article sacrifice (igss)
Post on 30-May-2018
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
1/24
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON THE CONCEPT AND
MEASUREMENT OF PERCEIVED SACRIFICE
Md. Humayun Kabir Chowdhury
ABSTRACT
How do consumers cope with the decisions they must make, some of which involve
difficult tradeoffs? In general, it has been argued that the decision making process
significantly depends on the value perceptions that results from the cognitive tradeoff
between perception of quality and sacrifice. Perceived sacrifice is defined as: consumers
perceptions of the degree of pain originated to acquire the product from the amount of
money paid, and the time and labor spent. In this study, a measurement system for
perceived sacrifice and its components is developed for electronic product class. A total of
five items were generated. The scale met standards for the measurement of reliability and
validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess the validity whether the scale
is an appropriate operational definition of the construct. The paper concludes with a
discussion of the limitations of this study.
INTRODUCTION
It has been argued that perception of value results from the cognitive tradeoff
between perceptions of quality and sacrifice. Cox (1962) was one of the first
investigators to develop a model of the consumer product evaluation process where he
hypothesized that consumers tend to evaluate cues on two dimensions: predictive
value and confidence value. Predictive value reflected the probability that the cue was
associated with an attribute of the product. Confidence value reflected the certainty
that the consumer felt about his ability to interpret and use that cue. Since then,
1
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
2/24
several researchers have tested models of consumers perceptions of value with regard
to using several different types of cues. In the past couple of decades a large number of
articles, perhaps more than any other cues, conveyed evidence of price as the indicator
of quality and perception of value (Curry and Riesz 1988; Dodds and Monroe 1985;
Grewal et al. 1998; Monroe and Krishnan 1985; Monroe 1976; Shimp and Bearden 1982;
Szylillo and Jacoby 1974; Wheatley and Chiu 1977). It has been argued that price is
what is given up or sacrificed to obtain a product.1 The role of price has been studied in
economics as a demand/supply equilibrium, monopoly, duopoly, and oligopoly;
psychology as an information cue; and marketing as discounting, penetrating and/or
skimming with other different perspectives. However, recent price models acknowledge
that monetary price is not the only sacrifice made by consumers to acquire a product2 .
Time costs, search costs, and physic costs all enter either explicitly or implicitly into the
consumers perception of sacrifice. To some consumers, the monetary sacrifice is
pivotal: some buyers will invest hours traveling to different stores to obtain the best
bargains. To these consumers, anything that reduces the monetary sacrifice will
increase the perceived value of the product. Less price-conscious consumers will find
value even at the expense of higher costs because time and effort are perceived asmore costly. Many consumers, especially working people in the first world, consider
time an important commodity (Aoki 1994; Bearden and Shimp 1982; Dodds, Monroe,
and Grewal 1991; Zeithaml 1988). Therefore, monetary sacrifice is not the only
sacrifice, as operationalized in most of the previous research, consumers usually incur
to acquire a product.
How do consumers cope with the decisions they must make, some of which
involve difficult trade-offs? Information-processing approach to the study of consumer
choice has argued that rational choice theory3 is incomplete and/or flawed as an
approach for understanding how consumers actually make decisions (Bettman, Luce,
2
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
3/24
and Payne 1998). The sequential model, as described by Peter and Olson (1993), shows
that product adoption or purchase can be seen as a sequence of behavior, from
prepurchase to purchase and then postpurchase. A common early stage in the
purchase occurs when consumers come into contact with information about products,
stores, or brands. This stage includes behaviors such as reading or observing
newspapers, magazines; listening to radio commercials, watching TV commercials; and
talking to sales persons and friends. Thus, consumers start sacrificing when they start
contacting information, then they gradually proceed to collecting fund, contacting
suitable store, getting contact with products, acquire the product in exchange of
money, and last of all make the consumption. Here, it seems that the stage acquiring
the product in exchange of money directly related to the sacrifice that consumers
make in a purchase. But, a careful look on all the stages reveals that other stages also
require time and energy. These are also the sacrifice that consumers are employing in
order to obtain a product. Previous studies only have considered perceived sacrifice in
the equal meaning of monetary sacrifice in operationalyzing the construct. However, as
long as the sacrifice is concerned, research should incorporate sacrifices made with
regard to time, effort and search in addition to price consumers employ in a deal. Thus,
perceived sacrifice based on the above discussion is defined in this study as:
Consumers perception of the degree of pain originated to acquire the product from the
amount of money paid, and the time and labor spent4
BACKGROUND
Zeithaml (1988) specified a model in which she defined the relationships of
perceived sacrifice, perceived quality and perceived value based on an exploratory
study and other conceptual work from the literature. She argued that there is a
remarkable gap between actual price and perceived price, making it important to
3
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
4/24
understand how consumers encode prices of products. Nonmonetary costs- such as
time and effort- must be acknowledged. Anything that can be built into products to
reduce time, effort, and search costs can reduce perceived sacrifice and thereby
increase perception of value. To differentiate between proposed relationships and
empirically supported relationships, discussion of each proposition is divided into two
parts. First, propositions are developed on the basis of the qualitative data from an
exploratory study and other conceptual work from the literature. Second, for each
proposition, empirical evidence that supports and reflects the proposition is reviewed.
