El sistema judicial de Inglaterra y Gales

This section provides an overview of the literature on consumer value which leads to the

following sections on Holbrook’s (1994, 1999) Typology of Consumer Value and

Sánchez-Fernández et al’s. (2009) model of ‘consumer perceived value’. Holbrook’s typology and Sánchez-Fernández et al’s. model are considered as potential theoretical frameworks on consumer value to guide this study on CAM health services.

Consumer value is considered the “foundation for all effective marketing activity” yet little attention has been given to defining and researching it (Holbrook, 2006a, p. 715). The concept of consumer value has been of interest to marketing and consumer researchers for

the past two decades and reflects the growing interest in the “phenomenon of value creation” (Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2012; Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Although Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo (2006) argue the term ‘consumer

perceived value’ illustrates the meaning of all other terms used to define ‘value’ in

marketing, such as judgement value, shopping value, consumption value, product value, customer value, consumer value and perceived value, this researcher prefers the term

‘consumer value’ because it reflects both ‘real’ and ‘perceived’ value from a consumer’s

perspective.

Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo’s (2007) widely cited paper The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research provides an extensive overview of the concept of consumer value. Their study found two key research approaches to the operationalization of value – uni-dimensional and multi-dimensional (Figure 4). A uni- dimensional approach has arisen from a stream of research pertaining to a purely utilitarian perspective of value which is based primarily on economic and cognitive reasoning (Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). “Utilitarian value results when a consumer

evaluates a consumption activity as successful in that a desired end result is achieved”

(Babin & James, 2010, p. 473). For example, Monroe’s (2003) price based view which focuses on the price-quality relationship and Zeithaml’s (1988) approach using means-end theory. Perceived consumer value, from a price based approach, is determined primarily by

55

price-quality perceptions and comes from economic theory and the concept of utility where value is seen as a trade-off between perceptions of quality and price (Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Whereas a means-end theory approach is mostly concerned with

what a consumer can ‘get’ (includes quality as well as emotions, prestige and convenience) for what they ‘give’ (includes money but also aspects such as effort, time, opportunity, and emotions) (Babin & James, 2010; Zeithaml, 1988).

As shown in Figure 4 multi-dimensional approaches, such as Holbrook’s (1994, 1999)

typology and Sheth et al’s. (1999) consumption-values theory, consider both utilitarian value (instrumental, task-related, rational, functional, cognitive, and a means to an end consumption) and hedonic value (reflecting the entertainment and emotional worth of consuming, which is non-instrumental, experiential, and affective); and are therefore more

holistic and complex, demonstrating that perceived value “consists of several interrelated attributes or dimensions that form a holistic representation of a complex phenomenon”

(Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007, p. 431). Consumer value in these multi- dimensional approaches tends to refer to the evaluation of an entity (for example, a service, experience or good) by a consumer (Boksberger & Melsen, 2011).

Figure 4: Research streams on perceived value (Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta- Bonillo, 2007, p. 430) Nature of Consumer Value Uni-dimensional Multi-dimensional Price-based studies Means-end theory Utilitarian and hedonic value Monroe’s research t Zeithaml’s approach Additional research Customer value hierarchy

Axiology value theory

Holbrook’s typology

Consumption-values theory

56

Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo (2007) agree that both uni-dimensional and multi- dimensional models and perspectives contribute to the study of value. However, they argue that uni-dimensional approaches, although simplistic, “do not reflect the complexity of consumers’ perceptions of value” and “fail to take proper account of the numerous

intangible, intrinsic, and emotional factors that form part of the construct” (p. 441). Holbrook’s Typology of Consumer Value (1994, 1999), in their view, offered the most

comprehensive approach to the value concept. Holbrook’s (1994, 1999) typology stood out from other models, such as Woodruff and Gardial (1996) ‘customer value hierarchy’ and Sheth et al. (1991) ‘consumption-values theory’ because it covered a wider spectrum of consumer value components including economic, social, hedonic and altruistic value which the other did not (Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007; Sánchez-Fernández et al., 2009). However Boksberger and Melsen (2001) argue that although Holbrook’s (1994, 1999) typology is comprehensive it lacks critical reflection in the literature. Ledden et al. (2011) found that Sheth et al. (1991) ‘consumption-values theory’ has strong theoretical grounding across a diverse range of disciplines such as economics, sociology, psychology and consumer behaviour and has more empirical evidence. Although Sheth et al. (1991) have contributed significantly to the study of value their model ignores altruistic value,

such as ‘spirituality’ and ethics’ (Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007).

Holbrook’s (1994, 1999) typology of consumer value offers a potential theoretical

framework to study the CAM consumer. More research is required on ‘value’ from a

consumer’s perspective within CAM health services (Rajamma & Pelton, 2010).

Holbrook’s framework in particular covers aspects such as spirituality and ethics, which other models do not (Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). This multi-dimensional approach and in particular the inclusion of spiritual value and ethics, fits well with the CAM consumer as per the discussion in sections 2.6 and 2.7.