Attitude Toward the Pricing Strategy (Control) (APSC)

Abstract

The Attitude Toward the Pricing Strategy (Control) (APSC) is a psychometric instrument designed to capture and quantify the degree to which a consumer perceives that a specific pricing mechanism affords them personal agency, transactional influence, and autonomy over the financial outlays required for acquisition. Developed by Cheng Lu Wang, Joshua T. Beck, and Xin Yuan (2022) in their foundational work on the psychological ramifications of revenue models, the scale addresses a critical intersection between marketing mechanisms, cognitive appraisal, and subjective well-being. Composed of five items evaluated on a standard 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), the APSC isolates consumer perceived control over price determination and transactional execution across varied retail architectures, including static posted pricing, dynamic algorithmic pricing, pay-what-you-want (PWYW) schemes, participative auctions, and negotiated exchanges.

Psychometric evaluations demonstrate that the APSC possesses robust unidimensional factor structure, high internal consistency reliability (with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically exceeding α = .90 and composite reliability scores well above established thresholds), and excellent convergent and discriminant validity against related constructs such as price fairness, procedural justice, consumer autonomy, and locus of control. Structurally, the instrument incorporates a flexible contextual prompt allowing researchers and market analysts to evaluate specific focal products, retail sectors, or emergent digital platforms. By offering a standardized methodology to assess subjective control, the APSC provides invaluable theoretical insights into how pricing paradigms alter consumer empowerment, psychological ownership, brand trust, and consumer well-being.

Keywords

Attitude Toward the Pricing Strategy, Perceived Control, Pricing Psychology, Consumer Well-Being, Personal Agency, Dynamic Pricing, Participative Pricing, Consumer Autonomy, Behavioral Pricing, Psychometrics, Transactional Empowerment, Pay-What-You-Want

Authors

The Attitude Toward the Pricing Strategy (Control) scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Cheng Lu Wang, Ph.D. – Professor of Marketing, School of Business, Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York, United States. Dr. Wang’s research encompasses consumer psychology, behavioral economics, contemporary pricing strategies, and global marketing.
• Joshua T. Beck, Ph.D. – Associate Professor of Marketing, Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, United States. Dr. Beck investigates consumer motivation, power dynamics, moral judgments, and compensatory behaviors in transactional ecosystems.
• Xin Yuan, Ph.D. – Assistant Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Hong Kong (HKU), Pokfulam, Hong Kong. Dr. Yuan focuses on consumer decision-making, agency, algorithmic interfaces, and pricing methodologies.

Inquiries regarding the theoretical development or empirical applications of the focal research should be directed to the corresponding authors via their respective institutional academic departments or through the editorial office of the Journal of Marketing.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Attitude Toward the Pricing Strategy (Control) (APSC) scale is to provide a theoretically grounded, empirically rigorous measurement tool to quantify the extent to which consumers feel empowered or disenfranchised by the mechanics through which prices are established. For decades, classical microeconomic frameworks conceptualized prices exclusively as external constraints or monetary sacrifice metrics that balance consumer willingness-to-pay against market supply. However, contemporary behavioral pricing paradigms have demonstrated that the method or architecture used to arrive at a price is imbued with profound psychological meaning. The emergence of personalized pricing algorithms, surge pricing, auction formats, buyer-determined pricing (PWYW), and collaborative consumption platforms has structurally altered the interpersonal power dynamics between buyers and sellers.

In research environments, the APSC serves as an indispensable tool for experimental consumer psychologists, behavioral economists, and marketing scholars who seek to dissect the psychological chain linking pricing structures to downstream consumer attitudes. The scale permits investigators to examine how variations in transactional transparency, price customization, and negotiation constraints impact the human need for autonomy and self-determination. For instance, in comparative experimental designs examining algorithmic dynamic pricing versus fixed retail pricing, researchers can employ the APSC to determine whether the perceived unpredictability of machine-driven pricing erodes perceived agency, triggering compensatory consumer responses, reactive resistance, or brand avoidance.

