Marketing Letters

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 181–196 | Cite as

The price-perceived quality relationship: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants

  • Franziska Völckner
  • Julian Hofmann


The authors conducted a meta-analysis of study results on the price-perceived quality relationship published from 1989 to 2006. The findings show that the price effect on perceived quality has decreased. Furthermore, the price–quality relationship is stronger in studies that use a within-subjects design, investigate higher priced products, and use samples from European countries but weaker for services, durable goods, and respondents who are familiar with the product. A striking null result indicates that the number of cues does not affect the price-perceived quality relationship significantly.


Price-perceived quality relationship Informational role of price Meta-analysis 



The author would like to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. The comments of Henrik Sattler on previous drafts of this manuscript are also gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Bijmolt, T. H. A., and Pieters, R. G. M. (2001). Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12(2), 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bijmolt, T. H. A., van Heerde, H. J., and Pieters, R. G. M. (2005). New empirical generalizations on the determinants of price elasticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 141–156 (May).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chatterjee, S., and Hadi, A. S. (1986). Influential observations, high leverage points, and outliers in linear regression. Statistical Science, 1(3), 379–416.Google Scholar
  4. Churchill, G. A. Jr., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., and Walker, O. C. Jr. (1985). The determinants of salesperson performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 103–118 (May).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Erickson, G. M., and Johansson, J. K. (1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farley, J. U., Lehmann, D. R., and Sawyer A. (1995). Empirical marketing generalization using meta-analysis. Marketing Science, 14(3, Part 2), G36–G46.Google Scholar
  8. Gardner, D. M. (1970). An experimental investigation of the price-quality relationship. Journal of Retailing, 46(Fall), 25–41.Google Scholar
  9. Gedenk, K., and Sattler, H. (2006). Range effects in measuring attribute importance. Research Papers on Marketing and Retailing. University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  10. Gijsbrechts, E. (1993). Prices and pricing research in consumer marketing: Some recent developments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(2), 115–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., and Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., and Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Hedges, L. V., and Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, and organizations across nations (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Hunter, J. E., and Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 5–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, R. L., and Kellaris, J. J. (1988). An exploratory study of price/perceived–quality relationships among consumer services. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 316–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kardes, F. R. (1996). In defense of experimental consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(3), 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., and Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69, 24–41 (April).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kmenta, J. (1986). Elements of econometrics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Lichtenstein, D. R., and Burton, S. (1989). The relationship between perceived and objective price quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 429–443 (November).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., and Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 234–245 (May).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lipsey, M. W., and Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Magnusson, D. (1967). Test theory. Reading. MA: Addison and Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., and Goodstein, R. C. (2005). The effect of multiple extrinsic cues in quality perceptions: A matter of consisteny. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 146–153 (June).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monroe, K. B. (2003). Pricing: Making profitable decisions (3rd edn.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Monroe, K. B., and Dodds, W. B. (1988). A research program for establishing the validity of the price-quality relationship. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagle, T. (1984). Economic foundations for pricing. Journal of Business, 57(1), S3–S26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450–461 (December).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Addressing disturbing and disturbed consumer behavior. Is it necessary to change the way we conduct behavioral science? Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 1–8 (February).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rao, A. R., and Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research 15, 253–264 (September).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rao, A. R., and Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 351–357 (August).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenthal, R. (1993). Cumulating evidence. In G. Keren and C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 519–559). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper and L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Sawyer, A. G. (1975). Demand artifacts in laboratory experiments in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(4), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sethuraman, R. (1995). A meta-analysis of national brand and store brand cross-promotional price elasticities. Marketing Letters, 6(4), 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silver, N. C, and Dunlap, W. P. (1987). Averaging correlation coefficients: Should Fisher’s z transformation be use? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 146–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, K. H., and Natesan, C. N. (1999). Consumer price-quality beliefs: Schema variables predicting individual differences. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 562–568.Google Scholar
  40. Tellis, G. J. (1988). The price elasticity of selective demand: A meta-analysis of econometric models of sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(4), 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Völckner, F., and Sattler, H. (2005). Separating negative and positive effects of price with choice-based conjoint analyses. Marketing–Journal of Research and Management, 1(1), 5–13.Google Scholar
  42. Wherry, R. J. (1984). Contributions to correlational analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Winer, R. S. (1999). Experimentation in the twenty-first century: The importance of external validity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 349–358 (Summer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Marketing and MediaUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations