Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 21 (2014) 391 – 396

24th CIRP Design Conference

Quantitative Analysis of the Consumer Perceived Value Deviation

Payam Aminia*, Björn Falka, Robert Schmitta
Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering (WZL), RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-241-80 26949; fax: +49-241-80 22193. E-mail address: p.amini@wzl.rwth-aachen.de

Abstract

Consumers perceive the value of durable goods in the consumption process at two different points of time. The perceived value based on first
impressions influences their buying behavior. In the subsequent utilization phase consumers form a new value judgment that affects the
repurchase behavior. Conversely, the survey methods to represent the pre-purchase and post-purchase value judgment are not sufficiently
discussed in the literature. Especially, there is a need to investigate by which elements the perceived value is described. In this sense, a survey
instrument was developed that can be used at both time points to asses the deviation of pre-purchase and post-purchase value judgments. A
structural equation model has been compiled and was checked for validity and reliability. The use of statistical methods allows revealing
significant differences between the two product values. The results have implications for the design of products and the development process.
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of “24th CIRP Design Conference” in the person of
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
the Conference
Selection Chairs Giovanni
and peer-review Moroni and Tullio
under responsibility of the Tolio.
International Scientific Committee of “24th CIRP Design Conference” in the person of the
Conference Chairs Giovanni Moroni and Tullio Tolio
Keywords: perceived quality; product value judgment; perceived value

1. Introduction perception is influenced by the experience already gained with

1.1. Motivation
Consumers perceive the value of durable goods in the
consumption process at two different points of time. First,
they form a judgment about the value of a product
immediately before purchasing, which decides on the choice
of a particular product from a set of similar products. In the
subsequent utilization phase consumers refine their value
judgment that affects the repurchase behavior. At both points
of time, the perceived quality of the product has a decisive
influence on the perceived product value, which is influenced
by the sum of product quality characteristics [1, 2]. The reason
for the individual perceptions of the same product is mainly
due to the different preferences at different points of the
purchasing process [3]. Before purchasing a product, the
Consumer Perceived Value (CPV) is determined by factors
including the choice of alternatives: "Purchase means
choosing" [4]. In dealing with alternatives, strengths or
weaknesses of the product compared to similar products have
an impact on the CPV [5]. In addition, the consumers’
similar products [6]. After purchase or during the utilization
phase the CPV of the selected product changes. In the
utilization phase, consumers evaluate the gained experiences.
Furthermore, consumers notice new product characteristics
that they could not assess or evaluate sufficiently before
purchasing. An example of such a product characteristic is the
comfort or the reliability of a product over a longer period.
After purchase, consumers asses the product more emotionally
than before purchase [7]. Companies need to understand the
assessment and the reasons of the CPV deviation. Thereby,
companies can try to improve the CPV through performance
leadership and accepted high costs. Thereafter they strive to
reduce costs keeping the high product value, for example by
standardization. Alternatively, companies can initially attempt
to reduce costs accepting a low CPV through cost leadership.
Only then, the aim is to increase the CPV by differentiation in
for example perceived quality, keeping the low costs. The
analysis of the CPV deviation enables companies to focus on
the concerned product elements during the product
development. Therefore, the active influence of the CPVs
contributes to an efficient implementation of an integrated and

