Product In-use Value

Abstract

The Product In-use Value scale is a concise, psychometrically validated tri-item measurement instrument developed by Daniel Sheehan and Sara Loughran Dommer (2020) 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 and the extended self, 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’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding .88 and McDonald’s 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.

Keywords

Product In-use Value, Consumer Psychology, Measurement Scale, Psychometrics, Product Usage, Possession Utility, Extended Self, Identity Relevance, Consumption Behavior, Scale Validation

Authors

The Product In-use Value scale was designed, tested, and published by academic researchers specializing in consumer psychology, behavioral economics, and brand relationships:

• Daniel Sheehan, Ph.D. — Assistant Professor of Marketing, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky (at the time of publication; currently associated with the Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University). His research investigates consumer behavior, identity signaling, product usage dynamics, and the psychological consequences of consumer-brand interactions.
• Sara Loughran Dommer, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University. Her scholarship centers on consumer identity, psychological ownership, self-threat, and the cognitive mechanisms that govern how interpersonal relationships and self-concepts influence marketplace decisions.

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.

Purpose

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).

In clinical, behavioral, and applied consumer contexts, consumers frequently acquire goods that they subsequently refrain from using. This phenomenon—often manifested as the chronic preservation of “special” goods, gifting paralysis, hoarding tendencies, or under-consumption of identity-congruent items—stems 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.

Research applications of the instrument span several critical domains:

• Identity and Self-Protection Research: Investigating how identity threats or identity linkages alter the propensity to actively use goods versus archiving them as symbolic totems.
• Sustainable Consumption and Waste Reduction: Understanding why consumers hoard or fail to circulate underutilized durable goods, thereby informing interventions aimed at encouraging circular economy practices and product sharing models.
• Product Design and Ergonomics: Quantifying the success of functional designs in shifting consumer mindset from display-oriented aesthetic appreciation toward pragmatic, daily integration.
• Inventory Depletion and Re-purchase Dynamics: Predicting real-world consumer re-order rates, depletion velocity, and lifecycle satisfaction in fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) as well as premium durable sectors.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by this instrument is Product In-use Value. 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; Richins, 1994). Product In-use Value represents an essential, orthogonal dimension that captures the dynamic realization of utility through operational engagement.

In-Use Value vs. Possession Value

To fully comprehend the construct, it is vital to contrast in-use value with possession value. 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 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.

Operational Dimensions of the Construct

Although captured via a parsimonious unidimensional scale, the psychological construct encompasses three closely related cognitive facets:

• Realized Utility Extraction: The consumer’s conscious recognition that the primary return on investment (financial, temporal, or emotional) occurs during the physical act of usage (Item 1: “I get a lot of value out of using this [product]”).
• Perceived Subjective Worth of Engagement: The judgment that the operational deployment of the object justifies whatever costs, risks of depreciation, or expenditure of effort are involved in its operation (Item 2: “Using this [product] is worthwhile to me”).
• Locus of Value Origin: The cognitive attribution that the fundamental utility of the good originates in its functional deployment rather than in passive ownership or preservation (Item 3: “The value of this [product] comes from using it”).

When in-use value is low, consumers view using the item as suboptimal, often because the act of consumption brings psychological friction—such 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.

Theoretical Framework

The Product In-use Value scale is deeply grounded in theories of self-identity, psychological ownership, and compensatory consumption.

The Extended Self and Identity Preservation

A foundational pillar of the theoretical framework is Russell Belk’s (1988) seminal formulation of the Extended Self, 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.

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 and elevating its preservation value. Under such conditions, consumers paradoxically avoid using the very items they value most.

Value-in-Exchange vs. Value-in-Use

The scale also directly incorporates insights from the Service-Dominant (S-D) logic of marketing articulated by Vargo and Lusch (2004). S-D logic distinguishes between value-in-exchange (the nominal price or transactional worth negotiated at acquisition) and value-in-use (the phenomenological, co-created value realized exclusively when a good is integrated into the consumer’s ongoing life practices). Sheehan and Dommer operationalized this theoretical distinction at the micro-cognitive level. By isolating the individual’s subjective appraisal of value-in-use, the instrument allows researchers to assess whether consumer valuation aligns with dynamic practice or static possession.

Validity

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.

