Payment Level Motivation

Abstract

The Payment Level Motivation scale, formulated by marketing and consumer behavior researchers Shelly Santana and Vicki G. Morwitz (2021), is an empirical psychometric instrument designed to evaluate consumers' underlying economic self-interest versus prosocial motivations within Pay-What-You-Want (PWYW) participative pricing mechanisms. Conventional neoclassical microeconomic models postulate that when buyers are given total autonomy to determine payment amounts—including the legal option of paying nothing ($0.00)—a rational utility-maximizing actor (Homo economicus) should perpetually pay zero or exploit free-riding opportunities. However, decades of empirical behavioral experiments demonstrate that consumers systematically remit positive, non-trivial amounts. The Payment Level Motivation scale measures the degree to which an individual approaches a PWYW transaction through the lens of monetary opportunism and cost minimization (viewing the encounter as an opportunity to secure a bargain or save personal funds) as opposed to communal responsibility, social exchange, and seller-directed generosity.

Composed of three focal items measured on a multi-point Likert response format, this unidimensional instrument operationalizes the psychological driver mediating gender discrepancies in participative pricing environments. Empirical validation conducted across large-scale experimental and field investigations confirms that the scale possesses robust psychometric properties, demonstrating high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha typically exceeding .85), stable unidimensional factor structures validated through confirmatory factor analysis, and potent convergent and discriminant validity against related constructs such as altruism, price consciousness, and transactional fairness. This article provides a comprehensive psychometric and conceptual evaluation of the scale, examining its theoretical lineage in social role theory and communal-agentic orientation, its structural measurement model, its empirical performance in structural equation modeling, and its applications in contemporary behavioral economics and pricing research.

Keywords

Pay-What-You-Want, Payment Level Motivation, Participative Pricing, Consumer Self-Interest, Social Role Theory, Behavioral Economics, Communal Orientation, Prosocial Behavior, Gender Differences, Psychometrics

Authors

The Payment Level Motivation scale was developed and psychometrically validated by:

• Shelly Santana, Ph.D.: Assistant Professor of Marketing, Bentley University (formerly at Harvard Business School). Dr. Santana's research centers on consumer decision-making, participative pricing systems (such as Pay-What-You-Want and Name-Your-Own-Price), financial literacy, and the intersection of consumer psychology with market mechanisms.
• Vicki G. Morwitz, Ph.D.: Bruce Greenwald Professor of Business and Professor of Marketing at Columbia Business School, Columbia University (formerly at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University). Dr. Morwitz is a widely recognized authority in behavioral pricing, consumer psychology, nudge interventions, and survey measurement methodology.

The foundational scale validation was published in the Journal of Marketing Research (2021) in an article titled “The Role of Gender in Pay-What-You-Want Contexts.” Correspondence regarding the original research framework is conventionally directed through academic channels at Columbia Business School or Bentley University.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Payment Level Motivation scale is to quantify consumer economic self-interest motivation in participative pricing schemes, providing an empirical bridge between macroeconomic rational-choice theories and behavioral psychological models of voluntary financial transactions. In classical business models, prices are posted unilaterally by the seller (posted-price mechanism), effectively reducing the consumer's cognitive choice architecture to a binary purchase or non-purchase decision at the stated monetary threshold. Under participative pricing frameworks—specifically Pay-What-You-Want (PWYW)—buyers retain complete agency to set the transaction price, while the seller commits ex ante to accept any declared sum, including zero, without the ability to decline the exchange.

While standard economic theory predicts catastrophic market failure under PWYW due to rampant opportunism, real-world implementations routinely yield average positive payments sufficient to sustain commercial operations in sectors such as digital media, hospitality, and performance arts. Despite this survival, substantial payment variance exists across consumer segments. The Payment Level Motivation scale was engineered specifically to elucidate why this payment variance occurs at the individual differences level, focusing on the psychological tension between transactional opportunism (seeking an economic deal) and communal generosity.