2212-8271 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of “24th CIRP Design Conference” in the person of the
Conference Chairs Giovanni Moroni and Tullio Tolio
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.02.059
392 Payam Amini et al. / Procedia CIRP 21 (2014) 391 – 396
user-oriented product development. In recent publications pre-
purchase and post-purchase product value are considered only
separately [8, 9]. To determine the CPV of durable goods, an
appropriate assessment tool is necessary, which can be used at
both points of time to determine the systematic deviation of
pre-purchase and post-purchase value judgments.
1.2. Mechanisms to increase the consumer perceived value
To understand and to be able to predict consumers’ choices
it must be known how they perceive products. One stated
hypothesis is that consumers perceive products as bundles of
quality attributes with connected attribute performances [4].
On the one hand, the benefits of an attribute result from the
degree to which it is assessed as useful for the satisfaction of
needs and on the other hand, whether the product-specific,
perceived attribute performance has a perceptible difference
in benefits compared to alternative products [10, 11]. The
product value can be increased by two mechanisms: either by
reducing the cost to the consumer or just by an increase in
product deliverables, so the benefits [12]. However, it must be
ensured that this value is also perceived as such by the
consumer [12], which means, the manufacturer must have an
idea of the product value from the consumer’s perspective. To
design a general instrument for measuring the value of the
product before and after the purchase, the trade-off between
benefits and costs, as shown in Fig. 1, is the conceptual
framework for the scale [13–15]. In accordance with the
literature, this cognitive-rational approach should be extended
to emotional, so-called hedonic elements [16, 17].
Fig. 1. Trade-off between benefits and costs as the conceptual framework
1.3. Research questions in the context of perceived value
In the context of the consumer’s perceived value judgment,
the following research questions emerge:
1. By which elements is the CPV described?
2. How can the CPV deviation over time be analyzed
statistically?
3. How can companies use the knowledge about the CPV and
its deviations for further product developments?
The following chapter presents the methodology applied to
answer these research questions.
2. Applied methodology to analyze the consumer
perceived value statistically
In order to evaluate the deviation of pre-purchase and post-
purchase value judgment, a valid and reliable measuring
instrument is needed. To achieve this objective and to answer
the research questions, the CPV construct needs to be
designed and structural equation models needs to be created.
2.1. Step 1: Designing the CPV construct
Sanchez-Fernandez et al. suggest using a multidimensional
construct for the conceptualization of the elements of the
consumer’s perceived product value [18]. According to this
view, the product value is related to an aggregation of
elements [19]. Furthermore, it is necessary to specify the
dimensions of benefits and costs with corresponding
elements. Treacy and Wiersema emphasize the key question,
which must be taken into account for the creation of a
measuring instrument: "What are the dimensions of value that
customers care about?" [20]. The objective is to create a
universally applicable item catalog. Consequently, a weighted
additive combination of the elements seems suitable. This
methodology ensures that no important aspects of the CPV
will be ignored and follows the multidimensional view of the
construct. Furthermore, the additive model takes into account
the cognitive balancing trade-off between benefits and cost
[21] and is preferred to a multiplicative model in the form of a
ratio of benefits to costs [22]. First, all influencing benefit and
cost elements must be examined and identified in order to
deliver such an equation.
In the following, item sets are developed that query the
identified elements of the CPV individually [23]. The
outcome is a multiple-item scale, which contains the complete
CPV construct [14, 19]. Thus, it is possible to determine the
elements in which the product value perceptions have
changed by comparing the results of the pre-purchase to the
post-purchase judgment. Fig. 2 shows the derived cost-benefit
model, which sets the framework for this item generation.
Fig. 2. The CPV construct with the corresponding elements as concept for the
measuring instrument
The importance of individual product attributes for the
overall value judgment changes after purchasing. The
individual elements are considered unequally relevant and
thus effect the final judgment unequally weighted, depending
on the product category and on the individual. Interactions
between the elements are considered as well [23, 24].
In most cases, the consumer has difficulties to estimate the
comprehensive product value prior to purchase. In accordance
with the selected CPV model the calculation instruction, as
shown in equation (1), is used to evaluate the CPV, where n
stands for the number of benefit elements and m represents the
number of cost elements. The coefficient x is used to weight
the corresponding element relating to the consumer’s
preferences. According to an item rating scale in the
questionnaire between 1 and 7, CPVs in the range between 6
and -6 are possible, as the maximum value of an element can
be 7 and the minimum value can be 1. The formation of the
 Payam Amini et al. / Procedia CIRP 21 (2014) 391 – 396 393

ேή௥ҧ
arithmetic average seems suitable to generate exemplary ‫ ܣܥ‬ൌ ଵାሺேିଵሻή௥ҧ (2)
results from the questionnaire.
ଵ ଵ N = amount of items
‫ ܸܲܥ‬ൌ  σ௡௜ୀଵ ‫ݔ‬௜ ‫ܧܤ כ‬௜ Ȃ σ௠
௝ୀଵ ‫ݔ‬௝ ‫ܧܥ כ‬௝ (1) ‫ݎ‬ҧ = mean correlation of the coefficients
௡ ௠