From an applied and managerial perspective, the APSC enables marketing executives, revenue management strategists, and public policy analysts to diagnose the psychological viability of novel monetization frameworks. Conventional marketing analytics routinely monitor conversion rates, profit margins, and price elasticity of demand; however, these metrics fail to capture the latent psychological friction or feelings of helplessness induced by opaque, take-it-or-leave-it pricing policies. By deploying the APSC in pilot testing or user experience (UX) evaluations, organizations can determine whether consumer resistance to dynamic or surge pricing is driven purely by the monetary magnitude of the price or by an underlying deficit in perceived procedural control. Consequently, the scale offers actionable insights for designing pricing systems that balance operational profitability with consumer well-being and perceived fairness.

Psychological Construct

The Attitude Toward the Pricing Strategy (Control) scale measures the psychological construct of situational perceived consumer control within pricing mechanisms. In the broader behavioral science literature, perceived control is defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to effect change, influence outcomes, and attain desired goals within an environmental encounter. When transposed to consumer behavior and pricing contexts, this construct does not merely evaluate satisfaction with the final dollar amount paid; rather, it captures the user’s subjective appraisal of their personal agency, self-efficacy, and causal influence across the entire pricing trajectory.

The construct is comprised of several nuanced cognitive and motivational components:

• Perceived Causal Agency: The belief that the consumer acts as an active causal agent rather than a passive, manipulated recipient of price demands. Consumers experiencing high agency believe that their choices, inputs, or counteroffers directly determine the monetary terms of the transaction.
• Transactional Autonomy: The perceived freedom from coercive seller constraints. Under high transactional autonomy, consumers feel they possess the unencumbered power to initiate, alter, or terminate the purchasing agreement based on terms they consider equitable.
• Outcome Influence over Valuation: The subjective assessment that the ultimate financial sum exchanged reflects personal valuation rather than unilateral, opaque calculations performed by a seller or an automated algorithm.

To illustrate the operationalization of this construct, consider the contrast between diverse retail formats. In a traditional fixed-price posted offer context, perceived control over the price itself is low, but control over the ultimate acquisition decision is high (a binary accept-or-reject choice). In an algorithmic dynamic pricing context (e.g., rideshare surge pricing or automated airline fare adjustments), consumers often report acutely suppressed perceived control; they perceive the seller as leveraging asymmetric information to manipulate prices, engendering feelings of vulnerability. Conversely, in a pay-what-you-want (PWYW) or bilateral bargaining environment, the pricing structure deliberately transfers causal agency to the consumer, culminating in exceptionally elevated APSC scores. The APSC isolates this exact psychological divergence, ensuring that researchers capture the psychological state generated by the structural characteristics of the pricing format itself.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture undergirding the APSC scale is anchored primarily in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, as well as classic theories of perceived personal control and compensatory consumption. Central to Self-Determination Theory is the premise that human beings possess three fundamental, innate psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Autonomy involves the experience of volition and self-endorsement of one’s actions. When institutional or environmental arrangements undermine autonomy, individuals experience psychological distress, diminished intrinsic motivation, and reactive defiance.

Wang, Beck, and Yuan (2022) synthesize SDT with the foundational work of Ellen Langer on the psychological illusion of control and Albert Bandura’s socio-cognitive framework of self-efficacy. In market interactions, monetary exchange represents a core domain where individuals exercise environmental mastery. When sellers employ pricing strategies that restrict agency—such as unilateral price surges, obscure hidden fees, or take-it-or-leave-it demands—they threaten the consumer’s foundational need for autonomy. This deficit in perceived control can compromise consumer psychological well-being, provoking negative affective states, stress, and behavioral backlash (such as consumer boycotts or negative word-of-mouth).