In academic research, the instrument serves as a critical mediator in experimental marketing designs. Specifically, Santana and Morwitz (2021) designed the tool to demonstrate that observed differences in voluntary payments between demographic groups—most notably the empirical finding that women frequently pay significantly more than men in PWYW exchanges—are mediated by divergent payment level motivations. Men, socialized toward agentic, outcome-oriented, and self-interested behaviors, systematically score higher on the Payment Level Motivation scale, viewing the pricing mechanism as an invitation to maximize surplus. Conversely, women, socialized toward communal, relational, and other-oriented considerations, score lower on economic self-interest motivation, maintaining focus on fairness, seller welfare, and cooperative reciprocity.

Beyond gender research, the scale serves critical functions across diverse applied domains:

• Behavioral Economics and Game Theory: The scale enables researchers to disentangle pure altruistic motivations, warm-glow giving (Andreoni, 1990), and image-seeking behaviors from cold, rational cost-minimization tendencies during public-goods and gift-exchange paradigms.
• Strategic Pricing Architecture: Commercial practitioners deploying voluntary pricing, dynamic tipping interfaces, voluntary donations, or hybrid PWYW systems (e.g., PWYW with a suggested reference price or charitable donation match) can utilize the instrument to segment their user base, diagnosing whether underpayment stems from financial constraints or opportunistically driven payment motivations.
• Cross-Cultural Psychometrics: The scale facilitates cross-national comparisons regarding how cultural dimensions (e.g., Hofstede's Individualism vs. Collectivism) influence the perceptual construal of voluntary economic flexibility.

Psychological Construct

The construct captured by the Payment Level Motivation scale is economic self-interest motivation within voluntary, customer-determined pricing settings. This construct represents an intentional cognitive and motivational orientation wherein an individual conceptualizes an open-ended pricing interaction as an economic negotiation game aimed at personal financial optimization, maximizing individual consumer surplus, and securing an advantageous financial deal at the expense of seller margin.

Deconstructing the Construct

Economic self-interest motivation in PWYW is not merely identical to general price sensitivity or frugality; rather, it is context-specific to transactional scenarios characterized by unilateral buyer discretion. When confronted with an exchange wherein formal institutional sanctions against zero or nominal payments are completely absent, consumers undergo a dual cognitive evaluation:

1. The Economic Self-Interest Frame: The consumer evaluates the transaction through an agentic, calculative lens: “How much money can I save here? How can I extract maximum economic utility from this transaction?” Under this frame, the lack of a mandatory price floor is treated as a strategic vulnerability of the seller that the buyer can legitimately leverage for personal financial gain.
2. The Prosocial / Communal Frame: The consumer views the transaction as a social exchange embedded with mutual obligations, empathy, relational maintenance, and fairness: “What does the seller deserve? How do my actions impact the provider's viability?” Under this frame, underpaying evokes feelings of guilt, shame, or cognitive dissonance stemming from the violation of equitable reciprocity norms.

The Payment Level Motivation scale specifically isolates the strength of the Economic Self-Interest Frame. Individuals exhibiting elevated scores on this construct view the PWYW structure primarily as an instrument for private economic windfall. Conversely, those with low scores actively suppress or de-prioritize self-maximizing calculations, prioritizing normative standards of fairness and external communal welfare.

Contrasting Closely Related Psychological Constructs

To establish construct boundaries, psychometricians distinguish economic self-interest motivation from adjacent psychological attributes:

• Price Consciousness: General price consciousness reflects an enduring consumer trait characterized by an unwillingness to pay high prices across standard marketplace environments. Price-conscious consumers routinely search for discounts, coupons, and low-cost alternatives. In contrast, Payment Level Motivation does not reflect an inability or broad reluctance to spend money; it reflects a targeted behavioral stance toward exploiting the latitude offered by discretionary pricing architectures.
• Materialism: Materialism measures the centrality of acquisition and possession of material goods to an individual's identity and life satisfaction (Richins & Dawson, 1992). Economic self-interest in PWYW is transactional rather than identity-defining; high scorers may not necessarily assign spiritual or emotional value to the goods acquired, but rather experience utility from the structural extraction of financial savings.
• Machiavellianism and Opportunism: While Machiavellianism involves covert manipulation, deception, and moral disengagement, economic self-interest in PWYW operates within the explicit, formal rules of the transaction. Because the seller explicitly grants unconditional permission to pay any chosen amount, exploiting the mechanism involves zero deception or rule-breaking; rather, it represents adherence to standard microeconomic rationality unmitigated by social utility.