BE = benefit element
Nunnally notes that a CA coefficient above 0.70 is
CE = cost element
acceptable in the early stages of the research. In further phases
of the research, a value above 0.8 or 0.9 is desirable [25]. The
2.2. Step 2: Construction of the structural equation models
CA coefficient is established as the standard in the market
research, yet the CR provides more accurate values because,
A frequently used method to validate a theoretical construct
in contrast to CA, it does not depend on the number of items.
is the evidence of significant causal relationships. A graphical
illustration of these relationships takes place using a structural DN1
equation model (SEM). This consists of measuring models BQ1
0.938
0.926 DN2
(Confirmatory Factor Analysis, CFA) and structural models Build
0.905
BQ2 0.773 Design 0.929 DN6
(path analysis). A structural model includes all the latent 0.920
Quality
0.931
BQ3
variables and their interconnections. A higher quality of the 0.914
DN7

construct may be assumed, if the construct can be explained EV4

0.950
DN8

by logical relationships within the model using characteristic EV3 0.878

0.900 PC3
Product
values for the goodness of fit. In this presented case, the latent EV2 0.803
Emotional
Value
Custo- 0.898 PC2
mization
variables are the 12 elements of the CPV construct. EV3 0.792 0.797 PC1
The construct validity is the most complex form of validity benefits
and checks how the measured construct can be both supported PR1 BR1
0.855
0.918
and explained with empirical evidence and arguments. This is 0.879
PR2 0.875 Practicability Brand BR2
proven by the existence of convergent validity within a 0.879 0.751
PR3 BR3
construct and discriminant validity in different constructs. ST1
0.857
ST2
0.790 SQ1
3. Case study and results of the applied methodology 0.838
ST3 0.855 Service
Stimulation 0.910 SQ2
Quality
0.843
This chapter presents the conditions of the conducted case ST4 0.713
SQ5
0.840
study and the results of the validity and reliability check of the ST5 ER1
0.814
SEMs in order to answer the established research questions. ER2
0.936
Follow-up Expected ER6
FC1 1.000 0.801
Costs Risks
3.1. Case study 0.734
ER7
0.802
costs ER8 PP1
The developed measuring instrument presented in this TC1
0.895 0.826

paper has been applied in a study with a total of 45 subjects. TC2 0.904 0.913 PP2
Time Purchase
Two different tablet PCs were the object of investigation for TC3 0.901 Costs Price 0.834 PP3
the study. After several pre-tests and analysis of the quality TC4
0.892 0.912
PP4
criteria the extent of the questionnaire was eventually reduced
to 43 items. Subsequently, the final structural equation model Fig. 3. Structural equation models and regressions of the CPV construct
is presented with all the results of the quality review criteria.
In addition, results of the study will be presented and The CR is a measure of the overall reliability of a
demonstrated, how conclusions on the CPV can be obtained collection of heterogeneous but similar items and is
on the basis of the evaluated questionnaire. determined by the following equation (3):
In order to identify which elements describe the CPV and
how the deviation between the consumers over time can be ሺσ೔ ఒ೔ ሻమ
‫ ܴܥ‬ൌ ሺσ మ మ (3)
identified statistically, the constructed SEM, and thus the CPV ೔ ఒ೔ ሻ ାሺσ೔ ௏௔௥ሺఌ೔ ሻሻ

construct, has to be checked for validity and reliability. Fig. 3
shows the compiled SEMs to validate the theoretical CPV
construct and the regressions of the specific items.
3.2. Reliability analysis
To analyze the reliability of the measuring instrument, the
Cronbach's alphas (CA) and the composite reliability (CR) of
each element are considered. The CA is a coefficient to
measure whether several items that propose to measure the
same general construct produce similar scores and is described
by the following equation (2):
Ȝ = factor loading
Var(İi) = error variance
Ȝ indicates how strongly the manifest and the latent
variables correlate. Var(İi) results due to the random variations
of the subjects. [26]
The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is also used to
assess the reliability of a construct and reflects the overall
amount of variance in the items accounted for by the latent
construct. Their suggested level of acceptance is 0.50 or above
394 Payam Amini et al. / Procedia CIRP 21 (2014) 391 – 396

for a construct [27]. The ratio AVE is represented by the 1. Test of convergent validity - the factor loadings of the
following equation (4): items should be above 0.7.
2. Test of discriminant validity - the AVE of a factor should
σ೔ ఒమ
‫ ܧܸܣ‬ൌ σ మ
೔
(4) exceed the largest squared correlation between itself and
೔ ఒ೔ ାσ೔ ௏௔௥ሺఌ೔ ሻ
another factor [27].
Ȝ = factor loading
Var(İi ) = error variance If the above mentioned requirements are met, the
measuring instrument can be accepted as construct valid. The
The following Table 1 presents the calculated reliability following Table 2 contains the results of the examined
criteria for the CPV elements: requirements, which were generated using Smart PLS.