Finally, Zeithaml concluded that research on how consumers evaluate product
alternatives should be expanded beyond the price-perceived quality relationship.
Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991) proposed a model in which they afford that
(a) perceived quality and perceived sacrifice are the antecedents of perceived value,
i.e., consumers perceptions of value are based on a trade-off between product quality
and monetary sacrifice; and, (b) brand name, store name, and price are the
antecedents of perceived quality and perceived sacrifice, i.e., consumers perceptions
of product quality and monetary sacrifice can be based on extrinsic cues, such as price,
brand, and store name. Dodds et al. tested direct and indirect relationships between
three extrinsic product cues and two evaluative variables suggesting that price, brand
name, and store name are associated with quality and value perceptions. The design of
the experiment allowed analysis of the relative differential impacts of price, brand
name, and store name on the three dependent variables. They found that when price
was the only extrinsic cue available, the subjects clearly perceived quality to be related
positively to price. When other extrinsic information was present, the results were less
persuasive. Finally, they argued and presented the conceptual basis for: (1) isolating
the theoretical reasons for when buyers use price, brand, store, or intrinsic product
information as indicators of quality, (2) determining how quality perceptions influence
4
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
5/24
value perceptions, purchase intentions, and product choice, and (3) how monetary and
non-monetary perceived sacrifices influence value perceptions, purchase intentions,
and choice.
Teas and Agarwal (2000) tested a model in which perceived quality and
perceived sacrifice mediate linkages between (a) brand name, store name, and price
and (b) consumers perceptions of value. They used two 5-point items (strongly
disagree/strongly agree) to measure perceived sacrifice. Description of the items were:
(1) If I purchased the (watch/calculator) for the indicated price, I would not be able to
purchase some other products I would like to purchase now; and (2) If I purchased the
(watch/calculator) for the indicated price, I would have to reduce the amount of money I
spend on other thinks for a while. Teas and Agarwal (2000) extended the Dodds et al.
(1991) study by examining linkages specified but not tested in the Dodds et al (1991)
study (i.e., linkages involving perceived sacrifice) and by examining the degree to
which perceived quality and sacrifice mediate the relationships between the extrinsic
cues and perceived value. In their model, country name was specified as an extrinsic
cue and as a moderator variable. Their empirical results demonstrate that price, brand
name, and store name are associated with quality and value perceptions. Their study
results revealed that price continues to be a significant quality cue in the presence of
other extrinsic quality cues. The country of origin cue was found to have a significant
main effect on the perceived quality but failed to find support on effects of country of
origin as a moderator variable.
Therefore, to get a clear perspective on the role of perceived sacrifice in
consumer value assessment research, studies are required to incorporate multifaceted
conceptual and operational definitions of perceived sacrifice5 . Based on the previous
conceptual studies, two dimensions of perceived sacrifice can be offered (see Table 1).
5
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
6/24
THE PROBLEM
As aforementioned, Zeithaml (1988) developed propositions of the related
constructs on the basis of the conceptual work and qualitative data from an explorative
study. Primarily, she obtained evidence from the past research and then made
justification by collecting data on open-ended questions from company, focus group,
and in-depth consumer interviews. The questions pertained to issues such as company
knowledge about quality and value perceptions of consumers, ways the company
determined those perceptions, and how quality and value were communicated to
consumers. Although the model developed our knowledge about producers value
judgment and consumers value perceptions, still the study contains certain caveats
because of its non-experimental nature. Specifically, Zeithamls study failed to establish
the relationship between give and get components of the model. Moreover, her
exploratory study results merely confirm the causal relationships, determinants and
existence of non-monetary sacrifice in the model.
