The Product In-use Value<\/strong> scale is a concise, psychometrically validated tri-item measurement instrument developed by Daniel Sheehan and Sara Loughran Dommer (2020)<\/a> to evaluate the degree to which a consumer perceives that a product’s utility, worth, and meaningful benefits are derived specifically through its active, functional deployment, rather than through passive retention, symbolic ownership, or preservation. Rooted in consumer psychology and the conceptual paradigms of consumer behavior<\/a> and the extended self<\/a>, the scale operationalizes the psychological distinction between value realized through consumption versus value realized through mere possession. The scale consists of three self-report items administered on an authentic 7-point Likert-type response format anchored from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”). Extensively evaluated across multiple experimental studies examining product consumption, identity relevance, and self-protection motives, the scale exhibits high internal consistency reliability (with Cronbach\u2019s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding .88 and McDonald\u2019s omega values exceeding .89), robust unidimensional factor structure, and distinct convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. By isolating the dynamic, experiential mechanism through which consumers unlock utility via product usage, the scale serves as an essential tool for psychometricians, behavioral economists, and marketing scholars investigating product depletion, hoarding, sustainable consumption, and the paradoxical non-use of identity-linked goods.<\/p>\n Product In-use Value, Consumer Psychology, Measurement Scale, Psychometrics, Product Usage, Possession Utility, Extended Self, Identity Relevance, Consumption Behavior, Scale Validation<\/p>\n The Product In-use Value scale was designed, tested, and published by academic researchers specializing in consumer psychology, behavioral economics, and brand relationships:<\/p>\n Direct academic inquiries, replication studies, and correspondence regarding the foundational validation research are traditionally addressed to the corresponding authors through their university faculties or via the editorial office of the Journal of Consumer Research<\/em>.<\/p>\n The fundamental purpose of the Product In-use Value scale is to quantitatively measure the perceived psychological and functional utility that an individual derives specifically from the active, physical, or experiential utilization of a material good, as contrasted with the value derived from retaining, hoarding, or preserving the item in an unconsumed or pristine state. In standard microeconomic theory and early models of consumer choice, utility has often been treated as an undifferentiated aggregate: once an agent acquires a product, ownership is assumed to confer utility that naturally materializes through consumption. However, modern behavioral research reveals substantial divergence between ownership utility (holding value) and consumption utility (in-use value).<\/p>\n In clinical, behavioral, and applied consumer contexts, consumers frequently acquire goods that they subsequently refrain from using. This phenomenon\u2014often manifested as the chronic preservation of “special” goods, gifting paralysis, hoarding tendencies, or under-consumption of identity-congruent items\u2014stems from a psychological calculus where using an object degrades its pristine condition or depletes its symbolic integrity. Sheehan and Dommer (2020) demonstrated that when a product is strongly linked to an important identity, individuals frequently protect that identity by avoiding the wear-and-tear or physical depletion associated with usage, effectively reducing its perceived in-use value relative to its preservation value. The Product In-use Value scale was designed to capture this specific psychological locus: assessing whether an individual frames the focal product as something whose primary worth is extracted through actual engagement and wear, or whether its usage is viewed as incidental or even detrimental to its overall worth.<\/p>\n Research applications of the instrument span several critical domains:<\/p>\n The psychological construct assessed by this instrument is Product In-use Value<\/strong>. Historically, consumer research has delineated multiple dimensions of product value, including utilitarian value, hedonic value, social\/symbolic value, and epistemic value (e.g., Holbrook, 1999<\/a>; Richins, 1994<\/a>). Product In-use Value represents an essential, orthogonal dimension that captures the dynamic realization of utility through operational engagement.<\/p>\n To fully comprehend the construct, it is vital to contrast in-use value<\/em> with possession value<\/em>. Possession value refers to the emotional security, social status, aesthetic enjoyment, or identity anchoring that a consumer experiences simply by having legal, physical, or psychological ownership of an item. An individual can derive immense possession value from a vintage fountain pen, a collectible automobile, or high-end cosmetic kit placed visibly on a vanity, even if the item is never used. In contrast, in-use value<\/em> directly reflects the psychological appraisal that the item’s core justification, worth, and personal benefit are actualized through its mechanical, functional, or experiential consumption. When an individual scores high on in-use value, the item is cognitively categorized as a tool or an experiential medium; retaining it without using it is perceived as an irrational forfeiture of its intrinsic utility.