), by
the Marketing Science Institute Trustees'
Meet- Waiting Time in Merit Goods," American
MA. Economic Review, 61 (June), 312-23.
ing, Cambridge, Olshavsky, Richard W. (1985), "Perceived Quality in Con-sumer Decision
Per-
Making: An Integrated Theoretical
spective," in Perceived Quality,
J. Jacoby and J. Olson,
eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 3-29.
Olson, Jerry C. (1977), "Price as an Informational Cue: Ef-

20 / Journalof Marketing,July1988
 fects in Product Evaluation," in Consumer and Industrial Rokeach, M. J. (1973), The Nature of Human Values. New
Buying Behavior, Arch G. Woodside, Jagdish N. Sheth, York: The Free Press.
and Peter D. Bennet, eds. New York: North Holland Pub-
267-86.
lishing Company, Russell, Bertrand (1912), The Problems of Philosophy. Lon-don: Oxford
(1978), "Inferential Belief Formation in the Cue University Press.
Utilization Process," Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Con- Alan G.
Sawyer, (1975), "Demand Artifacts in Laboratory Experiments in
sumer Research, 706-13. Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer
and Jacob Jacoby (1972), "Cue Utilization in the Research, 1 (March), 20-30.
Quality Perception Process," in Proceedings of the Third and Peter Dickson
(1984), "Psychological Perspec-tives on
Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Consumer Response to Sales Promotion," in Re-
Re-search, M. Venkatesan, ed. Iowa City: Association for search on Sales Promotion: Collected Papers, Katherine
Consumer Research, 167-79. Jocz, ed. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
and Thomas J. "The Role of
Reynolds (1983), "Understanding Consumers' , Parker M. Worthing, and Paul E. Sendak (1979),
Cognitive Structures: Implications for Adver-tising Strategy," Advertising to Test Journal
Laboratory Experiments Marketing Strategies," of
and Consumer L. 43
Psychology, Marketing, (Summer), 60-7.
MA: Schechter, Len (1984), "A Normative Conception of Value,"
Percy and A. Woodside, eds. Lexington, Lexington Books.
Progressive Grocer, Executive Report, 12-14.
Parasurman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard Berry (1985), Schmalensee, Richard (1978), "A Model of Advertising and
"A Model of Service and Its Product Journal Political 86
Conceptual Quality Quality," of Economy, (3),
Implications for Future Research," Journal of Marketing, 49 485-503.
and J. Thisse timal
(Fall), 41-50. (1985), "PerceptualMaps and the Op-
A Scale for of
, and (1986), "SERVQUAL: Location New Products," working paper, Massa-chusetts Institute of
Service Technology.
Measuring Quality," working paper, Marketing Science
Institute. and Associates is a
Peterson, Robert A. (1970), "The Price-Perceived Shapiro (1985), "Value Complex Equa-
Quality Relationship: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Market- tion," Chain Store Age (May), 14-59.
ing Research, 7 (November), 525-8. B. P. "The of
Shapiro, (1968), Psychology Pricing," Harvard
and A. Jolibert (1976), "A Cross-National Investi-gation Business Review, 46 (July-August), 14-25, 160.
of Price Brand Determinants of Perceived Product (1973), "Price Reliance: Existence and Sources,"
Journal
Quality," of Applied Psychology, 61 Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (August), 286-94.
(July), 533-6. Smith, E. M. and C. Broome (1966), "Experimental Deter-
and William R. Wilson (1985), "Perceived Risk and Price-
mination of the Effect of Price and Market-Standing
Reliance Schema and Price-Perceived-Quality Media-tors," in Infor-mation on Consumers' Brand Preferences," in Proceed-
Perceived Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. American Association.
ings. Chicago: Marketing
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 247-68. B. "New Evidence on Price and
Progressive Grocer (1964), "How Much Do Customers Know About Retail
Sproles, George (1977),
Journal Consumer 11 63-
Prices?" (February), 103-6. Quality," of Affairs, (Summer), 77.
"The Effect of Prior (1986), "The Concept of Quality and the Efficiency
Rao, Akshay R. (1987), Moderating Knowledge
on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations," working paper, of