Dodds et al. (1991) incorporated perceived sacrifice in their model. In
describing their model they argued that price can be an indicator of the amount of
sacrifice need to purchase a product. Higher prices represent a monetary measure of
what must be sacrificed to purchase the good, leading to a reduced value.
Consequently, perception of value is a cognitive tradeoff between perception of quality
and perception of sacrifice. However, they specified theoretical explanations and
predictions of why and how monetary sacrifice influences consumer perceptions of
value but surprisingly neither they included non-monetary sacrifice in their model nor
operationalized the monetary sacrifice during the experiment.
The only study in this sphere that operationalized perceived sacrifice in the
experiment is the article by Teas and Agarwal (2000). The concept of sacrifice was
operationalized as a measure of monetary sacrifice. For the internal validity purpose,
6
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
7/24
they measured perceived sacrifice from a budget constraint perspective. This measure
allowed them to assess the possibility that the perception of sacrifice will vary
depending on an individuals financial situation. Thus, they used two items to tap the
monetary sacrifice construct. Although the theoretical explanations provided in their
study are quite insightful, they also did not consider all facets of this construct.
Therefore, to date, no study has appeared that test and validate an all-
inclusive theory of perceived sacrifice construct. To test the adequacy of the theory and
operationalizing the construct, measures of the construct were needed.
METHODOLOGY
Measures with regard to monetary sacrifice of this study will be the same as
measure scales used in the research by Teas and Agarwal (2000). Sacrifice, other than
monetary those are related to time and effort will be constructed for this study (see
Table 2). The test was performed with a total of 103 students from the Faculty of
Business Administration at YNU with a prior permission of the Professor. Data collected
on three products, computer, TV, and camera because of their familiarity to student
respondents. Because perceived sacrifice requires experience of purchasing similar
products, students were first asked if they ever bought products from that category. All
the students received questionnaire but who did not have experience of buying the
product were requested to refrain from answering. Respondents were then instructed to
express their perception of sacrifice. The questionnaire took about 5 minutes to answer.
Two third of the total sample was males and one third was females. Around 11% of the
respondents were non-business majors. Respondents of business majors were deemed
likely to have been exposed to the concepts considered in this study. The probability
that the students could have anticipated hypothesis being tested, conceivably
producing biased results for the study. To confirm that such bias did not occur, an
7
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
8/24
ANOVA was conducted in which responses of all business majors were compared to the
combined responses of non-business majors representing in the sample. However,
neither of the mean differences was deemed large enough to produce any bias in the
overall results of the study. Henceforth, it was concluded that no bias was introduced
into the study.
In a theoretical study, Abe (1987)6 deliberately explained various
measurement aspects to tap the validity of a construct. In an international consumer
research setting, Abe (1993)7 mentioned the importance of concept development,
concept operationalization, measure equivalence, and data analysis. Thus, measures of
the study were developed considering the theoretical explanations provided by Abe
(1987, 1993). Procedurally, reliability of the scales was assessed first and when the
reliability of the measures had been established, a structural model was tested. In
doing so, the steps taken to develop the measures were:
Step 1. Internal scale reliability
Step 2. Empirical Analysis of the facets
Step 3. Criterion-related validity and convergent validity
Step 4. Construct Validity by confirmatory factor analysis
INTERNAL SCALE RELIABILITY
A total of five items were generated. First two of these questions about
monetary sacrifice were borrowed from the article of Teas and Agarwal (2000) and the
rest about non-monetary sacrifice were constructed for this study. Because perceived
sacrifice is hypothesized to possess two dimensions (monetary and non-monetary),
reliability was first checked for each dimension. Alpha values were .7870 for monetary
sacrifice items, .8903 for non-monetary items, and .7803 when all the items were
brought into the analysis (see Table 3).
8
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
9/24
As can be seen in the Table that the alpha values indicate good internal
consistency among items within each dimension (Cronbach 1951). Furthermore, the
combined reliability for the 5-item scale was quite high8 . Therefore, the 5-item scale
was considered to be ready for further testing.
