Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Do Consumers Perceive the Quality-of-Life Impact of Durable Goods? A Consumer Well-Being Model Based on the Consumption Life Cycle

  • Published:
Applied Research in Quality of Life Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Consumer’s overall perception of quality-of-life impact of a consumer durable (PQOLI) refers to consumer’s subjective evaluation of the degree to which marketplace experiences related to a given product impacts one’s overall quality of life (QOL). What are the factors that impact PQOLI? A model based on the concept of the consumption life cycle is developed to answer this question. The model posits that PQOLI is mostly influenced by satisfaction with product purchase, preparation, ownership, consumption, and maintenance experiences. In turn, the model also posits that with satisfaction with purchase, preparation, ownership, consumption, and maintenance are influenced by a set of consumption experiences. The data was collected using a sample of college students. Each respondent was randomly assigned to one of eight product categories: photo cameras, cell phones, athletic shoes, cologne, televisions, watches, sunglasses, and video consoles. The results were generally supportive of the model. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, L., & Hlavacek, J. D. (1978). Key repair service factors for consumer durable goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 634–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America’s perception of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 291–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68, 445–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, J. E. G. (1985). Self-service consumer: an exploratory study. Journal of Retailing, 61, 49–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendapudi, N., & Berry, L. L. (1997). Customers’ motivations for maintaining relationships with service providers. Journal of Retailing, 73, 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. J., & Meuter, M. L. (2002). Implementing successful self-service technologies. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. C. (2007). “Says Who?!” How the source of price information and affect influence perceived price (un)fairness. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, R. B. (1996). The mall is my factory: reflections of a service junkie. Production and Operations Management, 5, 298–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retailing shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 511–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corfman, K. P., Lehmann, D. R., & Narayanan, S. (1991). Values, utility, and ownership: modeling the relationships. Journal of Retailing, 67, 184–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crader, S., & Zaichlowsky, J. L. (2007). The art of marketing. In T. M. Lowery (Ed.), Brick &mortar shopping in the 21st century (pp. 87–106). Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabholkar, P. A., Bobbitt, L. M., & Lee, E. J. (2003). Understanding consumer motivation and behavior related to self-scanning in retailing: implications for strategy and research on technology-based self-service. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14, 59–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, S., Siddarth, S., & Silva-Risso, J. (2007). To lease or to buy? A structural model of a consumer’s vehicle and contract choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 490–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dholakia, R. R., & Sternthal, B. (1977). Highly credible sources: persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities? Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 223–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3, 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well being (pp. 119–139). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennew, C., & Binks, M. R. (1999). Impact of participative service relationships on quality, satisfaction, and retention: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 46, 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Rediscovering satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 63, 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvin, D. A. (1988). Managing quality: The strategic and competitive edge. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, R. E., & Freiden, J. B. (2004). Have it your way: consumer attitudes toward personalized marketing. Marketing Intelligent Planning, 22, 228–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourville, J. T., & Soman, D. (2002). Pricing and the psychology of consumption. Harvard Business Review, 90–96.

