KINH TE VI MO MARKETTING HEHEHE

Different value scales developed by different value conceptualizations.
Author(s)

Product context

Hartline and
Jones (1996)

Hotel

No. of Scale
Items
1

Oh (1999)

Hotel

1

Sweeney et al.
(1999)

Appliances

2 for relative
price and 3
for value for
money

Cronin et al.

(2000)

Spectator sports;
Health care;
Participation
sports;
Long distance
carriers;
Entertainment;
Fast food.
4 Services:
dentist, auto
service restaurant,
and hairstylist

3 for
sacrifice, 2
for value

9-point;
Very low-very
high

1

7-point;
Strongly
disagree –
strongly agree

McDougall and
Levesque (2000)

Scale points
and anchors
5-point
Poor value excellent value
6-point
Much worse
than expectedmuch better than
expected
Scale type and
anchors unclear

Scale items, statements or question
Considering the time, effort, and money you spent while staying with us,
how would you rate the overall value provided by our hotel?
For your stay at XYZ hotel, please describe the overall value you received
for the price you paid

Relative price – Adapted from Conover (1986)
Considering the price of the product, would you say the price is very low
or very high compared to a (PRODUCT TYPE) with similar features?
Considering 1 as the least expensive (PRODUCT TYPE) with similar
features available and 7 as the most expensive (PRODUCT TYPE) with
similar features available, how would you rate the
(PRODUCT TYPE) you looked at/purchased?
Perceived value for money – Adapted from Dodds et al. (1991)
At the price shown this product is economical
This product is a good buy

I would consider buying this
Sacrifice
The price charge to use this facility is;
The time required to use this facility is;
The effort that I must make to receive the services offered is;
Service Value
Overall, the value of this facility’s services to me is…;
Compared to what I had to give up, the overall ability of this facility to
satisfy my wants and needs is…
The … offered good value for money


Lapierre (2000)

ICE (information,
communication,
entertainment)
distribution, and
finance

54 items - 10
benefit and 3
sacrifice
dimensions

7-point (anchors
unclear)

Alternative solutions - product related
The range of alternatives offered by the supplier

The supplier's capability to tailor their offerings to match your needs
The supplier's helpfulness in terms of assisting you in solving your
problems
Product quality - product related
The durability of products you buy
The reliability of the products you buy over the years
The performance of the products you buy
The consistent improvement in product quality over the years
Product customization - product related
The customization of products for your firm
The ability to meet unique specifications for products not offered by your
IT supplier's competitors
The supplier's ability to offer different products from (not similar to) many
of their customers
The ability to provide custom-built products for your firm
Responsiveness – service related
Provide quick answers and solutions to your problems
Listen to your problems
Visit your locations to better understand your business
Flexibility - service related
Their flexibility in responding to your requests
Their ability to adjust their products and services to meet unforeseen needs
The way they handle change
Their ability to provide emergency product and service deliveries
Reliability - service related
The accuracy and clarity of the billing
Their ability to do things right the first time
The overall competence of employees with whom you do not have faceto-face contact
Their ability to keep promises The accuracy of transactions
Technical competence - service related

Their creativity
Their specialized expertize in your activity sector


Their ability to demonstrate comprehensive process knowledge of your
business
The way they use new technology to generate solutions
Their ability to provide system solutions in response to your problems
Supplier’s image – relationship related
Its reputation
Its credibility
Trust – relationship related
Your confidence that the supplier is telling the truth, even when your
supplier gives you a rather unlikely explanation
The accuracy of the information provided by your major supplier
The supplier's fulfillment of promises made to your organization
The judgment or advice on your business operations that your supplier is
sharing with you
The sincerity of your supplier
Supplier solidarity with customers - relationship related
The help provided by your major supplier when you run into problems
The supplier's problems sharing that arise in the course of your
relationship with them
The supplier's commitment to improvements which may benefit your
overall relationship with them (not only of benefit for their own sakes)
The supplier's willingness to meet your needs beyond the contract terms
Price - product and service related
Most prices of the products and services you buy
Most prices you pay in relation to your major IT supplier's profitability
The impact of competition on the prices you pay