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FACETS
Construct validity measures whether a scale is an appropriate operational
definition of an abstract variable, or a construct. Conducting a factor analysis on a
single summated scale will show whether all items within the summated scale load on
the same construct, or whether the summated scale actually measures more than one
construct (Churchill 1979; 1994). Factor analysis is helpful in identifying tentative
dimensions, as well as suggesting items for deletion and places where items should be
added. A factor analysis using the principal component method can be used to identify
and measure the intensity of the common element. The researcher can specify both the
number of dimensions in the construct and the specific items or scales that are
hypothesized to load on those dimensions a priori.
Factor analysis was performed on these 5 items. A principal components factor
analysis using a varimax with Kaiser normalization technique generated 2 dimensions
with clear factor patterns. All the items for the same dimension loaded high on the
respective factor and low on the others (see Table 4).
CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY AND CONVERGENT VALIDITY
Criterion-related validity investigates the empirical relationship between the
scores on a test instrument (predictor) and an objective outcome (the criterion). The
most commonly used measure of criterion-related validity is a validity coefficient, which
is the correlation between predictor and criterion scores. An item was constructed
9
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
10/24
during the questionnaire administration that measured overall perceived sacrifice
served as criterion variable. The item was used to check criterion-related validity by
correlating average scores of all the perceived sacrifice measure items with scores for
the item assessing overall perception of sacrifice (Parasumaman et al. 1988;
Zeichkowsky 1985). Correlation between average scores of all the items and perceived
overall sacrifice was .79 (significant at the 0.01 level). A reasonably high value of the
correlation between average scores of all the items and perceived overall sacrifice
indicates the possession of criterion-related validity of the scale items.
The scales validity was also determined empirically by examining its
convergent validity as advocated by Parasuraman et al. (1988). A one-way ANOVA was
performed with ratings of the overall sacrifice measure as treatment variable and the
average values of the 5-items as the dependent variable. More specifically, the
treatment variable was obtained by constructing an item that measured respondents
overall perceived sacrifice to buy the product. Respondents rated overall perceived
sacrifice by checking one of seven categories extremely likely to-----not likely at all.
Duncans Multiple Range Test revealed significant differences between groups.
Duncans Multiple Range Test revealed differences between groups although all the
groups were not significantly different from each other. Each mean was different from
those of the others (see Table 5). This confirms the convergent validity of the items was
distinguished between different levels of perceived value.
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY BY CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
According to Churchill (1979),A fundamental principle in science is that any
particular construct or trait should be measurable by at least two, and preferably more,
different methods. Otherwise the researcher has no way of knowing whether the trait is
anything but an artifact of the measurement procedure (pp. 70). The results of any
10
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
11/24
single analysis are always less than perfectly dependable. The problem is especially
pernicious because the results of a single factor analysis usually look plausible. But
plausibility is no guarantee of validity or even stability (Wells and Sheth 1971). Thus,
Confirmatory Factor Analysis using Amos 4.0 was performed to determine the construct
validity (see Figure 1). If the five-items included in the instrument measure the two
distinct dimensions identified in the previous sections, then the survey data should
produce results that conform to the model.
Measurement Model and Analysis:
The two dimensions identified in Figure 1 are not directly observable; they are
theoretical constructs called common factors. The model supposes the first two items
(Item 1 and Item 2) depend on the unobserved variable called monetary sacrifice. In
addition, the rest of the items (Item 3, Item 4, and Item 5) depend on the other variable
called non-monetary sacrifice. Err 1 through Err 5 are unique factors those represent
any and all influences on the variables that are not shown elsewhere in the path
diagram. The path coefficients leading from the common factors to the observed
variables are often called factor loadings. In the confirmatory factor analysis, the fit of
actual data to the theoretical model is computed by constructing a covariance matrix 9
If the data fit the model, confirmatory factor analysis can supply estimates of the factor
loadings, the correlations among the factors, and the variances of the observed items.
Chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic is commonly used to measure the fit of the
proposed models. It is computed under the null hypothesis that the observed
covariances among the answers came from a population that fits the model. A
statistically significant value in the goodness-of-fit test would suggest that the data do
not fit the proposed model.
11
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
12/24
Results of the Analysis:
As the Chi-square value (7.125, p = .129) shown at the upper right corner of
the figure, the model fits the data reasonably well. The squared multiple correlations
can be interpreted based on the variance explained with regard to the specific items.
Bagozzi and Yi (1988) suggest that variance extracted should be greater than or equal
to .50. 70%, 61%, 57%, 77%, and 89% of the variance of the items respectively are
accounted for by the variance in the common factors (Monetary and Non-monetary).