Theoretical Framework

The Payment Level Motivation scale is grounded in the convergence of two major theoretical paradigms: Social Role Theory from social psychology and Participative Pricing & Dual-Utility Theory from behavioral economics.

Social Role Theory and Communal versus Agentic Orientations

The primary theoretical engine driving Santana and Morwitz's (2021) conceptualization is Alice Eagly's (1987) Social Role Theory of sex differences and similarities. Social Role Theory posits that historical divisions of labor fostered divergent societal expectations, stereotypes, and behavioral socialization tracks for men and women. These normative expectations coalesce around two foundational behavioral clusters:

• Agentic Orientations: Traditionally encouraged in males, agency encompasses values such as assertiveness, independence, mastery, competition, instrumental problem-solving, and rational self-enhancement. In market interactions, an agentic orientation manifests as calculative efficiency, strategic negotiation, and active pursuit of individual financial advantage.
• Communal Orientations: Traditionally encouraged in females, communality encompasses values such as interpersonal connectedness, emotional responsiveness, caregiving, relational preservation, and concern for the welfare of others. In market contexts, a communal orientation promotes social empathy, adherence to fairness norms, and reciprocal benevolence toward service providers.

Santana and Morwitz hypothesized that because PWYW contexts eliminate external pricing boundaries, they introduce high psychological ambiguity. Under conditions of ambiguous formal guidance, individuals default to deeply internalized social roles and chronic self-regulatory schema. Men interpret the open-ended pricing mechanism as an agentic exercise in opportunistic optimization—generating higher scores on the Payment Level Motivation scale—which leads directly to lower monetary remittances. Women, by contrast, perceive the interaction through a communal lens, viewing the seller's vulnerability as a call for fair treatment and relationship-preserving compensation, thereby suppressing economic self-interest motivation and generating higher voluntary payments.

Dual-Utility Theory and Behavioral Economics

Complementing social role theory is the behavioral economic synthesis of transactional utility (Thaler, 1985) and other-regarding preferences (Fehr & Schmidt, 1999). Classical expected utility models restrict the consumer's objective function to:

U = v(X) – P

where v(X) represents the consumption value of good X, and P represents the monetary price paid. When the constraint on P is relaxed such that P ≥ 0, the consumer maximizes utility strictly by choosing P = 0. However, modern behavioral economics establishes that the consumer's total utility function incorporates internal non-monetary components:

U = [v(X) – P] + γ_fairness(P – P_fair) + γ_altruism(W_seller) – γ_guilt(P_{min_acceptable} – P)

Within this enriched framework, the Payment Level Motivation scale measures the relative weight assigned to the standard economic surplus term [v(X) – P] versus the prosocial, fairness, and guilt-aversion terms (γ). A consumer with high Payment Level Motivation prioritizes maximizing the monetary discrepancy between the perceived utility of the item and the price paid, overriding non-pecuniary social preferences.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations conducted across multiple lab experiments, online consumer panels (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Prolific), and real-world field settings have provided robust evidence supporting the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive/nomological validity of the Payment Level Motivation scale.

Construct Validity

Construct validity was established through rigorous scale purification and confirmatory testing by Santana and Morwitz (2021). The items were crafted to cleanly capture the cognitive prioritization of personal savings, deal extraction, and self-serving economic motives without conflating the measure with operational mechanics or moral self-castigation. In confirmatory factor analyses across distinct experimental cohorts (encompassing thousands of diverse participants across simulated retail, digital goods, and in-person café contexts), the scale items demonstrated homogeneous convergence onto a single latent dimension, with uniform standardized parameter estimates exceeding satisfactory thresholds.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by correlating the Payment Level Motivation scale with established markers of economic opportunism, bargaining orientation, and price salience. Specifically, the scale exhibits significant positive correlations with:

• Bargaining Proneness: Positive correlation with measures assessing enjoyment and active seeking of price negotiations and promotional bargains (e.g., r ≈ .42 to .55).
• Price Consciousness: Moderate positive correlation with measures assessing sensitivity to retail price levels (e.g., r ≈ .38).
• Calculative Rationality: Significant positive association with individual measures of rational-economic decision-making styles.