  • Grewal, D., & Sharma, A. (1991). The effect of sales force behavior on customer satisfaction: an interactive framework. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 11, 13–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, D., Baker, J., Levy, M., & Voss, G. B. (2003). The effects of wait expectations and store atmosphere evaluations on patronage intentions in service-intensive retail stores. Journal of Business Research, 79, 259–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2006). eWOM: the impact of customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59, 449–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzeskowiak, S., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). Consumer well-being (CWB): the effects of self-image congruence, brand community belongingness, brand loyalty, and consumption recency. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2, 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzeskowiak, S., Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Claiborne, C. B. (2006). Housing well being: developing and validating a measure. Social Indicators Research, 79, 503–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). Art infusion: the influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: mass customization or mass confusion? Journal of Retailing, 74, 491–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran’s quality control handbook (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmarkar, U. S. (1996). Integrative research in marketing and operations management. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, K. M., Blaire, L., & Richard, C. L. (1991). Prescription for the waiting-in-line blues: enlighten, entertain, and engage. Sloan Management Review, 32, 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Levy, S. J. (1969). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 33, 10–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D.-J. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59, 955–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., & Purohit, D. (1989). Durable goods and product obsolescence. Marketing Science, 8, 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Rountree, R. I., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Self-service technologies: understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 64, 50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. E. (1995). Economics of automobile leasing. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 29, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, H., & Conlon, D. E. (2002). From acclaim to blame: evidence of a person sensitivity decision bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. L. (1989). Processing of the satisfaction response in consumption: a suggested framework and research propositions. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 2, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72, 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, V. M., & Park, C. W. (2006). Paying before consuming: examining the robustness of consumers’ preference for prepayment. Journal of Retailing, 82, 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1997). Enterprise one to one. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: mental accounting of savings and debt. Marketing Science, 17, 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raajpoot, N. A., Sharma, A., & Chebat, J. C. (2007). The role of gender and work status in shopping center patronage. Journal of Business Research, 61, 825–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richins, M. L. (1994). Special possessions and the expression of material values. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 522–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A. (1997). Customer satisfaction-based incentive systems: some managerial and salesperson considerations. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17, 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J. (1986). Self-congruity: Towards a theory of personality and cybernetics. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Bae, J. (2006a). Developing a measure of internet well-being: nomological (predictive) validation. Social Indicators Research, 78, 205–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Kressmann, F. (2006b). A need-based measure of consumer well-being (CWB) in relation to personal transportation: nomological validation. Social Indicators Research, 79, 337–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., Kamra, K., & Tidwell, J. (2007). Developing and validating a measure of consumer well-being in relation to cell phone use. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2, 95–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., Johar, J. S., & Tidwell, J. (2008a). Effect of self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1091–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., Grzeskowiak, S., Chebat, J.-C., Johar, J. S., Hermann, A., et al. (2008b). An extension and further validation of a community-based consumer well-being measure. Journal of Macromarketing, 28, 243–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., Kamra, K., & Tidwell, J. (2008c). What determines quality-of-life impact of mobile phones? A model based on the consumption life cycle. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 3, 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirgy, M. J., Kruger, S., Lee, D.-J., & Yu, G. B. (2011). How does a travel trip affect tourists’ life satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research, 50, 261–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V., Lovejoy, W. S., & Beach, D. (1997). Integrated product design for marketability and manufacturing. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 154–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, D. M. (1988). Determinants of selling effectiveness: the importance of declarative knowledge to the personal selling concept. Journal of Marketing, 52, 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raaij, W. F., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (1998). Customer control and evaluation of service validity and reliability. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 811–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Wallendorf, M. (2006). Materialism, status signaling, and product satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 494–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitz, B. A., Sujan, H., & Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation, and adaptive behavior: A framework for improving selling effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 50, 174–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto, M., & Lambert, D. R. (1994). The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithmal, V. A. (1981). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (1999). Choice-process satisfaction: the influence of attribute align ability and option limitation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 192–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rouen Business School, Rouen, France

    Stephan Grzeskowiak

  2. Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

    Dong-Jin Lee & Grace B. Yu

  3. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    M. Joseph Sirgy

Authors
  1. Stephan Grzeskowiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dong-Jin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Grace B. Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Joseph Sirgy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grace B. Yu.

Appendices

Appendix A

The Constructs and Measures

Perceived Quality-of-Life Impact of the Product (PQOLI)*(AVE = .78; ρ = .90)

PQOLI     How do you feel about the way your _________ contributes to your overall quality of life?

Satisfaction w/product acquisition overall (ACQ)* (AVE = .86; ρ = .94)

ACQ        How do you feel about the way the purchase of your _________ contributes to your overall quality of life?

Satisfaction w/product preparation overall (PRE)*(AVE = .89; ρ = .95)

PRE      How do you feel about the way the preparation of your _________ for its intended use contributes to your overall quality of life?