Table 1. Evaluated reliability criteria Table 2. Evaluated validity criteria

Elements Composite Cronbach’s AVE Convergent Discriminant

Reliability Alpha Validity Validity
(> 0.5)
Elements factor loadings AVE > Corr²
Design 0.9666 0.9568 0.8529
(> 0.7)
Stimulation 0.9213 0.8975 0.7101
Design yes 0.8529 > 0.6424
Emotional Value 0.9175 0.8784 0.7365
Stimulation yes 0.7101 > 0.5307
Build Quality 0.9073 0.8447 0.7666
Emotional Value yes 0.7365 > 0.4868
Practicability 0.9202 0.8721 0.7935
Build Quality yes 0.7666 > 0.6424
Product Customization 0.9002 0.8328 0.7510
Practicability yes 0.7935 > 0.4885
Service Quality 0.8360 0.7418 0.6354
Product Customization yes 0.7510 > 0.4885
Brand 0.8689 0.7791 0.6893
Service Quality yes 0.6354 > 0.2072
Purchase Price 0.9254 0.8920 0.7566
Brand yes 0.6893 > 0.3860
Follow-up Costs 1 1 1
Purchase Price yes 0.7566 > 0.3266
Time Costs 0.9432 0.9204 0.8060
Follow-up Costs yes 1 > 0.3945
Expected Risks 0.9108 0.8794 0.6726
Time Costs yes 0.8060 > 0.4662
Expected Risks yes 0.6726 > 0.3945
After evaluating the pre-test and the derived adaptation of
the measuring instrument, the CR of each element is well
The evaluated results are considerably above the minimum
above the critical level of 0.7. The CAs of the elements are
requirements. The individual elements have very high
above 0.8. The elements of "service quality" and "brand" do
construct validity. All elements are significant at a level of
not reach this optimum value. To obtain reliable values in
0.001 (t-value (two-sided)> 3.291, n=45) with the exception of
subsequent surveys, an extension of the items of these
"service quality". The probability of error of this size is below
elements must be discussed and possibly implemented. The
5% (t-value (two-sided)> 1.960, n=45) and for the results of
items of the element "product features" are not suitable for a
this study sufficiently accurate. Due to the intentionally
reliability examination because of their intentional distinct
widely varying characteristic values of the items of "product
feature content. Therefore they are not listed in the table.
features", the element is inapplicable for a CFA. Their validity
In summary, according to the standards of market research
is examined by comparison with a similar product.
and marketing literature, the developed CPV construct has a
In conclusion, the developed CPV construct can be
high degree of internal consistence.
considered as valid and reliable. This analysis carves out
which elements describe the CPV and thus answered the first
3.3. Validity analysis
research question. Furthermore, the construct enables to
evaluate the CPV statistically valid and thus answers the
The focus of the validity analysis of this CPV construct is
second research question.
on the evidence of convergent validity among the items of the
same construct and discriminant validity of the factors among
3.4. Quantification of the CPV based on the questionnaire
themselves. In the CFA, the elements are checked by means of
standard-fit values from analyzes of variance on construct
This section deals with the third research question of how
validity [26]. Fornell and Larcker suggested that the AVE can
the results of the statistical analysis of the CPV can be utilized
also be used to evaluate discriminant validity. The construct
by companies for the product development process. The
validity was evaluated using the following critical
designed and validated construct enables to calculate a
requirements of reflective measurement models:
specific CPV for the consumer’s judgment of a product.
According to the presented equation (1), each element of the
CPV construct can be assessed individually and consolidated
related to the evaluated individual weight of the consumer’s
 Payam Amini et al. / Procedia CIRP 21 (2014) 391 – 396 395

preference. The outcome of the CPV enables to assess the Cost Benefit
Practicability
overall value judgment of the evaluated product. Investigating elements 1 elements
Time Costs Build Quality
the CPV for each subject on different points of time allows 0,8
identifying the deviation of the product value judgment over Expected Risks 0,6 Product
Customization
time. The weighted evaluation of the equation takes into
0,4
account that the importance and the perception of different
0,2
elements can drift over time. According to the used item rating Follow-up Costs Design
0
scale, CPVs in the range between 6 and -6 are possible.
Therefore results over 0 equal above average and results under
0 equal below average value judgments. Purchase Price Emotional Value