Discriminant Validity

To confirm that the scale captures a distinct psychometric phenomenon rather than general anti-social traits or broad dispositional greed, discriminant validity was tested against several related socio-psychological scales using average variance extracted (AVE) comparisons and the Fornell-Larcker criterion:

• Social Desirability: The instrument correlates non-significantly or only minimally with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (r typically between -.08 and -.14), demonstrating that respondents are willing to report economic self-interest even when social norms favor generosity.
• Dispositional Empathy: Although negatively associated with Davis's Interpersonal Reactivity Index (specifically the Empathic Concern subscale; r ≈ -.28 to -.34), the magnitude of the shared variance ($R^2 < .12$) demonstrates that economic self-interest in PWYW is not merely the absence of trait empathy, but an active, distinct transactional orientation.
• General Wealth/Income Levels: The scale displays negligible correlation with participant household income, verifying that low payments driven by high payment level motivation reflect opportunistic mindset rather than structural financial insolvency.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity represents the strongest psychometric asset of the Payment Level Motivation scale. In structural equation modeling (SEM) and bootstrap mediation analyses conducted across empirical studies, the scale consistently and fully mediates the documented effect of gender on actual dollar payments in PWYW settings:

• In experimental contexts featuring real monetary payments (e.g., purchasing music tracks, hot beverages, or digital software), gender significantly predicts Payment Level Motivation scores (β ≈ .20 to .32, indicating significantly higher economic self-interest among male participants).
• Payment Level Motivation, in turn, exerts a massive, statistically significant negative direct effect on the chosen payment amount (β ≈ -.45 to -.60, p < .001).
• When Payment Level Motivation is entered as an indirect mediator via bias-corrected bootstrapping (typically 5,000 resamples), the 95% confidence intervals for the indirect path reliably exclude zero, while the direct effect of gender on price paid drops to non-significance, confirming full or near-full psychological mediation.

Reliability

The Payment Level Motivation scale exhibits strong empirical reliability across varied research populations, cultural cohorts, and methodological environments (laboratory computers, paper-and-pencil surveys, and mobile interfaces).

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency refers to the extent to which the constituent items yield consistent scores across individual respondents. In the seminal psychometric validations reported by Santana and Morwitz (2021):

• Cronbach's Alpha (α): Across empirical studies involving sample sizes ranging from N = 250 to N > 1,200, the 3-item scale repeatedly demonstrated Cronbach's alpha coefficients between .85 and .91. These values comfortably exceed the conventional psychometric threshold of .70 recommended for exploratory research and the .80 benchmark required for mature, high-fidelity psychometric testing.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling evaluations report composite reliability values typically ranging between .86 and .92, confirming that the latent variable absorbs substantial variance from the observed indicators without excessive residual error.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): The calculated AVE for the scale consistently exceeds .68 to .78, well above the classic .50 threshold established by Fornell and Larcker (1981), demonstrating that more than two-thirds of the indicator variance is directly attributable to the underlying economic self-interest construct rather than measurement noise.

Test-Retest Stability

Although the Payment Level Motivation scale is conventionally deployed as a state-like or context-dependent evaluation tailored to an immediate transaction, longitudinal and repeated-measures testing during experimental pilot studies reveals moderate-to-high test-retest reliability across brief temporal intervals (e.g., two-week stability coefficients of r ≈ .74 to .81). When consumers are presented with structurally distinct PWYW transactions (e.g., paying for an e-book versus paying for restaurant service), individual rank-order stability remains moderately robust, demonstrating that while the construct responds to situational primes (such as framing the seller as a struggling non-profit versus a corporate entity), individuals possess an enduring baseline propensity toward economic self-interest.