<\/p>\n Although captured via a parsimonious unidimensional scale, the psychological construct encompasses three closely related cognitive facets:<\/p>\n When in-use value is low, consumers view using the item as suboptimal, often because the act of consumption brings psychological friction\u2014such as fear of breaking an irreplaceable object, anxiety over depleting a finite identity marker, or feeling that the item is “too good” or “too special” for mundane, everyday scenarios.<\/p>\n The Product In-use Value scale is deeply grounded in theories of self-identity, psychological ownership<\/a>, and compensatory consumption.<\/p>\n A foundational pillar of the theoretical framework is Russell Belk\u2019s (1988)<\/a> seminal formulation of the Extended Self<\/em>, which posits that consumers do not regard material possessions merely as utilitarian instruments, but as literal and symbolic extensions of their individual and social identities. Sheehan and Dommer (2020) advanced this paradigm by examining what happens when products embody identities that are psychologically significant. According to their “Saving Your Self” framework, when an object becomes closely linked to a central aspect of self-identity (e.g., a university-branded notebook representing one’s academic persona, or specialized athletic apparel symbolizing one’s identity as a runner), the object takes on symbolic sacredness.<\/p>\n Because using an object inevitably entails physical degradation, wear, or final depletion, using an identity-linked product can be unconsciously perceived as causing damage or depletion to the self-concept it embodies. Consequently, consumers experience an identity-preservation motive: to protect the self, they protect the physical artifact, thereby lowering their perceived in-use value<\/em> and elevating its preservation value. Under such conditions, consumers paradoxically avoid using the very items they value most.<\/p>\n The scale also directly incorporates insights from the Service-Dominant (S-D) logic of marketing articulated by Vargo and Lusch (2004)<\/a>. S-D logic distinguishes between value-in-exchange<\/em> (the nominal price or transactional worth negotiated at acquisition) and value-in-use<\/em> (the phenomenological, co-created value realized exclusively when a good is integrated into the consumer\u2019s ongoing life practices). Sheehan and Dommer operationalized this theoretical distinction at the micro-cognitive level. By isolating the individual\u2019s subjective appraisal of value-in-use, the instrument allows researchers to assess whether consumer valuation aligns with dynamic practice or static possession.<\/p>\n The psychometric validity of the Product In-use Value scale has been thoroughly established through empirical testing across laboratory experiments, field studies, and diverse product categories including personal care items, apparel, stationery, specialized consumer goods, and digital assets.<\/p>\n Construct validity was validated by examining the scale’s alignment with theoretical expectations regarding consumption intentions and product valuation. Convergent validity is evidenced by strong, statistically significant correlations between the Product In-use Value scale and validated measures of:<\/p>\n Extensive discriminant validation demonstrated that the Product In-use Value scale measures a construct distinct from general product affinity, brand attitude, and overall product valuation. Confirmatory factor analyses utilizing the Fornell and Larcker (1981)<\/a> criterion demonstrated that the average variance extracted (AVE) for the Product In-use Value scale consistently exceeded the squared correlation between this construct and adjacent constructs:<\/p>\n The scale demonstrates remarkable predictive validity across experimental conditions. Sheehan and Dommer (2020) demonstrated that lower scores on the Product In-use Value scale mediated the effect of high identity-relevance on reduced actual product usage. When participants received a product linked to an identity they valued, their score on the Product In-use Value scale significantly dropped, which in turn predicted their avoidance of physical usage in behavioral lab tasks (indirect effect confidence intervals entirely excluding zero). Furthermore, manipulating consumers’ focus toward in-use value (e.g., priming the idea that utility disappears if a product remains unused) restored usage rates, confirming the scale’s sensitivity to cognitive framing.<\/p>\n The Product In-use Value scale displays exceptionally high levels of reliability across varied sampling populations, including undergraduate student panels, online adult panels (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Prolific Academic), and diverse real-world consumer samples.