Besides assessing the quality criteria of the measuring

instrument, the obtained data of the study is used to define a Product Features Stimulation
suitable representation of the CPV calculation and its Service Quality Brand
integrated elements. This should display the values of the
elements sufficiently. Furthermore, by means of the graphic individual pre-purchase individual post-purchase
representation, the comparison of the elements at different weighting weighting
times must be possible in order to facilitate the evaluation of
Fig. 5. Radar chart of the deviation of the individual weightings over time
the results. A promising possibility of presentation, which
satisfies these aspects, is the radar chart, representing the
Furthermore, the quantified CPV enables companies to
results obtained from the study vividly. Furthermore, the
conduct benchmarks of their own products with any other
diagram supports the interpretation of the element and its
competing product, based on the detailed perceived value
deviation over time.
judgment of each specific element. Thereby an exact
Fig. 4 provides an example of the radar chart containing the
positioning on the market is possible. Manufacturers can
analyzed data of a subject from the study. According to the
identify the critical product elements in which they perform
equation (1), the result of the pre-purchase CPV is 1.94 and of
worse than the competition, in order to recommend further
the post-purchase CPV, evaluated after 3 months, is 3.62. This
actions in the product development. Contrariwise the
graphical representation indicates that for this specific subject
benchmark by means of the quantified CPV can expose those
the perception of all benefit elements increased over time,
elements, which stand out, for the purpose of reflating the
except for the product customization. In return the judgment
marketing to improve the market position and achieve higher
of all perceived cost elements decreased. This results in an
margins. Fig. 6 shows the mean CPV of all subjects of two
overall higher product value judgment.
different tablet pcs evaluated in the conducted study.
Cost Practicability Benefit
7 Cost Benefit
elements Time Costs Build Quality elements
6 elements Practicability elements
7
5 Time Costs Build Quality
Product 6
Expected Risks 4 Customization 5
3 Product
Expected Risks 4 Customization
2
3
Follow-up 1 Design 2
Costs
0 1
Follow-up Costs Design
0
Emotional
Purchase Price
Value
Purchase Price Emotional Value

Product
Stimulation
Features Product
Stimulation
Features
Service Quality Brand
Service Quality Brand