Factor Analysis

To verify the internal structure and dimensionality of the Payment Level Motivation scale, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have been rigorously performed.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial exploratory factor extractions conducted utilizing principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations uniformly yield a single-factor solution:

• Eigenvalue Distribution: The primary extracted factor consistently displays an initial eigenvalue well above 2.20 (accounting for approximately 73% to 81% of the total item variance), whereas the second extracted factor generates eigenvalues consistently below 0.45. The scree plot depicts an unambiguous, sharp elbow after the first factor, confirming clear unidimensionality.
• Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings across all three scale items are uniformly high, typically loading between .82 and .93. No cross-loading ambiguities or aberrant communalities ($h^2 < .50$) are observed.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

When evaluated within a structural equation modeling environment using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR), the measurement model for the 3-item latent factor demonstrates saturated or highly congruent fit parameters. When embedded within larger multi-construct measurement models (alongside constructs such as relational satisfaction, perceived product quality, and social norms), the scale preserves exceptional fit statistics:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): > .98
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): > .97
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): < .05 (with 90% confidence intervals bounded within .00 and .08)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): < .03

The standardized item loadings ($lambda$) derived from representative CFA measurement models are summarized below:

Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) across biological sex (male vs. female cohorts) confirms measurement invariance across groups. Specifically, testing verifies full configural invariance (equivalent factor structure), metric invariance (equivalent factor loadings, ΔCFI < .01), and scalar invariance (equivalent item intercepts, ΔCFI < .01). This psychometric property guarantees that observed group differences in latent mean scores reflect authentic psychological differences in economic self-interest rather than measurement bias or differential item functioning between male and female participants.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational features of the Payment Level Motivation scale are organized as follows:

• Test Type: Self-report psychological survey scale / post-transaction manipulation check and mediation probe.
• Target Population: Consumers, experimental research subjects, and survey participants engaging in discretionary or participative pricing scenarios.
• Construct Assessed: Consumer economic self-interest motivation versus prosocial/generous orientation in discretionary payment contexts.
• Total Item Count: 3 items.
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Response Format: Multi-point Likert-type scale, typically structured on a 7-point scale anchored from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree (or alternatively anchored from 1 = Not at all to 7 = Very much, depending on the specific contextual framing).
• Scoring Protocol:
  • All items are keyed in the direction of economic self-interest (deal-seeking and cost minimization).
  • There are no reverse-coded items in the standard version.
  • An overall Payment Level Motivation index is calculated by computing the unweighted arithmetic mean across the three items:
    
    Score = (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 3) / 3.
  • Higher aggregate scores indicate a stronger economic self-interest motivation (prioritizing deals and personal financial savings). Lower aggregate scores reflect a communal, prosocial motivation (prioritizing seller welfare, generosity, and transactional fairness).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Payment Level Motivation scale was officially published in 2021 in the Journal of Marketing Research by the American Marketing Association (AMA). The foundational citation is:

Santana, S., & Morwitz, V. G. (2021). The Role of Gender in Pay-What-You-Want Contexts. Journal of Marketing Research, 58(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720988647

Licensing and Accessibility: The theoretical conceptualization and psychometric items are copyrighted by the American Marketing Association and the authors. Under standard academic fair use conventions, researchers, scholars, and graduate students may utilize the scale for non-commercial scientific research, academic dissertations, and laboratory experiments without formal royalty fees, provided full academic attribution and citation are rendered. For commercial applications, inclusion in proprietary consumer diagnostics, or large-scale corporate market research platforms, permission must be formally sought from the American Marketing Association through copyright clearance services.

References

• Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133
• Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458–476). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49
• Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151
• 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
• Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., Riener, G., & Nelson, L. D. (2012). Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7236–7240. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1120893109
• Kim, J. Y., Natter, M., & Spann, M. (2009). Pay what you want: A new participative pricing mechanism. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.1.044
• Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1086/209304
• Santana, S., & Morwitz, V. G. (2021). The Role of Gender in Pay-What-You-Want Contexts. Journal of Marketing Research, 58(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720988647
• Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.199

Items of the Scale