Consumer power: scale development and validation in consumer–firm relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report on the development and validation of a consumer power scale comprising a personal and a social power dimension. Personal power refers to consumers’ perceived ability to resist and ignore a firm’s marketing efforts. Social power refers to consumers’ perceived ability to influence a firm’s actions. Design/methodology/approach Following established scale development procedures, the construct definition and item generation preceded five studies that establish the scale’s dimensionality, psychometric properties and external, predictive and nomological validity. Findings Consumer power was modeled as a reflective first-order, formative second-order latent construct. The consumer power scale is psychometrically sound and possesses external and discriminant validity with regard to other power-related measures. Consumer power mediates the relation between consumers’ cognitive control and consumer satisfaction and between perceived choice and emotional responses. Research limitations/implications This research uses episodic recall tasks to elicit power perceptions in various contexts. Results suggest that the scale is useful in comparative and longitudinal tracking of consumers’ perceptions of power in relation to a firm. Originality/value Building on a comprehensive literature review and rigorous scale development, this paper introduces a scale of consumer power that comprises a personal and a social power dimension. A critical analysis of and a predictive validity test of the scale against existing power scales highlight its unique contribution. The scale lends itself to further theory tests regarding antecedents, consequences and moderators of consumer power.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".