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. 45, No. 3, pp.713-733
ISSN: 1226-1874 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2016
Received 23 Mar 2015 Revised 15 Jan 2016 Accepted 21 Feb 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2016.45.3.713

소비자의 사고방식이 제품선택을 변화시키다

김소현*
*(주저자) 농촌진흥청 농산업경영과 농업연구사, 경영학 박사 bebe4082@korea.kr
The Consumer’s Mind Sets Choose the Different Types of Product
Sohyun Kim*
*Ph D., Rural Development Administration, Farm & Agribusiness management division, Researcher, First Author

초록

소비자들은 제품을 구입할 때, 자신이 선호하는 제품을 구매하기도 하고 다른 경쟁제품들 간 비교를 통해서 객관적으로 더 나은 제품을 구매하기도 한다. 그 동안 마케팅 분야의 연구들은 다양한 제품을 유형화하고, 각 제품유형 별 특징과 제품유형 별 소비자들의 의사결정과정에 대해 연구하였다. 본 연구에서는 소비자들의 사고방식이 제품구매에 미치는 영향과 그 이유를 살펴보았다.

본 연구는 총 3개의 실험연구로 이루어졌다. 각 실험에서 피험자들은 우선 선호사고방식 또는 비교사고방식이 활성화 될 수 있는 과제를 수행하였다. 그런 후, 별도의 과제로서 두 개의 제품유형(쾌락재, 실용재) 중 하나를 구입할 목적으로 선택하는 과제를 부여받았다. 실험결과, 선호사고방식을 가진 소비자들은 실용적 제품보다 쾌락적 제품을 더 많이 선택한 반면, 비교사고방식을 가진 소비자들은 쾌락적 제품보다 실용적 제품을 더 많이 선택하였다. 이러한 효과는 사고방식의 조작 및 제품을 제시하는 평가형식과는 상관없이 일반화되는 것으로 나타났다. 즉, 사고방식을 조작하는 방법으로 실제 제품을 통한 방법(실험1, 2)이든 동물/꽃과 같이 제품선택과 상관없는 객체를 통한 방법(실험3)이든 상관없이, 두 제품유형을 동시에 제시하든(실험2,3) 두 제품유형을 각각 제시하든 상관없이(실험1,3) 모두 유의하게 나타났다. 그러나 선호사고방식을 가진 소비자와 비교사고방식을 가진 소비자 간 제품유형(쾌락재, 실용재)선택에는 사고방식 별 관심있는 제품유형이 다르거나(실험3) 제품유형을 평가하는 형식(분리제시, 동시제시)에 차이(실험 1,2,3)가 있기 때문에, 이 효과가 나타나는 것은 아니었다.

이상의 결과를 종합하여 보았을 때, 사고방식유형 별 제품유형 선택효과는 사고방식유형이 활성화된 소비자들이 활성화된 사고방식을 달성하기에 적합한 제품유형을 선택하는데 기인한 효과이며, 사고방식유형에 따른 제품유형 별 관심의 차이나 제품유형의 평가하는 형식의 차이는 아니라는 것을 시사해준다. 끝으로, 이러한 연구결과의 이론적, 실무적 시사점을 논의하였다.

Abstract

When consumers would purchase a product/service, either they would search favorable product/service themselves or they would compare several product alternatives for purchasing more valuable product. Prior marketing research had been categorized to various products, have been investigated characteristic and consumer’s decision-making according to types of product. The present research are investigated how to mind-sets influence on choice of product alternative within utilitarian product and hedonic product and then it identify that why this effect is occurred.

This research consist of three experiments. First, participants were took place task to would be activate either preference mind set or comparison mind set on each experiments. Then, they were introduced to ostensibly unrelated product choice tasks in which they could choose one of the product alternatives available in the choice set, utilitarian product and hedonic product.

Results indicated that participants in preference mind set conditions were significantly most likely to choose hedonic product more than utilitarian product. In contrast, participants in comparison mind set conditions were most likely to choose utilitarian product more that hedonic product.

This effect was evident regardless of whether how to mind-sets were manipulated by the real products(experiment 1,2) or general objects such as animals, flowers(experiment 3) and regardless of whether types of product were presents by simultaneously(experiment 2,3) or sequentially (experiment 1,3) two choice alternatives available. But this effect was not appeared whether attent to different types of product by mind sets(experiment 3) or difference to present evaluation mode(experiment 1,2,3).