of and Business Markets: Issues and Comments," Journal of Marketing,
Department Marketing Law, 13 (June), 146-7.
of
University Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Stafford, J. E. and B. M. Enis (1969), "The Price-Quality
and Kent B. Monroe (1987), "The Effects of Price, Brand
Relationship: An Extension," Journal of Marketing Re-
Name and Store Name on Buyers' Subjective Prod-uct search, 7 (November), 456-8.
Assessments: An Integrative Review," working paper, Department
of Marketing and Business Law, University of Stevenson, Jim (1984), "An Indifference Toward Value,"
Minnesota, Minneapolis. Progressive Grocer-Value, Executive Report, 22-3.
"Trans- C.
Reynolds, T. J., J. Gutman, and J. Fiedler (1984), lating Knowledge Stokes, Raymond (1985), "The Effect of Price, Package
of Consumers' Cognitive Structures into and Brand on Perceived in
the of
Development Advertising StrategicOperations:
A Case Design, Familiarity Quality,"
in Second Annual and Perceived Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington,
History," Proceedings: Advertising
MA: Lexington Books, 233-46.
Swan, John (1974), "Price-Product Performance Competition
Consumer Psychology Conference. Toronto:
Between Retailer and Manufacturer Brands," Journal of
American Psychological Association. Marketing,
38 (July), 52-9
G. J. and J. "Intrinsic Versus Ex-
Szybillo, Jacoby (1974), trinsic Cues as
and Linda F. Jamieson (1985), "Image Represen- Determinants of Perceived Product Qual-
tations: An Analytic Framework," in Perceived Quality, J. ity,"
Journal
of Applied Psychology,
59
(February),
74-8.
Young, Shirley
MA: and Barbara
Feigin (1975), "Using
the Benefit
Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington, Lexington Books, 115-38.
Chain for 39
"Price Versus in the Improved Strategy Formulation," Journal of Marketing,
Riesz, P. (1978), Quality Marketplace, 1961-
(July),
72-4.
54 15-28.
1975," Journal of Retailing, (4), Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1982) "Consumer Response to In-Store Price
Rigaux-Bricmont, Benny (1982), "Influences of Brand Name and Information Environments," Journal of Consumer
on Perceived in Advances in Consumers Research, 8 (March), 357-69.
Packaging Quality,"
Research, Vol. 9, Andrew A. Mitchell, ed. (1983), "Conceptualizing and Measuring Consumer
Response to Price," in Advances in Consumer Research,
Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 472- Vol. 10, R. P. Bagozzi and A. M. Tybout, eds. Ann Ar-bor,
7. MI: Association for Consumer Research, 612-16.
Roedder-John, Deborah, Carol Scott, and James Bettman "The New and
(1985), Demographics Market Frag-
(1986), "Sampling Data for Covariation Assessment: The mentation," Journal of Marketing, 49 (Summer), 64-75.
Effect of Prior Beliefs on Search Patterns," Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 13 (1), 38-47. and Leonard Berry (1987), "The Time
Conscious-
ConsumerPerceptionsofPrice,Quality,andValue/ 21
 and Leonard Berry (1987), "The Time Conscious- and William L. Fuerst (1983), "Age Differences in
ness of Texas to Store Price
SupermarketShoppers," working paper, Response Grocery Information," Journal of
A&M University. Consumer Affairs, 17 (2), 403-20.

I--A M A MEMBER
S
What does being an American Marketing Association member mean to you?
H
The list goes on and on...

*A subscription
to Marketing
News (26 issues)
* A
copy
of the Marketing
Services Guide& AMA MembershipDirectory(600+ pages)
I
* A reducedrate for the Journalof
Research& Journalof
Marketing Marketing
* Insurance
Group Program
P
*
Discountson businesspublicationssuch as Fortune,Business Week,WorkingWoman, Forbes
* AcademicPlacementService
*
Access to the AMAinformationcenter-3,500 books, 90 periodicals,and a clippingfile of
currentliterature
* Conferences-at least 20 continuingeducation events are held annually
* Local chapterprograms& activities

...and on. Contact the AMAMembership Department and find out about joining one
in the
of the most prestigious organizations marketing world.
American Marketing Association
250 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 200
Chicago, IL60606
312/648-0536 AMERICAN
AMRKETING
ASOCIATION

22 Journalof 1988
/ Marketing,July