The remaining percentage of the variance cannot be explained by this model and are
attributed to the unique factors (Err 1 through Err 5). In this model, Item 2 and Item 3
for accounting low variance should be regarded as a lower-bound estimate of the
reliability (Anderson 1987). However, Factor weights (.84, .78, .76, .88, and .95) of all
the items to explain the latent variables are quite satisfactory.
SUMMERY AND LIMITATIONS
In fact, the construct perceived sacrifice is difficult to define and measure
because of its indistinct characteristics. Sometimes we wish to go for having our dinner
to a distant place but sometimes not, sometimes we spend 2000 yen for our dinner but
sometimes that seems very costly. The purpose of this study was to clarify perceived
sacrifice based on its monetary and non-monetary dimensions and to create a reliable
and valid measure for the facets of perceived sacrifice. Scale items were developed
based on Teas and Agarwal (2000) and other literature. Internal scale reliability was
obtained to check the internal consistency of the items, Criterion-related validity of the
scale were checked to investigate the empirical relationship between the scores on the
predictor and the criterion and convergent validity to see the extent to which the score
converged with other methods designed to measure the same construct. Finally,
validity was assessed whether the scale is an appropriate operational definition of the
12
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
13/24
construct. From the data analysis, we conclude that the perceived sacrifice profile
should have two distinct facets.
Scale items those measured monetary sacrifice were borrowed from Teas and
Agarwal (2000) and the items those measured non-monetary sacrifice were constructed
based on published discussions of perceived sacrifice (Dodds et al. 1991; Monroe and
Chapman 1987; Teas and Agarwal 2000; Zeithaml 1988). Therefore, missing from the
scale development is the test of content validity. However, one of the purposes of this
study was to see empirically the construct that could lead to evolving knowledge and a
sophisticated understanding of its contents. Henceforth, the content validity of the
construct might be improved over time by further theory building and theory
verification. However, the findings are based on a limited set of brands and hence
generalization beyond that set should be made with caution. Furthermore, animportant limitation lies on the student sample that has been used in this study. Some
scholars have generally cited threats to external validity as their primary concern,
arguing that students are atypical of the general population, and that any findings
based on student samples may therefore not be generalizable to other populations.
However, some scholars disagree on this issue arguing that this situation is particularly
desirable when researchers are engaged in theory testing, or are testing specific
theoretical predictions (Oakes1972). All that is required is that the sample be chosen to
allow a test of the theoretical predictions under consideration. Because the primary
focus of this study was a theory test and not effects generalization, considerations of
internal validity were paramount and a student sample was appropriate (Calder et al.
1982; Cook and Campbell 1975). Concerns about external validity were secondary.
Further research is needed to develop formalized theory of perceived sacrifice
and examine the construct validity based on the theory developed. In the current study,
two dimensions of perceived sacrifice have been considered and found significant
13
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
14/24
results. However, content validity is specially required to measure the actual
dimensionality of the construct. It might be that the construct is three or more
dimensional instead of two. The dimensions might be different in different product
categories.
14
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
15/24
Table 1
Perceived Sacrifice Dimensions
Dimensions Definitions Examples
Monetary
Sacrifice
Non-
monetary
Sacrifice
Sacrifice to obtain a product that reduces
consumers wealth
Sacrifice to obtain a product that is not
directly related to money but valued
equivalently by the consumer
Currency like Yen,
Dollar, Mark, etc.
Time Costs, Search
costs, Psychic costs,
etc.
Table 2
Description of the Item Scale
1.
2.
Monetary Sacrifice:
If I purchased the product, I would not be able to purchase some other
products I would like to purchase now.
If I purchased the product, I would have to reduce the amount of money I
spend on other things for a while.
15
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
16/24
3.
4.
5.
Non-monetary Sacrifice:
If I purchased the product, I would need to make an extra effort in the
beginning to learn about the product that would have to reduce my energy I
could employ on other tasks.
If I purchased the product, I would have to compare different alternatives of
the product at more than one store before the deal that would have to reduce
the effort that I could use for other businesses.
If I purchased the product, I would have to search for the better product that
would have caused the reduction of my time I could use for other purposes.
