소비자의 심리적 특성이 EDLP상점과 HiLo상점 선택에 미치는 영향

석관호(Kwan Ho Suk),구지은(Ji Eun Koo),윤성아(Song Oh Yoon) 한국마케팅학회 2012 마케팅연구 Vol.27 No.1

소비자의 상점 선택은 유통관리자에게 매우 중요한 이슈이나, 소비자의 심리특성과 상점선택의 관계를 보여주는 연구는 많이 이루어지지 않았다. 본 연구에서는 소비자의 조절초점과 위험추구 성향이 EDLP(every day low price)와 HiLo(high-low price)상점의 선택에 미치는 영향을 보고자 한다. 할인크기는 작으나 할인을 자주하는 EDLP상점과 할인의 빈도는 낮으나 할인의 크기가 큰 HiLo상점에 대한 소비자의 선택은 할인크기와 할인빈도 중에서 어떠한 요소를 더 중요시 하느냐에 따라 달라진다. 본 연구는 이러 한 상점선택에 영향을 미칠 것으로 기대되는 소비자의 조절초점과 위험추구 성향의 영향에 대한 4개의 가설을 제시하였다. 구체적으로 자신들이 받을 수 있는 최대 이익에 더 민감한 향상초점 성향과 위험추구 성향의 소비자 들은 상대적으로 큰 할인을 제공하는 HiLo점포에 대한 선호가 높으며, 반대로 확실한 할인의 기회가 더 중요한 방어초점 성향과 위험회피 성향의 소비자들은 할인의 빈도가 높은 EDLP상점을 더 선호할 것이라는 가설이 제 시되었다(가설1, 가설3). 또한, 이러한 선호의 차이는 이들 소비자들이 할인의 크기와 할인빈도에 두는 가중치 의 차이 때문에 발생하는 효과임을 제시한다(가설2, 가설4). 이들 가설은 두 실증연구를 통해 검증되었다. 조절초점의 영향을 연구한 연구1은 방어초점 소비자가 향상초점 소비자보다 상대적으로 EDLP상점을 더 선호하는 것을 보여주었다. 또한 이러한 차이는 할인크기의 영향력이 조절초점에 따라 달라지기 때문이라는 결과를 보여주었다. 연구2는 위험추구 성향이 점포선택에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다. EDLP상점에 대한 선호는 위험회피 성향이 강할수록 커졌으며, 이러한 선호의 이유는 상점선택에 있어서 할인빈도의 중요성이 위험추구 성향에 따라 달라지기 때문임을 보여주었다. Understanding factors affecting consumer store choice is essential for retail managers. Previous research has explored the influence of consumer buying behavior and demographic variables on store choice. However, little attention has been directed to psychological variables underlying consumer preference for choice. This research examines the potential impact that consumer`s individual dispositions have on the choice between EDLP (every day low price) and HiLo (high-low price) stores. EDLP stores offer more frequent price discounts, with each discount having a relatively small magnitude. On the contrary, HiLo stores offer less frequent discounts, but each discount size is larger. Therefore, consumers who give more weight to discount frequency should prefer EDLP to HiLo, whereas consumers who place more weight on discount depth should prefer HiLo to EDLP. We posit that potential individual variables that affect weight allocation on discount depth and frequency, consequently causing a differential store choice between EDLP and HiLo, are consumer`s self-regulatory focus and risk taking tendency. In particular, consumers with distinct promotion self-regulatory focus are more likely to prefer HiLo store to EDLP store because they are eager to achieve the maximum price discount. Conversely, consumers with distinct prevention self-regulatory focus are more concerned about not missing out promotion opportunities, leading to a greater preference of EDLP over HiLo store (Hypothesis 1). Individuals with risk-seeking orientations, like promotion-focus consumers, are more likely to prefer HiLo store because they are more sensitive to receiving the maximum discount than to merely getting any discounts. In contrast, individuals with risk-averse tendencies seek sure discount opportunities, similar to prevention-focus consumers, leading to a greater preference for EDLP store (Hypothesis 3). We further suggest that this difference in store preference is mainly driven by their differential weighing of discount frequency and discount depth. Specifically, discount depth exerts more effect on store choice for consumers with promotion- focus and risk-seeking orientations (Hypotheses 2a and 4a), whereas discount frequency is more heavily weighted by consumers with prevention-focus and risk-averse orientations (Hypotheses 2b and 4b). Two empirical studies provide evidence supporting our hypotheses. In Study 1, we examined the relationship between self-regulatory focus and store choice. Participants were presented with 18-month`s price history of a shampoo brand in an EDLP and a HiLo store. While the average prices offered by the two stores were the same, the EDLP store, compared with the HiLo, offered discounts more frequently, with a smaller depth. Participants were asked to choose a store to visit. Then we measured perceived discount depth and perceived discount frequency of the two stores, followed by measures for chronic self-regulatory focus. As expected, the result showed that participants with promotion (prevention) focus preferred HiLo (EDLP) store, with the choice of the HiLo store by promotion-focus participants and prevention-focus participants being 56% and 36%, respectively. To investigate whether the weighing of discount-frequency and discount-depth differs by self-regulatory focus, store choice was regressed on the self-regulatory focus score, the relative discount depth and frequency calculated using the perceived discount depth and frequency, the interaction of the self-regulatory focus and the relative discount depth, and another interaction of the self-regulatory focus and the relative discount frequency. The result supported the hypothesis 2a, showing that the influence of discount depth on store choice is stronger for promotion-focus than for prevention-focus. But the hypothesis 2b predicting that discount frequency is more important to prevention-focus was not supported. Study 2 tested the influence of individual`s risk attitude

