Based on the research of Sheth (1991) , Sweeney (2001) and Yong-Gui Wang ( 2005 ) , the study introduced a new dimension of Consumer Perceived Value-Self-Efficacy Value and divided it into Egocentric Self-Efficacy Value and Altruistic Self-Efficacy Value through data analysis. So there are 6 dimensions besides 4 quondam dimensions-Function Value, Emotion Value, Society Value and Perceived Sacrifice in the study.In addition, the study on Consumer Equity is in leading strings, but it is a goodparadigm. Just as the affirmation of Bell (2002) , that is, the essence of marketing is asystemic process of constructing Consumer Equity. This study use the model of Rust(2000) and Consumer equity is driven by Value equity, Brand equity andRelationship equity in the model.The study constructed the impact model of Consumer Perceived Value on Consumer Equity. Choosing the cell phone market as the research object, the study investigated the cell phone consumer in Xiamen and got 276 pieces effective questionnaire. Through using the statistical analysis method such as factor analysis and SEM, the study carried through the hypothesis test. The result showed that most of the hypotheses were supported, but the impact of Egocentric Self-Efficacy on Brand Equity and the impact of Altruistic Self-Efficacy on Relationship Equity were not significant. And the author explained the result in the paper. What need be emphasized is the impact of Egocentric Self-Efficacy on Relationship Equity was very significant and the impact of Altruistic Self-Efficacy on Brand Equity was significant. This result suggested that the two new dimension of Consumer Perceived Value were significative. In addition, the two hypotheses were supported, that is, primary aspect of Perceived Sacrifice-Price has positive significant impact on Brand Equity and negative significant impact on Value Equity. In this way, Pricing Dilemma of corporation was testified, that is, Value Equity would decrease if the price is too high and Brand Equity would decrease if the price is too low. |