These and other results suggest that the effect which choice of different types of product by types of mind sets, consumers who would activated specific mind-sets would achieve specific mind-sets so that would search the appropriate product within hedonic product and utilitarian product. Theoretical and managerial implications of findings are discussed.

Keywords:

Mind sets, Choice, Hedonic product, Utilitarian product

키워드:

사고방식, 소비자 선택, 제품유형, 쾌락재, 실용재

References

  • 김소현·최지은·김지연(2012), “심적 시뮬레이션이 선포인트 프로그램에 대한 태도 및 이용의도에 미치는 영향: 제품유형의 조절효과를 중심으로,” 기업경영연구, 43(0), 1-23.
  • 박종원(2010), “소비자의 기억, 정서, 판단에 관한 연구의 최신 동향,” 소비자학연구, 21(2), 237-287.
  • Amar, C., and V. M. Patrick(2008), “Anytime Versus Only: Mind-sets Moderate the Effect of Expansive Versus Restrictive Frames on Promotion Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45(4), 462-472. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.4.462]
  • Dhar, R., and K. Wertenbroach(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]
  • Dhar, R., J. Huber and U. Khan(2007), “The Shopping Momentum Effect,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 370-378. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.3.370]
  • Freitas, A. L., P. M. Gollwitzer and Y. Trope(2004), “The Influence of Abstract and Concrete Mind-Sets on Anticipating and Guiding Others' Self-regulatory Efforts,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 739-752. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.003]
  • Gollwitzer, P. M.(1990), “Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans,” American Psychologist, 54, 493-503. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493]
  • Gollwitzer, P. M., and U. Bayer(1999), “Deliberative Versus Implemental Mindsets in the Control of Action,” Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology, 403-422. New York; The Guilford Press A Division of Guilford Publications.
  • Gollwitzer, P. M.(1996), “The Volitional Benefits of Planning,” In P. M. Gollwitzer and J. A. Bargh(Eds.), The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior, 287-312. New York: Guilford.
  • Gollwitzer, P. M.(2003), “Why We Thought That Action Mind-Sets Affect Illusions of Control,” Psychological Inquiry, 14(3&4), 261-269. [https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2003.9682890]
  • Hsee, C. K.(1996), “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247-257. [https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0077]
  • Hsee, C. K., G. F. Loewenstein, S. Blount, and M. H. Bazerman(1999), “Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576-590. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.576]
  • Hsee, C. K., J. P. Dube, and Y. Zhang(2008), “The Prominence Effect in Shanghai Real Estate Prices,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (2), 133-144. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.2.133]
  • Liberman, N., and Y. Trope(1998), “The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5]
  • Meyers-Levy, J., and R. J. Zhu(2007), “The Influence of Ceiling Height: The Effect of Priming on the Type of Processing That People Use,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 174-186. [https://doi.org/10.1086/519146]
  • Macht M., and J. Mueller(2007), “Immediate Effects of Chocolate on Experimentally Induced Mood States,” Research Report, 49(3), 667-674. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.05.004]
  • O'Curry, S., and M. Strahilevitz(2001), “Probability and Mode of Acquisition Effects on Choices Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Options,” Marketing Letters, 12(1), 37-49. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008115902904]
  • 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]
  • Shafir, E.(1993), “Choosing Versus Rejecting: Why Some Options are Both Better and Worse than Others,” Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546-556. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197186]
  • 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]
  • Trope, Y., and N. Liberman(2003), “Temporal Construal,” Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403]
  • Trope, Y., N. Liberman, and C. Wakslak(2007), “Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-95. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X]
  • Vallacher, R. R., and D. M. Wegner(1987), “What do People Think they're Doing? Action Identification and Human Behavior,” Psychological Review, 94(1), 3-15. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.3]
  • Voss, K. E., E. R. Spangenherg, and B. Grohmann (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude.” Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310-320. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.40.3.310.19238]
  • Xu, A. J., and R. S. Wyer(2007), “The Effect of Mind-sets on Consumer Decision Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 556-566. [https://doi.org/10.1086/519293]
  • Xu, A. J., and R. S. Wyer(2008), “The Comparative Mind-set: from Animal Comparisons to Increased Purchase Intentions,” Psychological Science, 19(9), 859-864. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02169.x]

·저자 김소현은 현재 농촌진흥청 농산업경영과 농업연구사로 재직 중이다. 고려대학교 경영대학에서 경영학박사를 취득하였다. 주요연구분야는 소비자행동, 브랜드 관리, 마케팅 전략 등이다.