Construct and Convergent Validity

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:

• Consumption Likelihood and Frequency: Significant positive correlations with behavioral measures of product usage frequency ($r = .52$ to $.68, p < .001$).
• Utilitarian Value Perceptions: Moderate-to-high positive correlations with established utilitarian value dimensions ($r = .58, p < .001$), demonstrating that functional utility heavily informs the appraisal of in-use value.
• Depletion Propensity: Direct alignment with consumers’ willingness to deplete consumable or semi-durable goods during experimental consumption tasks.

Discriminant Validity

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) 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:

• General Product Liking / Brand Attitude: While individuals may report high overall liking ($M > 6.0$ on a 7-point scale) for a luxury or identity-relevant item, their in-use value may simultaneously plunge ($M < 3.2$), confirming empirical orthogonality ($r < .30$).
• Possession Value / Symbolic Attachment: Structural models separating items measuring possession attachment from in-use value confirmed that the two constructs load on separate factors ($Deltachi^2(1) > 45.0, p < .001$), supporting distinct psychological mechanisms.
• Perceived Product Quality: High perceived quality does not necessarily translate to high in-use value, particularly when superior craftsmanship induces preservation motives.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

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.

Reliability

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.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency estimates across the empirical investigations reported in the foundational literature consistently exceed standard psychometric thresholds ($lpha ge .70$ for exploratory research; $lpha ge .80$ for basic research):

• Across the multiple experimental studies in Sheehan and Dommer (2020), the scale’s Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients ranged from .88 to .94, reflecting exceptional internal coherence among the three items.
• McDonald’s omega ($\omega_t$ and $\omega_h$), which does not rely on the assumption of tau-equivalence, yielded values between .89 and .94, further confirming internal structural reliability.
• Inter-item correlations routinely range between $.68$ and $.84$, indicating that each item captures a shared conceptual core without exhibiting redundant collinearity ($r > .90$).
• Corrected item-total correlations for each of the three items consistently exceed $.75$.

Test-Retest Stability

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 ($r_{tt} = .78, p < .001$). 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.

Factor Analysis

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).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

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 $> 2.45$), accounting for over 82% to 88% of the total variance across product domains. Scree plots clearly showed a sharp break after the first factor, confirming unidimensionality.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

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):

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $> .99$ (frequently reaching $1.00$ in just-identified tri-item specifications).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $> .98$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $< .045$ (90% CI $[.000, .078]$).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $< .020$.

Factor Loadings and Parameter Estimates

Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) for the three indicators are uniformly robust across independent validation studies:

• Item 1 (“I get a lot of value out of using this [product]”): $lambda = .84 – .92$
• Item 2 (“Using this [product] is worthwhile to me”): $lambda = .88 – .94$
• Item 3 (“The value of this [product] comes from using it”): $lambda = .82 – .89$

The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values consistently surpass .75 (well above the recognized .50 threshold), indicating that the latent construct explains the vast majority of variance in its operational indicators.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The instrument is specified below in full psychometric detail:

• Instrument Name: Product In-use Value Scale
• Original Authors: Daniel Sheehan and Sara Loughran Dommer (2020)
• Construct Assessed: Perceived value derived specifically from the active, operational usage of a product (versus passive retention or preservation)
• Test Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire
• Item Count: 3 items
• Authentic Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree)
• Administration Time: Approximately 30 to 60 seconds
• Target Population: Consumers, experimental participants, adult survey respondents evaluating tangible or experiential consumer goods
• Contextual Adaptation: The placeholder [product] is dynamically replaced with the specific focal good or category being evaluated (e.g., “this notebook,” “these running shoes,” “this coffee mug”).
• Scoring and Index Calculation: Items are averaged to create an overall composite index of product in-use value. All items are positively keyed (no reverse-scored items). Higher overall mean scores reflect greater perceived value derived from actively using the product.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Product In-use Value scale was developed and published in 2020 in the Journal of Consumer Research. 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).

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 or seek guidance from the copyright holders.

References

• Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203010679
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378028
• Richins, M. L. (1994). Special possessions and the expression of material values. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 522–533. https://doi.org/10.1086/209415
• Sheehan, D., & Dommer, S. L. (2020). Saving your self: How identity relevance influences product usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(6), 1076–1092. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz055
• Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036

Items of the Scale