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. 6, pp.1901-1928
ISSN: 1226-1874 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2016
Received 19 Jun 2016 Revised 21 Aug 2016 Accepted 01 Sep 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2016.45.6.1901

선택은 곧 손실: 비 선택 대안의 손실을 줄이기 위한 연속적 복수 제품 선택의 다양성 추구

박지혜*
*(주저자) 한국외국어대학교 경영대학 교수 jihyepark@hufs.ac.kr
Pain of Gain: Seeking Variety for Loss Aversion in Unchosen Options
Jihye Park*
*College of Business at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, First Author

초록

과거 선택 다양성의 연구들이 예상된 선호도의 변화나 포만감을 줄이기 위한 연속적 복수 제품 선택에 집중되어, 비 선택 대안에 대해 소비자들이 인식하는 상대적 손실이 연속적 복수 제품 선택의 다양성에 미치는 영향은 아직 연구된 바가 없다. 이에 본 연구에서는 선택 가능한 대안의 크기를 손실의 개념으로 접근하여, 선택 되지 않은 대안들로부터 인식되는 손실의 크기를 줄이기 위한 의사 결정으로의 선택 다양성을 살펴 보고자 하였다. 세 차례의 실험 결과, 목표 수량과 선택 대안 크기와의 차이가 클수록 비 선택 대안에 더 집중하여, 비 선택 대안으로부터 야기될 손실을 줄이기 위한 연속적 의사 결정을 하는 것으로 확인되었다. 또한 비 선택 대안에 대한 손실 인식은 선택할 수 있는 목표 수량이 증가할수록 감소한다는 것을 발견하였다. 마지막으로 비 선택 대안에 대한 손실 인식이 대안의 정량적 크기에서뿐 만이 아니라 대안의 정성적 구조 차이로 인해서도 야기되며 따라서, 비 선택 대안에 대한 손실을 줄이기 위해 다양한 선택을 하게 됨을 확인하였다. 본 연구는 선택 다양성의 기저를 예상된 포만감이나 선호도 변화로 설명한 기존 연구 결과를 확장하여 비 선택 대안에 대한 손실 회복으로 설명하였다는 데 학술적 의미가 있다. 또한, 골라 담기나 2+2와 같은 복수 구매 유도 전략을 설계함에 있어서 목표 구매 수량과 제시해야 하는 대안의 크기 및 구조를 설정하는 데 본 연구 결과의 실무적 활용이 가능하다.

Abstract

Traditional product bundles that are predesigned and packaged by marketers limit consumers to choose more varieties of products. Self-bundling however, allows consumers to choose a variety of multiple products given in a single category or across product categories in order to fulfill a required purchase quantity. Past research on variety seeking in the simultaneous choice context explains that consumers tend to choose more varieties in order to avoid the expected satiety or preference change in the near future. This study focuses on the appeal of the forgone to explain motivations of variety seeking and argues that more varieties are pursued as a loss-averse decision strategy. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the amount of unchosen or remaining options on choice variety and explain underlying motivations of choice variety from the loss aversion perspective.

The first study examined if increasing the number of unchosen options leads consumers to choose more varieties in the simultaneous multiple choice condition. Consumers are likely to make following choices among remaining options rather than repeat prior choices, in order to reduce feelings of loss. To test this prediction, one factor (a number of remaining options: 6 vs. 3 vs. 0) between subjects design was employed. A total of 107 participants were asked to choose three, six, or nine donuts among nine popular varieties of donuts and received discounts. Results revealed that greater diversification bias occurred when the number of remaining options increased. When consumers choose three donuts than six or nine donuts from nine varieties of donuts, they tended to make a series of choices more from unchosen options and in turn, choose more varieties. As an assortment size exceeded the number of products to be chosen, people perceived greater loss from the amount of unchosen options and thus, made following choices focusing on remaining options, which altered the prior choices. Choice variety induced from loss aversion of unchosen options was confirmed

When consumers can select more quantity, they may perceive less loss from forgone options. The second study tested if a goal quantity moderates the effect of the number of remaining options on choice variety. A 2 (purchase goal quantity: small 3 vs. large 6) X 2 (the number of remaining options: 0 vs. two times greater than the goal quantity) between subjects design was employed. A total of 122 participants were asked to select three or six macarons from the given variety of a macaron choice set. Results revealed that individuals tended to seek more varieties, when they selected three macarons from the macaron choice set of six varieties than from that of three varieties. However, no significant difference of the number of remaining options in choice variety was found, when they chose six macarons. As individuals chose more products, they were less likely to be sensitive to the amount loss from unchosen options and tended to repeat prior choices to maximize chosen options.