individual pre-purchase individual post-purchase

product value product value tablet 1 tablet 2
mean CPV: 0.7 mean CPV: 0.25
pre-purchase CPV: 1.94 post-purchase CPV: 3.62
Fig. 6. Benchmark and the quantified CPVs of two tablet pcs
Fig. 4. Radar chart of the CPV elements and the deviation over time
4. Conclusion and outlook on further research work
Fig. 5 shows the individual weighting, thus the importance,
of all product elements over time separately, without 4.1. Conclusion and discussion
involving the actual assessment of their characteristics. A
value of 1 means that the specific element has a very high This paper discusses the need for a measuring instrument
importance to the subject and a value of 0.1 equals a very low for analyzing the deviation of product pre-purchase and post-
importance. purchase value judgment. So far, the research was limited only
396 Payam Amini et al. / Procedia CIRP 21 (2014) 391 – 396
to one point of time. In the presented approach, the developed
CPV construct was proven as valid and reliable. Therefore, the
research question could be answered as this measuring
instrument enables to analyze statistical data of the product
value, both before the purchase during the utilization phase
and to compare the results. The approach of quantification has
been applied in a study with 45 individuals to assess
individual pre-purchase and post-purchase CPVs. The
measuring instrument enables to determine the deviation of
product value judgment over time for each element of the
CPV separately. This is an enhancement to previous
approaches that allows a holistic determination. With this
approach, on the one hand, companies are able to focus on
those product elements, which decreased in value over time.
This can occur due to increased pre-purchase expectations
towards the product. On the other hand, the evaluation
supports the identification of the strong product elements,
which might have been underestimated by the consumers.
These elements can be highlighted by marketing to increase
the purchase price and thus the financial yield.
4.2. Outlook on further research work
Subsequently, a qualitative research approach is proposed
in order to uncover the causes for the deviations, so as to
express recommendations to companies for future product
development. Within the context of this investigation, two
measuring points are sufficient to analyze the causes for
deviation of product value judgment over time. For further
researches, it can be considered to extend the investigation to
more than two measuring points. This allows identifying the
developing consumer product values through different stages
of the product lifetime cycle. Moreover, it remains to
investigate if the CPV construct should be extended by the
elements "environmental impact" or "sustainability", as their
importance has risen in the value judgment of customers [28].
Acknowledgements
This paper results from the research project PWuse
(SCHM1856/36-1) of the Laboratory for Machine Tools and
Product Engineering (WZL), RWTH Aachen University,
Germany. The research project has been funded by the
German National Science Foundation (DFG). The authors
would like to express their gratitude to all parties involved.
References
[1] Amini P, Schmitt R. Analyzing the Deviation of Product Value
Judgment. In: Abramovici M, Stark R. Smart Product Engineering.
Heidelberg:Springer; 2013. P. 765-776
[2] Parasuraman A, Grewal D. The impact of technology on the quality-
value-loyalty chain. J Acad Market Sci 2000; 28:168–174.
[3] Eggert A, Ulaga W. Customer perceived value. A substitute for
satisfaction in business markets? J Bus Ind Mark 2002;17:107–118.
[4] Woodruff RB. Customer value. The next source for competitive
advantage. J Acad Market Sci 1997;25:139–153.
[5] Hofbauer G, Sangl A. Professionelles Produktmanagement. Erlangen:
Publicis; 2011.
[6] Wankhade L, Dabade B. Quality Uncertainty and Quality Perception.
Heidelberg: Physica; 2010.
[7] Gardial SF, Clemons DS, Woodruff RB, Schumann DW, Burns MJ.
Comparing consumers' recall of prepurchase and postpurchase product
evaluation experiences. J Consum Res 1994;20:548–560.
[8] Woodruff RB, Cadotte ER, Jenkins RL. Modeling consumer satisfaction
processes using experience-based norms. J Marketing Res 1983;20:296–
304.
[9] Mittal V. Ross Jr WT. The asymmetric impact of negative and positive
attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase
intentions. J Marketing 1998;62:33–47.
[10] Myers JH, Alpert MI. Semantic confusion in attitude research. Salience
vs. Importance vs. Determinance. Adv Consum Res 1977;4:106–110.
[11] Tversky A, Simonson I. Context-dependent preferences. Manage Sci
1993;39:1179–1189.
[12] Porter ME. Competitive advantage. Creating and sustaining superior
performance. New York: Free Press; 1985.
[13] Zeithaml VA. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value. A
means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Marketing 1988;52:2–22.
[14] Dodds WB, Monroe KB, Grewal D. Effects of Price, Brand, and Store
Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations. J Marketing Res
1991;28:307–319.
[15] Lapierre J. Customer-perceived value in industrial contexts. J Bus Ind
Mark 2000;15:122–145.
[16] Hassenzahl M, Monk A. The inference of perceived usability from
beauty. In. Human Compu 2010;25:235–260.
[17] Hirschman EC, Holbrook MB. Hedonic consumption. Emerging
concepts, methods and propositions. J Marketing 1982;46:92–101.
[18] Sanchez J, Callarisa L, Rodriguez RM, Moliner MA. Perceived value of
the purchase of a tourism product. Tourism Manage 2006;27:394–409.
[19] Ulaga W, Chacour S. Measuring customer-perceived value in business
markets. A prerequisite for marketing strategy development and
implementation. Ind Market Manag 2001;30:525–540.
[20] Treacy M, Wiersema FD. The discipline of market leaders. Choose your
customers, narrow your focus, dominate your market. Perseus; 1997.
[21] Cronin JJ, Brady MK, Brand RR, Hightower Jr R, Shemwell DJ. A
cross-sectional test of the effect and conceptualization of service value. J
Serv Mark 1997;11:375–391.
[22] Desarbo WS, Jedidi K, Sinha I. Customer value analysis in a
heterogeneous market. Strateg Manage J 2001;22:845–857.
[23] Sweeney JC, Soutar GN. Consumer perceived value. The development
of a multiple item scale. J Retailing 2001;77:203–220.
[24] Sheth JN, Newman BI, Gross BL. Why we buy what we buy. A theory
of consumption values. J Bus Res 1991;22:159–170.
[25] Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. New York: mcgraw-Hill; 1978.
[26] Sheskin DJ. Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical
Procedures. Chapman & Hall; 2011
[27] Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res
1981;18:39–50.
[28] Lowitt E. The future of value. How sustainability creates value through
competitive differentation. 2011