Table 3
Reliability Coefficients of Perceived Sacrifice Measures
Dimension Cronbach
Alpha
Items
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
16
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
17/24
Monetary
Sacrifice
Non-monetary
Sacrifice
Perceived
Total Sacrifice
.7870
.8903
.7803
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Item 5
All Items
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
.6550
.6550
.7152
.8003
.8540
.4005
.4028
.6552
.6538
.6821
n/a
n/a
.9027
.8349
.7901
.7897
.7842
.7045
.7033
.6974
Table 4
Principal Component Factor Analysis Results
of the 5 Perceived Sacrifice Measure Items
Factor 1 Factor 2 Extractio
n
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Item 5
.126
.107
.844
.915
.940
.896
.907
.193
.029
.027
.819
.834
.750
.845
.888
17
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
18/24
The principal component factor analysis results show that all the 5 items loaded on 2 factors
Table 5
Duncans Multiple Range Test
Based on the Item Overall Perceived Sacrifice
TOTSAC
N Subset for alpha = .051 2 3 4 5
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Sig
9
11
27
8
33
7
8
1.7143
2.6750
.061
2.6750
3.5000
.105
3.5000
4.2857
4.3273
. 124
4.2857
4.3273
5.1500
. 108
5.1500
5.7000
.276
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. The group sizes are
unequal.
The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used.
.
18
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
19/24
NOTES
19
MonetarySacrifice
Nonmenetary
Sacrifice
.70
Item1
.61
Item2
.57
Item3
.77
Item4
.89
Item5
.84
.95
.26
Figure 1
Chi-square = 7.125 (4 df)p = .129
a) Latent variables are circled and operationalizations of those latent variables are within
b) Degrees of Freedom = ( Number of Distinct sample moments - Number of distinctparameters to be estimated)
.88
.76
.78
Err 1
Err 2
Err 3
Err 4
Err 5
Standardized Estimates ofthe Confirmatory Factor Analysis
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
20/24
REFERENCES
Abe Shuzo (1987), Construct Validity and LISREL, in Marketing Theory and
Measurement, Okuda Kazuhiro and Abe Shuzo ed. Chuo Keizai Sha 27-46
Abe Shuzo (1993), Methodological Problems in Cross-cultural Consumer Research,
Yokohama Keiei Kenkyu, 13, No. 4, 31-44
Anderson, James C. (1987), An Approach for Confirmatory Measurement and Structural
Equation Modeling of Organizational Properties, Management Science, 33(4),
525-41
Aoki, Michiyo (1994), Evaluation of Green Products- The Process of Recognizing
Information and Forming Qualitative Judgments. Asia Pacific Advances in
Consumer Research, 1, pp. 36-42
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), On the Evaluation of Structural Equation
Models,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (Spring), 74-94
Bearden, William O. and Terence A. Shimp (1982), The Use of Extrinsic Cues to
Facilitate Product Adoption,Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (May): 229-239
Bettman, James R., Mary F. Luce, and John W. Payne (1998), Constructive Consumer
Choice Process,Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 187-217
Calder, J. Bobby, Lynn W. Philips and Alice M. Tybout (1982), The Concept of External
Validity,Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 240-243
Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs.Journal of Marketing Research, 16: (February), 64-73.
Churchill, Gilbert A. (1994), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 6th ed.,
The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace College Publishers
Cook, T. and D. Campbell (1975), The Design and Conduct of Experiments and Quasi-
Experiments in Field Setings, in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Research, Martin Dunette, ed., Chicago, Rand McNally
20
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
21/24
Cox, D.F. (1962), The Measurement of Information Value: A Study in Consumer
Decision-Making. in Emerging Concepts in Marketing, ed. W.S. Decker, Chicago:
American Marketing Association, pp. 413-421
Cronbach, Lee J. (1951), Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,
Psychometrika, 16 (October), 297-334
Curry, David J. and Peter C. Riesz (1988), Prices and Price/Quality Relationships: A
Longitudinal Analysis,Journal of Marketing, 52 (January), 36-51
Dodds, William B. and Kent B. Monroe (1985), The Effect of Brand and Price
Information on Subjective Product Evaluation. in Advances in Consumer
Research, 12, Elizabeth Hirschman and Morris Holbrook, eds. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 85-90
Dodds, William B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal (1991), Effects of Price, Brand,
and Store Information on Buyers Product Evaluation. Journal of Marketing
Research 28 (August): 307-319
Grewal, Dhruv, Kent B. Monroe, and R. Krishnan (1998), The Effects of Price-
Comparison Advertising on Buyers Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction
Value, and Behavioral Intentions,Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 46-59
Jacoby, Jacob and Jerry C. Olson (1977), Consumer Response to price: An Attitudinal
Information Processing Perspective, in Moving Ahead in Attitude Research,
Yoram Wind and Marshall Greenberg, eds. Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association, 73-86
Monroe, Kent B. (1976), The Influence of Price Differences and Brand Familiarity on
Brand Preferences.Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (June), 42-9
Monroe, Kent B. and Joseph D. Chapman (1987), Framing Effects on Buyers Subjective
Product Evaluations,Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 193-197
Monroe, Kent B. and R. Krishnan (1985), The Effect of Price on Subjective Product
21
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
22/24
Evaluations, in Perceived Quality, J. Jacoby and J. Olson, eds. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books, 209-32
Oakes, W. (1972), External Validity and the Use of Real People as Subjects, Americal
Psychologist, 27, 959-962
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, & Leonard L. Barry (1988), SERVQUAL: A
Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,
Journal of Retailing, 64: 12-40
Peter J. Paul and Jerry C. Olson (1993), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 3rd
ed., Irwin Inc.