Perceived amount of loss from unchosen options in the multiple choice context can be influenced not only by the number of unchosen options but also by the quality of unchosen options. To test if variety seeking is motivated to reduce the amount loss from unchosen options, a 2 (goal quantity: 4 vs. 6) X 3 (preference dominance in the remaining options: more dominant, balanced, less dominant) between subject design was employed. A total of 204 undergraduate students were asked to make a series of snack choices in the given choice set. Results revealed that when consumers made four choices, they tended to choose more varieties from dominant remaining options than balanced or less dominant remaining options. The effect of preference dominance of remaining options on choice variety was strengthened when consumers made six choices. As the amount of more preferred snacks increased in the choice set, consumers were more likely to choose from unchosen options.

Our results show that consumers tend to choose more varieties when a size of remaining options increases. Greater attractiveness of remaining options also leads consumers to choose more options from remaining options. Results of this study are applicable to the effective stock management by promoting choice variety and reducing the amount of less popular unsold items through managing and controlling the choice set size as well as dominance structure relative to the purchase goal quantity.

Keywords:

Choice variety, loss for unchosen options, goal quantity, assortment size, assortment structural dominance

키워드:

선택 다양성, 비 선택 대안에 대한 손실, 목표 구매 수량, 대안 크기, 대안 구성의 지배성

Acknowledgments

이 연구는 2016학년도 한국외국어대학교 교내학술연구비의 지원에 의하여 이루어진 것임

References

  • Baumol, W. J., and E. A. Ide(1956), “Variety in Retailing,” Management Science, 3(1), 93-101. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.3.1.93]
  • Broniarczyk, S. M., W. D. Hoyer, and L. McAlister (1998), “Consumers’ Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category: The Impact of Item Reduction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 166-176. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379803500203]
  • Carmon, Z., and D. Ariely(2000), “Focusing on the Foregone: Why Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27(December), 360-370. [https://doi.org/10.1086/317590]
  • Carmon, Z., K. Wertenbroch., and M. Zeelenberg (2003), “Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel Like Losing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30(June), 15-29. [https://doi.org/10.1086/374701]
  • Chernev, A.(2008), “The Role of Purchase Quantity in Assortment Choice: The Quantity-Matching Heuristics [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.2.171]
  • Corbin, R. M.(1980), “Decisions That Might Not Get Made,” in Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior, ed. T.S. Wallsten, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Dhar, R., and I. Simonson(1999), “Marketing Complementary Choices in Consumption Episodes: Highlighting Versus Balancing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36(February), 29-44. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600103]
  • Dhar, R., and K. Wertenbroch(2000), “Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (February), 60-71. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718]
  • Drolet, A.(2002), “Inherent Rule Variability in Consumer Choice: Changing Rules for Change’s Sake,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 293-305. [https://doi.org/10.1086/344433]
  • Gourville, J. T., and D. Soman(2005), “Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires,” Marketing Science, 24(3), 382-395. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0109]
  • Heath, T. B., G. Ryu., S. Chatterjee, M. S. McCarthy, D. L. Mothersbaugh, S. Milberg, and G. J. Gaeth(2000), “Asymmetric Competition in Choice and the Leveraging of Competitive Disadvantages,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 291-308. [https://doi.org/10.1086/317586]
  • Hitt, L. M., and P. Chen(2005). “Bundling with Customer Self-selection: A Simple Approach to Bundling Low-Marginal-Cost Goods,” Management Science, 51(10), 1481-1493. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0403]
  • Hoch, S, E. T. Bradlow, and B. Wansink(1999), “The Variety of an Assortment,” Marketing Science, 18(4), 527-546. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.18.4.527]
  • Huber, J., K. Goldsmith, and C. Mogilner(2008), “Reinforcement versus Balance Response in Sequential Choice,” Marketing Letters, 19, 229-239. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9042-5]
  • Huffman, C., and B. E. Kahn(1998), “Variety for Sale: Mass Customization or Mass Confusion,” Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 491-513. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80105-5]
  • Inman, J. J.(2001), “The Role of Sensory-Specific Satiety in Attribute-Level Variety Seeking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28(June), 105-120. [https://doi.org/10.1086/321950]