The justification of your major IT supplier in the prices they charge
The fairness of most prices you pay
Time/effort/energy - relationship related
The number of meetings with the supplier's staff
The bargaining effort with the supplier's staff in reaching an agreement
Your time and effort spent for training a number of your employees
Your time and effort spent in developing a working business relationship
with your major IT supplier
Your energy invested with your major IT supplier


Sweeney and
Soutar (2001)

Various consumer
products

19-item
PERVAL
developed to
assess
perceived
value of
consumer
durable
goods

7-point
Strongly
disagree–

strongly agree

Petrick (2002)
Furthered
Zeithaml
model into
SERVPERVAL

Services

25-item
SERVPERVAL
To measure
value of
services

5-point
Definitely
False-definitely
true

Also used by

Cruiselines

Conflict - relationship related
The frequent arguments you have with your supplier about business issues
The controversial arguments you have with your supplier
The disagreements you have with your supplier about how you can best
achieve your respective goals

Functional value (performance/quality)
has consistent quality
is well made
has an acceptable standard of quality
has poor workmanship
would not last a long time
would perform consistently
Emotional value
is one that I would enjoy
would make me want to use it
is one that I would feel relaxed about using
would make me feel good
would give me pleasure
Functional value (price/value for money)
is reasonably priced
offers value for money
is a good product for the price
would be economical
Social value (enhancement of social self-concept)
would help me to feel acceptable
would improve the way I am perceived
would make a good impression on other people
would give its owner social approval
Quality
Is outstanding quality
Is very reliable
Is very dependable
Is very consistent
Emotional response

Petrick
(2003)
Petrick (2004)

Petrick and
Backman
(2002)

Golf vacation

8- 1 for
overall, 4 for
transaction
and 3 for
acquisition
value

10-point
Extremely poor
value extremely good
value
5-point
Definitely
False-definitely
true

Makes me feel good
Gives me pleasure
Gives me a sense of joy

Makes me feel delighted
Gives me happiness
Monetary price
Is a good buy
Is worth the money
Is fairly priced
Is reasonably priced
Is economical
Appears to be a good bargain
Behavioral price
Is easy to buy
Required little energy to purchase
Is easy to shop for
Required little effort to buy
Is easily bought
Reputation
Has good reputation
Is well respected
Is well thought of
Has status
Is reputable
Overall value
Transaction value – Adapted from Grewal et al. (1998)
Taking advantage of the seasonal price deal on my golf vacation made me
feel good
I received a lot of pleasure knowing that I saved money with the reduced
seasonal price on my golf vacation.
Beyond the money saved, taking advantage of the seasonal price deal on
my golf vacation gave me a sense of joy.
I feel that I got my money’s worth for the money spent on my golf

vacation.
Acquisition value – Adapted from Grewal et al. (1998)


Al-Sabbahy et al.
(2004)
Adapted scale of
by Grewal et al.
(1998) to
hospitality
services

Hotels and
restaurants

1 semantic
differential, 2
Likert

7-point semantic
differential,
extremely bad
value-extremely
good value
7-point
Strongly
disagree–
strongly agree

Snoj et al. (2004)

Mobile phone

15

7-point (anchors
unclear)

Netemeyer et al.
(2004

Consumer
products and fast
food restaurants

4

7-point
Strongly
disagree –
strongly agree

I feel I received good quality for the price paid for my golf vacation.
After evaluating my golf vacation, I am confident that I received quality
for the price paid on my golf vacation.
I feel that the purchase of my golf vacation met both my high-quality and
low-price requirements.
Overall value
Respondents were asked to rate their evaluation of the overall value of the
hotel visit or meal experience on a semantic differential scale

