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. 47, No. 3, pp.577-600
ISSN: 1226-1874 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2018
Received 24 Nov 2017 Revised 23 Feb 2018 Accepted 20 Apr 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2018.47.3.577

소비 목표와 조절 초점이 브랜드 우위 대안과 속성 우위 대안 간 선호에 미치는 효과

박세훈* ; 이나래**
*(주저자/교신저자) 서강대학교 sehoon@sogang.ac.kr
**(공동저자) 한국표준협회 2wing@ksa.or.kr
Effects of Consumption Goal and Regulatory Focus on Preference between Brand-superior and Attribute-superior Alternatives
Sehoon Park* ; NaRae Lee**
*Professor of Marketing, Sogang Business School, Sogang University, First Author/Corresponding Author
**Researcher of Korean Standards Association, Co-Author

초록

본 연구는 브랜드 우위 대안과 속성 우위 대안이 주어졌을 때, 소비자들이 가지고 있는 어떠한 요인들에 의해 대안들에 대한 선호가 달라지며, 이러한 선호 차이는 어떤 심리적 메커니즘을 거치는지를 조사했다. 비교적 브랜드 지위(vs. 제품 속성)가 뛰어난 대안을 브랜드 우위 대안, 비교적 제품 속성(vs. 브랜드 지위)이 뛰어난 대안을 속성 우위 대안으로 설정했을 때, 소비자가 가지고 있는 소비 목표(쾌락 vs. 실용)와 동기 지향 성향인 조절 초점(향상 vs. 예방)이 대안들에 대한 선호에 영향을 미칠 것이라 예상하고, 다음과 같은 가설들을 설정하였다. 소비자가 쾌락적(vs. 실용적) 목표를 가진 경우 브랜드(vs. 속성) 우위 대안의 선호가 높게(vs. 낮게) 나타날 것이고, 이 효과는 브랜드(vs. 속성)의 상대적 중요도에 의해 매개될 것이고, 더 나아가서 의사 결정 모드가 선행 매개 변수로 작용하여 브랜드(vs. 속성)의 상대적 중요도를 거쳐 순차적으로 매개될 것이다. 반면에 소비자가 향상(vs. 예방) 초점을 가진 경우에 브랜드(vs. 속성) 우위 대안의 선호가 높게(vs. 낮게) 나타나지만, 이는 소비 목표와는 달리 의사 결정 모드를 거치지 않고 브랜드(vs. 속성)의 상대적 중요도를 거쳐서 직접적으로 매개될 것이다.

가설 검증을 위해 사전 조사를 통해 선정된 노트북(브랜드 우위 대안: 애플, 속성 우위 대안: HP)을 대안으로 활용하여 두 차례의 실험을 실시했다. 1 요인(소비 목표) 2 수준(쾌락 vs. 실용) 집단 간 요인 설계를 활용한 실험 1을 통해, 소비자가 쾌락적(vs. 실용적) 소비 목표를 가진 경우 브랜드(vs. 속성) 우위 대안인 애플(vs. HP)을 더 선호하고, 브랜드(vs. 속성)의 상대적 중요도가 매개함을 확인할 수 있었다. 더욱이 이러한 효과는 의사 결정 모드와 브랜드(vs. 속성)의 상대적 중요도를 거쳐 순차적으로 매개되는 것으로 나타났다. 2(소비 목표: 쾌락 vs. 실용) x 2(조절 초점: 향상 vs. 예방)의 집단 간 요인 설계를 활용한 실험 2의 결과, 향상(vs. 예방) 초점을 가진 소비자들이 브랜드(vs. 속성) 우위 대안인 애플(vs. HP)을 더 선호하지만, 이는 소비 목표(쾌락 vs. 실용)와는 달리 순차적 매개 모형에서 의사 결정 모드를 거치지 않고 브랜드(vs. 속성)의 상대적 중요도를 거쳐서 직접적으로 매개되는 것을 확인하였다. 또한 실험 2의 결과는 실험 1과 같이 소비 목표 효과에 관한 가설들을 모두 지지하는 수렴적 증거를 제시하여서 가설 검증의 타당성을 높일 수 있었다. 마지막으로는 본 연구 결과에 따른 이론적, 실무적 시사점을 밝히고, 연구가 갖는 한계점과 미래의 연구 방향을 제시하였다.