  • Iyengar, S. S., and M. R. Lepper(2000), “When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995]
  • Janiszewski, C., A. Kuo, and N. T. Tavassoli(2013), “The Influence of Selective Attention and Inattention to Products on Subsequent Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39(April), 1258-1274. [https://doi.org/10.1086/668234]
  • Kahn, B. E. (1995), “Consumer Variety Seeking among Goods and Services,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2(3), 139-148. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-6989(95)00038-0]
  • Kahn, B. E., and D. R. Lehmann(1991), “Modeling Choice Among Assortments,” Journal of Retailing, 67(3), 274-299.
  • Kahn, B. E., and B. Wansink(2004), “The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 519-533. [https://doi.org/10.1086/380286]
  • Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch, and R. H. Thaler (1991), “The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(December), 1325-1347. [https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193]
  • Karni, E., and A. Schwarz(1977), “Search Theory: The Case of Search with Uncertain Recall,” Journal of Economic Theory, 16(October), 38-52. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(77)90122-3]
  • Lancaster, K. J.(1990), “The Economics of Product Variety: A Survey,” Marketing Science, 9(3), 189-206. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.9.3.189]
  • Langer, E. J. and J. Rodin(1976), “The Effects of Choice and Enhanced Personal Responsibility of the Aged: A Field Experiment and in and Institutional Setting,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 191-198. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.2.191]
  • McAlister, L.(1979), “Choosing Multiple Items from a Product Class,” Journal of Consumer Research, 6(December), 213-224. [https://doi.org/10.1086/208763]
  • McAlister, L.(1982), “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9(Sep), 141-150. [https://doi.org/10.1086/208907]
  • Mittelman, M., E. B. Andrade, A. Chattopadhyay, and C. M. Brendl(2014), The Offer Framing Effect: Choosing Single versus Bundled Offerings Affects Variety Seeking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41(Dec), 953-964. [https://doi.org/10.1086/678193]
  • Novemsky, N., and R. Dhar(2005), “Goal Fulfillment and Goal Targets in Sequential Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32(December), 396-404. [https://doi.org/10.1086/497551]
  • Ratner, R. K., B. E. Kahn, and D. Kahneman(1999), “Choosing Less-Preferred Experiences for the Sake of Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26(June), 1-15. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209547]
  • Read, D., and G. Loewenstein(1995), “Diversification Bias: Explaining the Discrepancy in Variety Seeking Between Combined and Separated Choice,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(1), 34-49. [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.1.1.34]
  • Rolls, B. J., E. T. Rolls, E. A. Rowe, B. Kingston, A. Megson, and R. Gunary(1981), “Variety in a Meal Enhances Food Intake in Man,” Psychology and Behavior, 26(Feb), 215-221. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(81)90014-7]
  • Salisbury, L. C., and F. M. Feinberg(2012), “All Things Considered? The Role of Choice Set Formation in Diversification,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49(June), 320-335. [https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0437]
  • Sen, S., and E. J. Johnson(1997), “Mere-Possesion Effects without Possessions in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (June), 105-117. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209497]
  • Simonson, I.(1990), “The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27(May), 150-162. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379002700203]
  • Simonson, I., and R. S. Winer(1992), “The Influence of Purchase Quantity and Display Format on Consumer Preference for Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19(June), 133-138. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209292]
  • Strahilevitz, M. A., and G. Loenwenstein(1998), “The Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of Objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25(Dec), 276-289. [https://doi.org/10.1086/209539]
  • Tversky, A., and E. Shafir(1992), “Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision,” Psychological Science, 6(December), 358-361. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00047.x]
  • Wang, X., L. Sun, and H. T. Keh(2013), “Consumer Responses to Variety in Product Bundles: The Moderating Role of Evaluation Mode,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30, 335-342. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.03.005]
  • Van Trijp, H. C. M., W. D. Hoyer, and J. J. Inman (1996), “Why Switch? Product Category-Level Explanations for True Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33(Aug), 281-292. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379603300303]

∙저자 박지혜는 현재 한국외국어대학교 경영대학에서 마케팅 전공 교수로 재직 중이다. 현재 소비자 행동 분야에서 선택, 기억과 관련된 연구에 관심을 가지고 있다.