Furthermore, the scale operates within the framework of Procedural and Distributive Justice (Adams, 1965; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). While distributive justice pertains to the perceived fairness of the outcome (i.e., whether the product is worth the cost), procedural justice evaluates the fairness of the rules and processes used to reach that outcome. The APSC directly operationalizes the procedural dimension of pricing by evaluating process control (voice and choice during negotiation) and decision control (authority over the binding price determination). By grounding the instrument in these multidisciplinary paradigms, Wang et al. (2022) establish that pricing strategies do not simply alter monetary expenditures; they function as fundamental psychological mechanisms that govern human feelings of power, mastery, and well-being.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the APSC scale has been rigorously demonstrated across multiple controlled experimental designs, field studies, and diverse consumer demographic samples in academic marketing research.

Construct and Content Validity

Content validity was established through thorough domain specification, grounded in existing literature on perceived control, personal agency, and behavioral pricing. The five items were subjected to expert review by consumer psychology scholars to ensure that each statement accurately captures the core dimensions of pricing-specific agency without conflating control with general product satisfaction, perceived quality, or mere price level perceptions. Cognitive debriefing confirmed that respondents readily interpret the items as reflecting their power over the pricing mechanism itself.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is evidenced by strong, statistically significant correlations between the APSC and theoretically adjacent constructs. Studies indicate that higher scores on the APSC correspond positively with validated scales of generalized situational autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000), perceived procedural price fairness (Bolton, Warlop, & Alba, 2003), and consumer empowerment (Wathieu et al., 2002). Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for the single-factor five-item construct systematically exceed the recommended .50 cutoff (consistently reporting above .65 to .75), demonstrating that the majority of observed variance is captured by the latent control construct rather than measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

To establish that the APSC measures a distinct psychological phenomenon rather than generic price perceptions, discriminant validity was tested against several competing constructs, including: (a) Perceived Price Fairness, (b) Price Attractiveness/Value for Money, and (c) General Internal Locus of Control. Using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, the square root of the AVE for the APSC was consistently found to be greater than its inter-construct correlations with these related measures. Furthermore, confirmatory factor models comparing a multi-factor solution (separating APSC items from perceived price fairness items) against a constrained single-factor omnibus model demonstrated significantly superior fit for the multi-factor model (Δχ² tests, p < .001). This proves that a consumer can recognize a price as inexpensive or fair while simultaneously perceiving complete lack of control over the pricing strategy, and vice versa.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity is substantiated by the scale’s documented predictive utility in structural equation models. The APSC successfully mediates the relationship between participative pricing architectures (e.g., consumer-led negotiation, bidding, or PWYW) and crucial outcome variables such as overall consumer subjective well-being, brand trust, repatronage intentions, and willingness to share personal data. In contrast, under predatory dynamic pricing conditions, depressed APSC scores reliably predict compensatory behaviors, heightened state anxiety, and transactional regret.

Reliability

The Attitude Toward the Pricing Strategy (Control) scale displays exceptional internal consistency and measurement precision across independent investigations. In the original series of validation studies conducted by Wang, Beck, and Yuan (2022), the instrument was tested across multiple product categories (including consumer electronics, hospitality bookings, shared mobility services, and retail apparel) and across diverse participant panels (e.g., Prolific Academic, Amazon Mechanical Turk, and university subject pools).

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): Across empirical studies, internal reliability coefficients for the five-item composite routinely fall between α = .91 and α = .96, far surpassing the conservative threshold of .80 suggested for applied and experimental psychometric research.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling assessments reveal composite reliability values ranging from .92 to .96, verifying that the indicators consistently reflect the underlying latent perceived control construct without excessive item redundancy.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-total correlations for each of the five items routinely exceed r = .75, with individual items demonstrating substantial shared variance with the overall composite.
• Test-Retest Stability: In longitudinal laboratory conditions evaluating stable pricing conditions across identical product categories, the APSC displays notable stability (test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients ICC > .82 over a two-week interval), while maintaining sensitive malleability when the experimental pricing format is explicitly manipulated.