Acquisition value
I received a good quality service for a reasonable price.
Considering the quality of the physical environment of the …. the price
was appropriate.
I valued this … as it met my needs at a reasonable price.
I got good value for the money I spent.
Given the features of the …. it was good value for money.
This … fulfilled both my high quality and low price requirements.
Compared to what I was willing to pay, the price I actually paid was good
value.
This …met my specific needs (e.g. comfortable accommodation,
convenient location) at a
reasonable price.
If I had …. in that … at a price lower than the price I paid, I would have
got my money’s worth
Transaction value
Reflecting on the price I paid, I feel that I got a good deal.
It added to my pleasure knowing that I got a good deal on the price.
3Beyond saving money, there was a good feeling attached to making a
good deal—as was the case here
Perceived prices (5 indicators), perceived risks (5 indicators) and
perceived values (5 indicators)
Items are not listed
What I get from (brand name) brand of (product) is worth the cost.
All things considered (price, time, and effort), (brand) brand of (product)
is a good buy.
Compared to other brands of (product), (brand name) is a good value for


Tam (2004)

Restaurants

7

7-point

Lin et al. (2005)

Website

5

7-point
Strongly
disagree –
strongly agree

Pura (2005)

Mobile service

17

7-point
Totally disagree
- totally agree

the money.
When I use a (brand name) brand of (product), I feel I am getting my

money’s worth.
Perceived Sacrifice
Perceived Sacrifice
Based on this service encounter, please rate on the following scales, the
time you perceive to have spent waiting to be served.
(7-point semantic differential; little time / a long time; lower than I
expected / higher than I
expected)
Please rate on the following scales, the price you perceive to have paid for
the service received at this encounter (including food, service, and
environment)?
(7-point semantic differential; cheap / expensive; reasonable /
unreasonable; lower than I expected / higher than I expected)
Perceived Value
Based on the service you received (including food, service, environment),
how did you perceive the price you paid?
Based on the service you received (including food, service, and
environment), how did you
perceive the time you spent waiting to be served?
(7-point semantic differential scale, not worthwhile at all / very
worthwhile)
Monetary sacrifice
You feel that the product (a good or a service) you purchased is expensive
You think you paid much money
Perceived value
Compared with the price you paid, this web site provides good eTail
service value
Compared with the tangible and intangible costs you paid, purchasing
from this web site is worthwhile
You think you are getting good value for the money you spent

Monetary value – Adapted from Chen and Dubinsky (2003), Dodds et al.
(1991) and Sweeney
and Soutar (2001)


The price of this mobile service is acceptable
This mobile service is good value for money
This mobile service is better value for money than what I would pay for
the same service
Convenience value – Adapted from Anderson and Srinivasan (2003) and
Mathwick, Malhotra
and Rigdon (2001)
I value the ease of using this mobile service
Using this mobile service is an efficient way to manage my time
I value the possibility to use this service instantly via my mobile device
(new)
I value the convenience of using this mobile service (new)
Social value – Adapted from Soutar and Sweeney (2003) and Sweeney
and Soutar (2001)
Using this mobile service helps me to feel accepted by others
Using this mobile service makes a good impression on other people
Using this mobile service gives me social approval
Emotional value – Adapted from Soutar and Sweeney (2003) and
Sweeney and Soutar (2001)
Using this mobile service gives me pleasure
Using this mobile service makes me feel good
Epistemic value – Adapted from Donthu and Garcia (1999)
I used this mobile service to experiment with new ways of doing things
I used this mobile service to test the new technologies (new)
I used this mobile service out of curiosity (new)

Conditional value (Created for this study)
I value the information this service offers, with the help of which I get
what I need in a certain situation (new)
I value the customized information according to my location, that I get by
using this location based mobile service (new)


Sanchez et al.
(2006)

Travel agency

Also tested by
Roig et al. (2006)
and by Moliner,
Sánchez,
Rodríguez, and
Callarisa (2007)
and by Moliner,
Sánchez,
Rodríguez, and
Callarisa (2007)

Banking services

Travel agencies
and tile sales
establishments

24-item

GLOVAL:
GLObal
purchase
perceived
VALue

5-point
agreement scale
(anchors
unclear)