<\/p>\n Internal consistency estimates across the empirical investigations reported in the foundational literature consistently exceed standard psychometric thresholds ($\u0007lpha ge .70$<\/span> for exploratory research; $\u0007lpha ge .80$<\/span> for basic research):<\/p>\n In stability testing across neutral control conditions where no external identity threat or usage framing intervention was introduced, the instrument exhibited strong test-retest reliability across a two-week interval ($r_{tt} = .78, p<\/span> < .001$). However, researchers note that because in-use value is a state-sensitive evaluation influenced by situational framing and current product accessibility, it remains appropriately responsive to psychological interventions.<\/p>\n The structural dimensionality of the Product In-use Value scale has been thoroughly confirmed through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).<\/p>\n In initial scale validation phases, principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood extraction with oblique and orthogonal rotations consistently revealed a single, clearly defined latent factor with an eigenvalue substantially greater than 1.0 (typical initial eigenvalues $> 2.45$<\/span>), accounting for over 82% to 88%<\/strong> of the total variance across product domains. Scree plots clearly showed a sharp break after the first factor, confirming unidimensionality.<\/p>\n Structural equation modeling and CFA conducted on independent samples demonstrated excellent fit for the hypothesized single-factor measurement model. Standard fit indices consistently met or exceeded the stringent criteria established by Hu and Bentler (1999)<\/a>:<\/p>\n Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$<\/span>) for the three indicators are uniformly robust across independent validation studies:<\/p>\n The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values consistently surpass .75<\/strong> (well above the recognized .50 threshold), indicating that the latent construct explains the vast majority of variance in its operational indicators.<\/p>\n The instrument is specified below in full psychometric detail:<\/p>\n The Product In-use Value scale was developed and published in 2020<\/strong> in the Journal of Consumer Research<\/em>. The instrument is considered an open-access psychometric measurement tool for academic, non-commercial research and educational investigations, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is given to the original authors (Sheehan & Dommer, 2020).<\/p>\n No licensing fee is required for non-profit academic research, university teaching, or replication studies. Commercial entities, market research agencies, or consulting organizations intending to integrate the scale into proprietary commercial software, diagnostic products, or commercial testing batteries should review copyright guidelines held by Oxford University Press and the Journal of Consumer Research<\/em> or seek guidance from the copyright holders.<\/p>\n Response Scale:<\/p>\n 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree)<\/span><\/p>\n Instructions for Administration:<\/p>\n Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements regarding the indicated [product]:<\/p>\n A psychometric review of the Product In-use Value scale by Sheehan and Dommer (2020), measuring consumer perceived utility derived from actively using versus preserving products.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","categories":[745,1076,2270,2],"tags":[2275,4607,19679,19680,19678,6,35,19681],"class_list":["post-6230","psych_scale","type-psych_scale","status-publish","hentry","category-behavioral-economics","category-consumer-psychology","category-measurement-scales","category-psychometrics","tag-consumer-behavior","tag-extended-self","tag-identity-relevance","tag-product-consumption","tag-product-in-use-value","tag-psychometrics","tag-scale-validation","tag-sheehan-and-dommer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale\/6230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/psych_scale"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_scale\/6230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Keywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
In-Use Value vs. Possession Value<\/h3>\n
Operational Dimensions of the Construct<\/h3>\n
\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
The Extended Self and Identity Preservation<\/h3>\n
Value-in-Exchange vs. Value-in-Use<\/h3>\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Convergent Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Predictive and Criterion Validity<\/h3>\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
Internal Consistency<\/h3>\n
\n
Test-Retest Stability<\/h3>\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)<\/h3>\n
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)<\/h3>\n
\n
Factor Loadings and Parameter Estimates<\/h3>\n
\n
Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
[product]<\/code> is dynamically replaced with the specific focal good or category being evaluated (e.g., “this notebook,” “these running shoes,” “this coffee mug”).<\/li>\nPermissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
\n
Items of the Scale<\/h2>\n
\n