Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
Korean Academic Society of Business Administration
[ Article ]
korean management review - Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.275-296
ISSN: 1226-1874 (Print)
Print publication date 28 Feb 2019
Received 18 Sep 2018 Accepted 27 Dec 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2019.48.1.275

우호적 정보의 제시시점이 제품 선택에 미치는 효과: 처리 수월성의 조절효과를 중심으로

박가영* ; 하영원**
*(제1저자) 서강대학교 대학원 경영학과 석사 rkdud2117@naver.com
**(교신저자) 서강대학교 경영학과 교수 ywha@sogang.ac.kr
The Influence of Timing of Presenting Favorable Information on Product Choice: The Moderating Role of Processing Fluency
Gayoung Park* ; Young-Won Ha**
*Graduate Student, Sogang School of Business, Sogang University, First Author
**Professor of Marketing, Sogang School of Business, Sogang University, Corresponding Author

초록

본 연구는 상품 선택의 사전 단계에서 제시되지 않았던 특정 대안에 우호적인 속성 정보가 최종 선택 단계에서 추가적으로 제시되었을 때 소비자의 선택에 미치는 영향을 정보 처리 수월성의 조절적 효과를 중심으로 살펴보았다. 소비자들은 상품 선택의 사전 제거 단계에서 여러 후보 대안 중에서 매력적이지 않은 대안(들)을 우선 제거하게 되는데, 본 연구에서는 이 단계에서 소비자들이 정보를 얼마나 수월하게 처리했는지에 따라 최종 선택이 달라질 것으로 보았다. 본 연구에서 밝혀낸 것을 요약하면 첫째, 특정 정보를 지연시켜 나중에 제시한 경우 처음부터 정보를 완전히 제시한 경우보다 그 정보가 포함된 대안의 선택비율이 높아진다는 기존 연구 결과를 다시 입증하였다. 둘째, 정보의 지연여부가 최종 선택에 미치는 영향은 정보 처리 수월성에 의해 조절된다는 것을 밝혀내었다. 즉, 사전 단계에서 정보를 수월하게 처리한 경우, 특정 정보를 지연시켜 나중에 제시할 때가 처음부터 정보를 완전하게 제시할 때보다 그 정보가 포함된 대안을 선택할 가능성이 높게 나타났지만, 사전 단계에서 정보를 수월하게 처리하지 못한 경우 이러한 효과가 완화되어 나타났다. 셋째, 추가적으로 제시된 정보가 비진단적일 경우, 대응되는 경쟁대안 속성의 방향성과 정보 처리 수월성 사이에 유의미한 상호작용이 나타나지 않았다. 즉, 소비자들이 사전 단계에서 정보를 수월하게 처리한 경우, 비진단적인 추가정보와 이에 대응되는 경쟁대안 속성의 방향성과 관계없이, 추가 정보가 포함된 대안을 경쟁 대안에 비해 선택할 가능성이 높은 것으로 나타났다. 반면, 정보를 수월하게 처리하지 못한 경우 두 속성 간에 방향성과 관계없이 두 초점대안 간에 선택비율은 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 이러한 발견을 바탕으로 이론적, 실무적 시사점에 대해 논의하였다.

Abstract

Many decisions are made through choice process that involves multiple stages. Typically, consumers eliminate alternative(s) from further consideration at the initial screening stage and identify the best alternative among those considered at the final choice stage. Consumers are often provided additional favorable information about an alternative from sellers when they are about to make a final choice.

This study investigates the effect of delaying the presentation of some favorable information about an alternative and processing fluency level on consumers’ choice. For this purpose, we conducted two experiments. The current study reveals the following results. First, the choice probability of an alternative that contains additional information is increased when this information was delayed until after consumers have completed their screening of alternatives compared with when all information is revealed from the initial stage. Second, the influence of delaying the presentation of specific pieces of information on the consumers’choice is moderated by processing fluency that consumers experienced at the initial stage. For consumers who experienced high fluency at the initial stage, when specific pieces of information is additionally presented on the final stage, that alternative’s choice share is increased than when all information was presented from the beginning. In contrast, for consumers who experienced low fluency at the initial stage, the choice share of an alternative with additional information dose not differ significantly between delay and no delay conditions. Third, when the additional information is non-diagnostic, there is no significant interaction effect between processing fluency and the valence of corresponding attribute levels of a competitive alternative on the dimensions for which information was delayed. When consumers experienced high fluency at the initial stage, they are more likely to choose an alternative with additional information than a competitive alternative irrespective of the valence of corresponding attribute levels. On the other hand, when consumers experienced low fluency at the initial stage, there is no significant difference between two alternatives irrespective of the valence of corresponding attribute levels. Finally, theoretical as well as practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords:

processing fluency, timing of presenting information, delaying for information, additional information, mood

키워드:

정보 제시시점, 정보 지연, 추가 정보, 정보 처리 수월성, 메타인지

Acknowledgments

이 연구는 2014년 정부(교육부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2014S1A5B1065433).This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A5B1065433).