Satisfaction w/product use overall (USE)* (AVE = .84; ρ = .93)

USE        How do you feel about the way that using of your _________ contributes to your overall quality of life?

Satisfaction w/product ownership (OWN)*(AVE = .90; ρ = .96)

OWN     How do you feel about the way that owning your _________ contributes to your overall quality of life?

Satisfaction w/product maintenance (MAI)*(AVE = .88; ρ = .95)

MAI    How do you feel about the way that upkeep and maintenance of your _________ contributes to your overall quality of life?

Goodness of fit:

χ 2 = 1533.01, df. = 376, p = .00; CFI = .92, NFI = .91, GFI = .80, RMSEA = .08

Satisfaction w/product options and accessibility (ACQ1)**(AVE = .77; ρ = .81)

1. I was satisfied with the variety of brand options of _____ I found when shopping for _____.

2. I was satisfied with the quality of brand options of ______ I found when shopping for _____.

3. I had a great shopping experience deciding which brand of _____ to buy.

Satisfaction w/sales personnel (ACQ2)**(AVE = .74; ρ = .78)

1. The sales person provided me with valuable and accurate information about various options of _________.

2. The sales person helped me decide on the right _________ for me.

3. Dealing with the sales person to get a fair price for my _________ was emotionally draining and agonizing for me.a

4. I enjoyed the social interaction with the sales person who sold me the _________.

Satisfaction w/financial transaction (ACQ3)**(AVE = 83.; ρ = .82)

1. I was satisfied with the financing options that were available when buying my _________.

2. The amount of time and effort involved to finance my _________ was not bad at all.

3. The process of financing my _________ was emotionally draining and agonizing for me.a

Satisfaction w/3rdparty information providers (ACQ4)**(AVE = .70; ρ = .74)

1. It was very easy finding “objective” information on _________ from sources other than the manufacturer or store (e.g., public information from the Internet).

2. I was satisfied with the currency and timeliness of “objective” information about ______ I found from sources other than the manufacturer or store (e.g., public information from the Internet).

3. I was satisfied with the accuracy and credibility of information about ____ I received from sources other than the manufacturer or store (e.g., public information from the Internet).

4. The financial cost I had to pay to obtain “objective” information on _________ was fair. It was worth it.a

Satisfaction w/checkout and closing (ACQ5)**(AVE = .58; ρ = .50)

1. The time and effort it took to complete the financial transaction of buying my _________ was not bad at all.

2. I thought the additional charges related to ordering _________ were fair.

3. Completing the financial transaction in buying my _________ was very emotionally draining and agonizing for me.a

Satisfaction w/product value (ACQ6)**(AVE = .59; ρ = .51)

1. I was satisfied with the quality of my _________ that I bought.a

2. I was satisfied with the warranty that covered my _________ that I bought.

3. I was satisfied with the price I paid for my _________.

Goodness of fit:

χ 2 = 344.363, df. = 73, p = .00; CFI = .88, NFI = .86, GFI = .91, RMSEA = .08

Satisfaction w/product assembly (PRE1)**(AVE = .71; ρ = .75)

1. I thought the manual for my _________ was helpful.

2. I thought the product assembly/preparation information that came with the ______ package was helpful.

3. I didn’t have any problem setting up my _________. It was easy.a

4. The technical support I received to help me setup my _________ was good.a

5. I was happy with the end result of setting up my _________.

Satisfaction w/product adaptation (PRE2)**(AVE = .78; ρ = .73)

1. I am happy with the way my _________ fits in with my other _________ and products I own.

2. It was relatively easy customizing my _________ to fit my personal needs.a

3. I received literature with my ______ to help me adjust my _________ for different uses, and I thought it was helpful.

Satisfaction w/product registration (PRE3)**(AVE = .77; ρ = .81)

1. The time and effort required to register my _________ was not bad.

2. The financial costs associated with registering my _________ were not bad.

3. I am happy with the benefits I received for registering my _________.

Goodness of fit:

χ 2 = 147.777, df. = 16, p = .00; CFI = .91, NFI = .90, GFI = .92, RMSEA = .10

Satisfaction w/product functional features (USE1)**(AVE = .86; ρ = .92)

1. I am satisfied with the way my _________ performs.

2. I am satisfied with the quality of my _________.

3. I am satisfied with the reliability of my _________.

4. I am satisfied with the durability of my _________.

5. I am satisfied with the ease of using my _________.

6. I am satisfied with the financial costs associated with using my _________.a

7. I am satisfied with the safety of using my _________.a

Satisfaction w/product experiential features (USE2)**(AVE = .86; ρ = .85)

1. I am satisfied with the aesthetic features and appearance of my _________.

2. I am satisfied with the aesthetic features and appearance of the package of my _________.

Satisfaction w/product symbolic features (USE3)** (AVE = .90; ρ = .93)

1. I am satisfied with the way my _________ represents who I am.

2. I am satisfied with the way my _________ represents how I would like to be.

3. I am satisfied with the way my _________ represents the way I would like to be seen.

Goodness of fit:

χ 2 = 176.854, df. = 31, p = .00; CFI = .96, NFI = .95, GFI = .93, RMSEA = .10

Satisfaction w/product financial value of investment (OWN1)** (AVE = .75; ρ = .79)

1. The rate of depreciation in value of my _________ is not bad--it is quite reasonable.

2. The financial costs associated with owning my _________ are not bad. They are quite reasonable.

3. I am happy with the financial benefits associated with owning my _________.

Satisfaction w/product social-psychological value (OWN2)**(AVE = .89; ρ = .88)

1. Owning my _________ makes me feel like I have status.

2. Owning my _________ makes me feel special.

3. I feel guilty owning my _________.a

Goodness of fit :

χ 2 = 19.44, df. = 4, p = .00; CFI = .98, NFI = .98, GFI = .98, RMSEA = .09

Satisfaction w/product self-maintenance (MAI1)** (AVE = .83; ρ = .90)

1. I am happy with having to maintain my _________ on my own.

2. I am satisfied with the frequency of having to maintain my _________ on my own.

3. The time and effort required for maintaining my _________ on my own are not bad.

4. The financial costs for maintaining my _________ on my own are quite reasonable.

5. Maintaining my _________on my own is very emotionally draining and agonizing for me.a

6. Maintaining my _________ on my own gives me a sense of competence and mastery.a

7. Maintaining my _________ on my own makes others think highly of me.a

Satisfaction w/product maintenance by service providers (MAI2)** (AVE = .66; ρ = .82)

1. I am pleased knowing there are service providers who can maintain my _________ if and when my ____ needs repair.

2. The frequency of servicing my __________ is not bad.

3. It does not take much of my time and effort to have a service provider maintain my ________.

4. The price I pay to the service providers for maintaining my _________ is fair and reasonable.

5. Dealing with a service provider to maintain my _________ is very emotionally draining and agonizing for me.a

6. I like the social interaction with the service provider who maintains my _________.

7. Having a service provider maintain my _________ makes others think highly of me.a

Goodness of fit:

χ 2 = 126.11, df. = 22, p = .00; CFI = .96, NFI = .95, GFI = .94, RMSEA = .10

AVE average variance extracted; ρ composite reliability; X reverse coded item

*The following five semantic differential scale items were used:

1. unpleasant/ pleasant

2. unfavorable/ favorable

3. harmful/ beneficial

4. unsatisfactory/ satisfactory

5. undesirable/ desirable

**5-point Likert scale with anchors: strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree

adeleted item

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grzeskowiak, S., Lee, DJ., Yu, G.B. et al. How Do Consumers Perceive the Quality-of-Life Impact of Durable Goods? A Consumer Well-Being Model Based on the Consumption Life Cycle. Applied Research Quality Life 9, 683–709 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9265-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-9265-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation