Judgments of acquisition value and transaction value

Abstract

Purpose An open question of behavioral pricing literature is: What are the factors which influence consumers’ judgments of acquisition value and transaction value? An important framework to explain consumers’ shopping and purchase decisions is their decision-making styles. This paper aims to examine the influence of consumers’ decision-making styles, that is, perfectionistic high-quality conscious, brand conscious-price equals quality, novelty-fashion conscious, recreational-hedonistic, price conscious-value for money, impulsive-careless, habitual-brand loyal and confused by overchoice on their judgments of acquisition value and transaction value. Design/methodology/approach From the literature, a conceptual framework was formulated. Data was collected from a survey of 304 respondents. The measurement model was tested using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The structural model was tested using structural equation modeling. Findings The consumers’ judgments of acquisition value and transaction value vary with their decision-making styles. The measurement and structural models exhibited good fit, and 12 of the 16 proposed hypotheses were found to be significant. Research limitations/implications The respondents for this research study were urban and postgraduate students. Practical implications The results of this study can help managers personalize their promotional offers and market offerings targeted at consumers with different decision-making styles. Originality/value Behavioral pricing literature has not convincingly shown that consumers make the judgments of the two values, acquisition value and transaction value, in a purchase scenario. There is limited literature on the impact of decision-making styles on the marketing variables. The results of this study contribute to the literature by showing that consumers make the judgments of these two values, and these judgments vary with their decision-making styles. Also, this is one of only a few studies to examine the two components of the purchase value in an Indian context.

The psychological mechanism of consumers’ behavioral intentions of suboptimal food products from the perspective of economic value

“…Furthermore, this study extends the results of Tsalis (2020) who has found a positive direct relationship between deal proneness and purchase intentions of suboptimal products. On contrary, this study contradicts Soni and Dawra's (2019) findings that a negative relationship between price consciousness and consumers' perceptions of benefits acquired for the price paid.…”

“…These results are consistent with the results of Ailawadi et al (2001) that have found a non-significant correlation between the quality consciousness of consumers and their reactions to sales promotions. Additionally, Soni and Dawra (2019) have found a positive relationship between quality consciousness and acquisition value, however a negative relationship between quality consciousness and transaction value.…”

“…Purchase value theory provides an appropriate framework to investigate consumers' behavioral responses towards promotions (Snoj et al, 2004). According to it, value is a summation of two dimensions; acquisition value, and transaction value (Soni and Dawra, 2019). Cai et al (2016) demonstrate that both acquisition and transaction values are vital in making purchase decisions, particularly for essential purchases (such as in our case of vegetables and fruits).…”

“…Based on utility theory, the theory of purchase value (Monroe and Chapman, 1987) has been employed in marketing literature to investigate consumers' behavioral responses towards promotions (Snoj et al, 2004). According to it, "the total value that consumers derive from any purchase is a summation of two values: acquisition value, and transaction value" (Soni and Dawra, 2019). It is claimed that shoppers could base their purchase decisions on both of these values (Grewal et al, 1998a).…”

“…Thus, to overcome any disutility, they favor paying higher prices for any product and avoid lower priced products (Ding et al, 2010). Soni and Dawra (2019) argue that such individuals have negative perceptions of benefits obtained from discounts or price deals. They perceive poor quality and value from discounts or lowered prices (Monroe et al, 2011).…”