Functional value of the travel agency (installations)
The distribution of the interior favored confidentiality and privacy
The establishment was neat and well organized
The installations were spacious, modern and clean
The establishment was well located (easily found, central and/or with
good transport links)

Functional value of the personnel of the travel agency
(professionalism)
They were good professionals and they were up-to-date about new items
and trends
They knew their job well
Their advice was valuable
They knew the tourism packages
Functional value of the tourism package (quality)
The tourism package purchased was well organized
The quality of the tourism package was maintained throughout
Relative to other tourism packages purchased it had an acceptable level of
quality

The result was as expected
Functional value (price)
It was a good purchase for the price paid
The tourism package purchased was reasonably priced
The price was the main criterion for the decision
Emotional value of the purchase
I am comfortable with the tourism package purchased
The personnel were always willing to satisfy my wishes as a customer,
whatever product I
wanted to buy
The personnel gave me a positive feeling


Lee et al. (2007)

Destination

15

5-point
Strongly
disagree–
strongly agree

Gartner et al.
(2007)
Later simplified
by Tasci
(2011)

Destination

4

7-point
Strongly
disagree–
strongly agree

I felt relaxed in the travel agency
The personnel didn’t pressure me to decide quickly
Social value of the purchase
Using its services has improved the way others perceive me
This tour operator’s tourism packages are used by many people that I
know
Taking the tourism package improved the way I am perceived by others
People who take that type of tourism packages obtain social approval
The choice of visiting … was a right decision
I obtained good results from visiting …
Overall, visiting … was valuable and worth it
… is a place where I want to travel
The value of visiting … was more than what I expected
Visiting … is a good quality tourism product
Compared to other tourism destinations, visiting … is a good value for the
money
… is a destination that I enjoy
Compared to travel expenses, I got reasonable quality from visiting …
While visiting … I received good service
Visiting … gave me pleasure
Visiting … is reasonably priced

After I visited …, my image of … was improved
Visiting … made me feel better
Visiting … was economical
A vacation in …is money well spent
A vacation in … is more of a hassle than a vacation
Later simpl’ified by Tasci (2011)
A vacation in … is very inexpensive
A vacation in … is good value for money
Tasci’s (2011) modifications
A vacation in … is…
Money well spent
Too far from home
More of a hassle than a vacation
Very inexpensive


Chen (2008)

Airline

2

Ryu et al. (2008)

Restaurant

3

Boo et al. (2009)

Gambling
destinations: Las
Vegas and
Atlantic City

5

Hu et al. (2009)

Hotel

4

Hutchinson et al.
(2009)

Golf destination

3

Kuo et al. (2009)

Telecom company

3

7-point
Extremely
disagreeextremely
agree

Scale point
unclear
Strongly
disagree–
strongly agree
7-point
Strongly
disagree –
strongly agree

7-point (anchors
unclear)
7-point (anchors
unclear)
5-point
Strongly
disagree–
strongly agree

Good value for money
Considering the ticket price I pay for the airline, I believe that the airline
offers sufficient services
The ticket price of this airline is reasonable
The restaurant offered good value for the price
The overall value of dining at the restaurant was high
The dining experience was worth the money
This destination has reasonable prices - Adopted from Ambler et al.
(2002), Sweeney and Soutar (2001)
Considering what I would pay for a trip, I will get much more than my
money’s worth by

visiting this destination – Adopted from Lassar et al.(1995), Dodds et al.
(1991)
The costs of visiting this destination are a bargain relative to the benefits I
receive – Adopted from Lassar et al. (1995), Dodds et al. (1991)
Visiting this destination is economical
Visiting this destination is a good deal
three items were adapted from Cronin et al. (2000), and an additional item
developed; items are not listed
Received reasonable service quality
Paid a reasonable price
Received a superior net value
I feel I am getting good mobile value-added services for a reasonable price
(borrowed from Cronin et al., 2000)
Using the value-added services provided by this telecom company is
worth for me to sacrifice some time and efforts (borrowed from Tung,
2004)
Compared with other telecom companies, it is wise to choose this telecom
company (borrowed from Wang et al., 2004)