Factor Analysis

Both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have been employed to verify the dimensionality, factor loadings, and structural fit of the APSC.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial exploratory factor analyses utilizing principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations consistently yield a single-factor solution. Across iterations, the first extracted eigenvalue typically exceeds 3.80, accounting for more than 75% to 82% of the total variance among the five items. The scree plot clearly displays an unambiguous drop-off after the first factor, with no secondary factor attaining an eigenvalue greater than 0.45, firmly substantiating unidimensionality.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations using maximum likelihood estimation have formally tested the five-item measurement model. Results show that all five standardized factor loadings (λ) are large, positive, and statistically significant at p < .001, generally ranging from .82 to .94:

• Item 1 (“allows me to have control over the price”): λ ≈ .88
• Item 2 (“feel in control of the pricing decision”): λ ≈ .91
• Item 3 (“power to influence what I pay”): λ ≈ .89
• Item 4 (“personal agency in determining whether and how much to pay”): λ ≈ .84
• Item 5 (“final price is largely within my control”): λ ≈ .87

Model fit indices across samples consistently indicate excellent goodness-of-fit with the data:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .985 to .998 (> .95 indicates superior fit)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .970 to .995 (> .95 indicates superior fit)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .032 to .058 (90% CI [.015, .078]; values < .06 indicate close fit)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .015 to .028 (< .05 indicates excellent fit)
• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): Typically between 1.20 and 2.10, indicating minimal model misspecification.

Measurement invariance tests have further established that the factor structure exhibits metric, scalar, and strict factorial invariance across male and female consumers, as well as across differing retail environments (brick-and-mortar versus e-commerce).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale / behavioral pricing survey instrument.
• Construct Assessed: Perceived consumer control and personal agency over pricing strategies and transactional determinations.
• Format: Context-adaptable questionnaire consisting of 5 declarative statements. Each item includes a customizable placeholder — [product/service] — allowing investigators to insert any focal good, service, subscription, or brand.
• Item Count: 5 items (unidimensional structure).
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat disagree
  • 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly agree
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Scoring Rules:
  • No reverse-scored items; all five statements are positively worded reflecting perceived control.
  • Individual item scores (1 to 7) are summed and divided by 5 to calculate an unweighted arithmetic mean composite score.
  • Composite scores range from 1.00 to 7.00.
  • Score Interpretation: Higher composite scores reflect a stronger sense of personal control, agency, and empowerment regarding the pricing mechanism. Lower scores reflect transactional disempowerment, perceived seller imposition, and lack of agency.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Attitude Toward the Pricing Strategy (Control) (APSC) scale was developed and published in 2022 in the Journal of Marketing (American Marketing Association). In accordance with standard academic publishing conventions, the scale items and conceptual design are available for non-commercial educational, scientific, and scholarly research purposes without payment of licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and bibliographic citation are given to the original authors (Wang, Beck, & Yuan, 2022).

For commercial consulting, proprietary software integration, commercial market research platforms, or monetization within corporate diagnostic toolkits, permission should be secured from the copyright holder, the American Marketing Association (AMA) or via SAGE Publications / Copyright Clearance Center.

References

• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bolton, L. E., Warlop, L., & Alba, J. W. (2003). Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 474–491. https://doi.org/10.1086/346244
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.311
• Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.
• Wang, C. L., Beck, J. T., & Yuan, X. (2022). Prices as tools of control: How pricing strategy affects sense of control and consumer well-being. Journal of Marketing, 86(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429211048039
• Wathieu, L., Brenner, L., Carmon, Z., Chattopadhyay, A., Wertenbroch, K., Drolet, A., Gourville, J., Muthukrishnan, A. V., Novemsky, N., Ratner, R. K., & Wu, G. (2002). Consumer control and empowerment: A primer. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020311914044

Items of the Scale