Abstract

This research examines the factors that can affect the preference between brand-superior alternative and attribute-superior alternative and its underlying processes. Putting alternative relatively superior in brand status compared to product attribute into brand-superior alternative and alternative relatively superior in product attribute compared to brand status into attribute-superior alternative, we predict that consumers' consumption goal(hedonic vs. utilitarian) and regulatory focus(promotive vs. preventive) may affect the consumers' preference between them. Specifically, it is hypothesized that consumers with hedonic goals prefer brand-superior(vs. attribute-superior) alternative, whereas consumers with utilitarian goals prefer attribute-superior (vs. brand-superior) alternative, and that this effect is mediated by relative importance of brand(vs. attribute). Furthermore, we predict this effect is sequentially mediated by decision making mode and relative importance of brand(vs. attribute). In addition, it is hypothesized that when consumers have promotive(vs. preventive) regulatory focus, the preference for brand-superior(vs. attribute-superior) alternative is increased(vs. decreased), and that this effect is directly mediated by relative importance of brand(vs. attribute) in the sequential mediation model.

To test our hypotheses, we conducted two experiments with use of laptops(brand-superior alternative: Apple, attribute-superior alternative: HP). The results of experiment 1, achieved by using a one-factor(consumption goal) two-level(hedonic vs. utilitarian) between-subjects design, supported our predictions that the preference for the Apple(vs. HP) laptop, i.e., a brand-superior(vs. attribute-superior) alternative, is increased when consumers have hedonic (vs. utilitarian) consumption goals, and that the relative importance of brand(vs. attribute) mediates this effect. Furthermore, this was eventually serial multiple mediating effects of decision making mode and relative importance of brand(vs. attribute). In experiment 2, we used a 2(consumption goal: hedonic vs. utilitarian) x 2(regulatory focus: promotive vs. preventive) between-subjects design and confirmed that consumers with promotive(vs. preventive) regulatory focus prefer brand-superior alternative(i.e., Apple laptop) to attribute-superior alternative (i.e., HP laptop), and that unlike consumption goal effect, this effect was directly mediated by the relative importance of brand(vs. attribute) in the sequential mediation model. Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications of the results are discussed and the limitations and directions for the future research are suggested.

Keywords:

consumption goal, regulatory focus, brand status, product attribute, decision making mode

키워드:

소비 목표, 조절 초점, 브랜드 지위, 제품 속성, 의사 결정 모드

References

  • Aaker, D. A.(1996), “Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets,” California Management Review, 38(3), 102-120. [https://doi.org/10.2307/41165845]
  • Bazerman, M. H., A. E. Tenbrunsel, and K. Wade-Benzoni(1998), “Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Making Decisions with Competing Internal Preferences,” Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 225-241. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533224]
  • Bettman, J. R. and P. Kakkar(1977), “Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3(4), 233-240. [https://doi.org/10.1086/208672]
  • Botti, S. and A. L. McGill(2011), “The Locus of Choice: Personal Causality and Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1065-1078. [https://doi.org/10.1086/656570]
  • Chernev, A.(2004), “Goal–attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1-2), 141-150. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_16]
  • Dhar, R. and K. Wertenbroch(2000), “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718]
  • Förster, J. and E. T. Higgins(2005), “How Global versus Local Perception Fits Regulatory Focus,” Psychological Science, 16(8), 631-636. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01586.x]
  • Förster, J., E. T. Higgins, and A. T. Bianco(2003), “Speed/Accuracy Decisions in Task Performance: Built-in Trade-off or Separate Strategic Concerns?,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148-164. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00509-5]
  • Hayes, A. F.(2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press.
  • Higgins, E. T.(1997), “Beyond Pleasure and Pain,” American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280]
  • Hirschman, E. C. and M. B. Holbrook(1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions,” The Journal of Marketing, 92-101. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298204600314]
  • Hoffman, D. L., T. P. Novak, and F. Wan(2004), “The Impact of Online Product Review Characteristics on Consumer Preferences,” Advances in Consumer Research, 31(1), 530-534.
  • Holbrook, M. B. and E. C. Hirschman(1982), “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140. [https://doi.org/10.1086/208906]
  • Hong, J. and H. H. Chang(2015) “ “I” Follow My Heart and “We” Rely on Reasons: The Impact of Self-construal on Reliance on Feelings versus Reasons in Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1392-1411. [https://doi.org/10.1086/680082]
  • Kahneman, D. and S. Frederick(2002), “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment,” Heuristics and biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, 49, 49-81. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.004]
  • Keller, K. L.(2003), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 595-600. [https://doi.org/10.1086/346254]
  • Kurnaz, A.(2017), “Examination of the Relationship between Luxury Value Perception and Shopping Motivations: Turkey Sample,” International Journal of Marketing Studies, 9(5), 108-124. [https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v9n5p108]
  • Leclerc, F., C. K. Hsee, and J. C. Nunes(2005), “Narrow Focusing: Why the Relative Position of a Good in its Category Matters More than It Should,” Marketing Science, 24(2), 194-205. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0090]
  • Lee, A. Y., P. A. Keller, and B. Sternthal(2010), “Value from Regulatory Construal Fit: The Persuasive Impact of Fit between Consumer Goals and Message Concreteness.” Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735-747. [https://doi.org/10.1086/605591]
  • Lockwood, P., C. H. Jordan, and Z. Kunda(2002), “Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who will Best Inspire Us,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854]
  • Maimaran, M., and I. Simonson(2011), “Multiple Routes to Self-versus Other-Expression in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 755-766. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.4.755]
  • Mantel, S. P. and F. R. Kardes(1999), “The Role of Direction of Comparison, Attribute-based Processing, and Attitude-based Processing in Consumer Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 335-352. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209543]
  • Mourali, M. and F. Pons(2009), “Regulatory Fit from Attribute-based versus Alternative-based Processing in Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 643-651. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.03.002]
  • Okada, E. M.(2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43-53. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.1.43.56889]
  • 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]
  • Pham, M. T. and T. Avnet(2004), “Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect versus Substance in Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 503-518. [https://doi.org/10.1086/380285]
  • Pham, M. T.(1998), “Representativeness, Relevance, and the Use of Feelings in Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144-159. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209532]
  • Randall, T., K. Ulrich, and D. Reibstein(1998), “Brand Equity and Vertical Product Line Extent,” Marketing Science, 17(4), 356-379. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.4.356]
  • Russo, J. E. and B. A. Dosher(1983), “Strategies for Multiattribute Binary Choice,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(4), 676. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.4.676]
  • Schwarz, N. and G. L. Clore(1996), “Feelings and Phenomenal Experiences,” Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2, 385-407.
  • Shafir, E., I. Simonson, and A. Tversky(1993), “Reason-based Choice,” Cognition, 49(1), 11-36. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90034-S]
  • Shiv, B. and A. Fedorikhin(1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278-292. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209563]
  • Strahilevitz, M. and J. G. Myers(1998), “Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work may Depend on What You are Trying to Sell,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434-446. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209519]
  • Zhao, X., J. G. Lynch Jr., and Q. Chen(2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206. [https://doi.org/10.1086/651257]

• 저자 박세훈은 현재 서강대학교 경영학부 마케팅 전공 교수로 재직 중이다. 서울대학교 경영대학을 졸업하였으며, 한국과학기술원에서 경영과학 석사, 미국 노스웨스턴대학교에서 마케팅 박사학위를 취득하였다. 주요연구분야는 마케팅 모델, 소비자 행동 등이다.

• 저자 이나래는 서강대학교 일반대학원 경영학과 석사 학위를 취득하였으며, 소비자행동을 전공하였다. 현재 한국표준협회에 재직 중이다. 주요 관심분야는 소비자행동, 소비자의사결정 등이다.