Peterson, Robert A. (1994), A Meta-analysis of Cronbachs Coefficient Alpha,Journal of
Consumer Research, 21 (September), 381-391
Shimp, Terence A. and William O. Bearden (1982), Warranty and Other Extrinsic Cue
Effects on Consumers Risk Perceptions, Journal of Consumer Research, 9
(June): 38-46
Stewart, David W. (2001), Exploratory versus Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 10 (1 and 2), 75-82.
Szylillo, George J. and Jacob Jacoby (1974), Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Cues as
Determinants of Perceived Product Quality, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59
(1), 74-78
Teas, R. Kenneth and Sanjeev Agarwal (2000), The Efeects of Extrinsic Product Cues on
Consumers Perceptions of Quality, Sacrifice, and Value,Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 28 (2): 278-290
Wheatley, John J. and John S. Y. Chiu (1977), The Effects of Price, Store Image, and
Product and Respondent Characteristics on Perceptions of Quality, Journal of
Marketing Research, 14 (May): 181-186
Wells, William D. and Jagdish N. Sheth (1971), Factor Analysis in Marketing Research,
22
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
23/24
in Multivariate Analysis in Marketing: Theory and Application, David A. Aaker,
eds., Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Belmont, California 94002
Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1985), Measuring the Involvement Construct, Journal of
Consumer Research, 12 (December): 341-352
Zeithaml A. Valarie (1988), Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A
Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 2-
22
23
-
8/14/2019 Article Sacrifice (IGSS)
24/24
This paper was presented at the 23rd Japan Association for Consumer Studies (JACS) Conference,Oct. 2001. The author would like to thank Professor Shuzo Abe for valuable comments on thispaper. However, all errors are the responsibility of the author.
1 ) Price has both objective external properties and subjective internal representations that arederived from the perceptions of price, thus resulting in some meaning to consumers (Jacoby andOlson 1977)
2 ) Convenience, freshness, and time are major higher-level abstractions that combine with priceand quality to produce value perceptions in supermarket consumers.
3 ) Rational choice theory assumes that decision makers possess well-defined preferences that donot depend on particular descriptions of the options or on the specific methods used to elicitthose preferences. Each option in a choice set is assumed to have a utility, or subjective value,which depends on the option.
4 ) Despite the consistency in the main focus of this definition with the previous literature, itincludes all the facets of the construct.
5 ) Marketers are much better served with multidimensional with multi-item than unidimensionaland single item measures of their constructs, and they should take the time to develop them.
This is particularly true for those investigating behavioral relationships from a fundamental aswell as applied perspective, although it applies also to marketing practitioners (Churchill 1979).
6 ) The book (written in Japanese) contains the procedures that should be followed in validatingconstructs and testing construct validity using LISREL.
7 ) The article is about methodological problems in cross-cultural consumer research (in Japanese).
8 ) In the findings of a meta-analysis, Peterson (1994) mentioned, Across 4286 alpha coefficients,1030 samples, and 832 studies investigated, the mean coefficient alpha was .77. Seventy-fivepercent of the observed alpha coefficients were .70 or grater.
9 ) Confirmatory factor analysis is based on the correlation matrix when the data are standardized.
top related