References

  • 송경일, 최종수 (2008). SPSS15를 이용한 생존자료의 분석, SPSS 아카데미 시리즈, 한나래 출판사.
  • Adaval, R., and Monroe, K. B. (2002), “Automatic Construction and Use of Contextual Information for Product and Price Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (4), 572-588. [https://doi.org/10.1086/338212]
  • Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., and Eyre, R. N. (2007), “Overcoming Intuition: Metacognitive Difficulty Activates Analytic Reasoning,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136 (4), 569-576. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569]
  • Beach, L. R. (1993), “Broadening the Definition of Decision Making: The Role of Prechoice Screening of Options,” Psychological Science, 4 (4), 215-220. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00264.x]
  • Bettman, J. R., A Park, C. W. (1980), “Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3), 234-248. [https://doi.org/10.1086/208812]
  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., and Payne, J. W. (1998), “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187-217. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209535]
  • Chakravarti, A., and Janiszewski, C. (2003), “The Influence of Macro-level Motives on Consideration Set Composition in Novel Purchase Situations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 244-258. [https://doi.org/10.1086/376803]
  • Chakravarti, A., Janiszewski, C., and Ülkümen, G. (2006), “The Neglect of Pre-screening Information,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (4), 642-653. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.4.642]
  • Chernev, A. (1997), “The Effect of Common Features on Brand Choice: Moderating Role of Attribute Importance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (4), 304-311. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209485]
  • Dhar, R. (1997), “Consumer Preference for a No-choice Option,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), 215-231. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209506]
  • Drolet, A., and Luce, M. F. (2004), “The Rationalizing Effects of Cognitive Load on Emotion-Based Trade-Off Avoidance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 63-77. [https://doi.org/10.1086/383424]
  • Forgas, J. P., and East, R. (2008), “On Being Happy and Gullible: Mood Effects on Skepticism and the Detection of Deception,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (5), 1362-1367. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.010]
  • Garbarino, E. C., and Edell, J. A. (1997), “Cognitive Effort, Affect, and Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), 147-158. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209500]
  • Ge, X., Häubl, G., and Elrod, T. (2011), “What to Say When: Influencing Consumer Choice by Delaying the Presentation of Favorable Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1004-1021. [https://doi.org/10.1086/661937]
  • Gill, M. J., Swann Jr, W. B., and Silvera, D. H. (1998), “On the Genesis of Confidence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (5),1101-1114. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1101]
  • Hamilton, R., Hong, J., and Chernev, A. (2007), “Perceptual Focus Effects in Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2),187-199. [https://doi.org/10.1086/519147]
  • Haugtvedt, C. P., and Wegener, D. T. (1994), “Message Order Effects in Persuasion: An Attitude Strength Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 205-218. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209393]
  • Johar, G. V., Jedidi, K., and Jacoby, J(1997), “A Varying-Parameter Averaging Model of On-Line Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), 232-247. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209507]
  • Kettle, K., and Häubl, G. (2010), “Numeric Fluency and Preference,” in North American Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 37, M. C. Campbell, J. Inman, & R. Pieters, eds., Duluth, MN: Association For Consumer Research, 150-152.
  • Lee, A. Y., and Labroo, A. A. (2004), “The Effect of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (2), 151-165. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.2.151.28665]
  • Liang, K. Y., and Zeger, S. L. (1986), “Longitudinal Data Analysis Using Generalized Linear Models,” Biometrika, 73 (1), 13-22. [https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/73.1.13]
  • Luce, M. F. (1998), “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 409-433. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209518]
  • Mitchell H. Katz (2006), Multivariable Analysis; A Practical Guide for Clinicians, 2nd edition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Muthukrishnan, A. V., and Wathieu, L. (2006), “Superfluous Choices and the Persistence of Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (4), 454-460. [https://doi.org/10.1086/510229]
  • Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., and Simonson, I. (2007), “Preference Fluency in Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 347-356. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.3.347]
  • Nowlis, S. M., Kahn, B. E., Dhar, R., Luce, M. F., and Novemsky, N. (2000), “Indifference versus Ambivalence: The Effect of a Neutral Point on Consumer Attitude and Preference Measurement.” working paper, College of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.
  • Payne, J. W. (1976), “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16 (2), 366-387. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90022-2]
  • Potter, R. B., and Beach, L. R. (1994), “Imperfect Information in Pre-choice Screening of Options,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59 (2), 313-329. [https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1062]
  • Reber, R., and Schwarz, N. (1999), “Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Judgments of Truth,” Consciousness and Cognition, 8 (3), 338-342. [https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1999.0386]
  • Schwarz, N. (2004), “Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (4), 332-348. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2]
  • Shen, H., Jiang, Y., and Adaval, R. (2009), “Contrast and Assimilation Effects of Processing Fluency,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 876-889. [https://doi.org/10.1086/612425]
  • Thompson, D. V., and Ince, E. C. (2013), “When Disfluency Signals Competence: The Effect of Processing Difficulty on Perceptions of Service Agents,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 228-240. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0340]
  • Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185, 1124-1131. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124]
  • Winkielman, P., and Cacioppo, J. T. (2001), “Mind at Ease Puts a Smile on the Face: Psychophysiological Evidence that Processing Facilitation Elicits Positive Affect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 989-1000. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989]
  • Webster, D. M., Richter, L., and Kruglanski, A. W. (1996), “On Leaping to Conclusions When Feeling Tired: Mental Fatigue Effects on Impressional Primacy,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32 (2), 181-195. [https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.0009]
  • Yi, S., and Baumgartner, H. (2004), “Coping with Negative Emotions in Purchase-Related Situation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 303-317. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_11]

• 저자 박가영은 서강대학교 경영대학을 졸업하였고 동대학원에서 마케팅 전공으로 경영학 석사 학위를 취득하였다. 주요 연구 분야는 소비자 의사결정이다.

• 저자 하영원은 현재 서강대학교 경영대학 마케팅 전공 교수로 재직 중이다. 서울대학교 법과대학을 졸업하였으며, 미국 시카고 대학교 경영대학원에서 마케팅 전공으로 경영학 석사 및 박사 학위를 취득하고 미국 럿거즈 대학교 경영대학원에서 조교수로 재직한 뒤 귀국하여 서강대학교에서 연구와 강의활동을 계속하고 있다. 주요 연구 분야는 소비자의 판단과 의사결정, 소비자 행동의 비교 문화적 접근 등이다.