소비자의 다양성 추구에 있어서 기대된 만족과 경험한 만족간의 차이에 관한 연구

석관호 ( Kwan Ho Suk ),이지헌 ( Ji Heon Lee ) 한국소비자학회 2010 소비자학연구 Vol.21 No.1

속성 유사성이 제품 선택에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구

석관호(Kwan Ho Suk) 한국마케팅학회 2008 마케팅연구 Vol.23 No.3

소비자 선택모형(consumer choice models) 연구들과 소비자 심리학(consumer psychology) 연구들은 제품의 속성 유사성이 대안 선택에 영향을 미친다는 것을 보여주지만, 그 효과에 대해서는 상반된 결과를 주장한다. 소비자 선택 모형 연구들은 한 대안이 다른 대안들과 속성이 유사할수록, 대안의 선택 확률은 낮아진다는 것을 보여준다. 반면에, 소비자 심리학 연구들은 대안의 속성 유사성이 제품에 대한 선호도를 높인다고 제시한다. 즉, 기존의 문헌은 속성 유사성이 대안의 선택확률에 긍정적, 부정적 영향을 모두 끼칠 수 있다는 것을 제시하고 있다. 본 연구는 이러한 두 개의 다른 연구 흐름을 통합하여, 유사성이 소비자 선택에 미치는 긍정적/부정적 영향은 대안에 대한 소비자의 친숙도에 의해 결정된다는 것을 보여준다. 본 연구는 소비자들이 제품에 친숙할 경우에는 속성 유사성이 대안 선택에 부정적인 영향을 미치나, 소비자들이 제품에 친숙하지 않을 경우에는 속성 유사성이 대안 선택에 긍정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 가설을 제시하였다. 본 연구에서는 소비자의 대안 선택에 관한 이산선택(discrete conjoint choice)자료를 다변량로짓(multinomial logit)모형을 사용하여 가설검증을 실시하였으며, 연구의 결과는 본 연구의 가설을 지지하였다. The current research examines the influence of the attribute similarity among competing brands on consumer`s choice. Attribute similarity is defined as the extent to which a brand has similar with other brands in terms of the attribute levels. Both consumer choice models and consumer behavior studies show that brand preference is affected by attribute similarity. However, the two streams of research emphasize different aspects of the attribute similarity effects. Empirical consumer choice models (e.g., nested logit models and logit models allowing for brand similarity) indicate that the probability that choice probability of a brand decreases as the brand is more similar to others in the choice set due to increased competition and substitutability with other similar brands, resulting in a negative effect on choice (e.g., Manrai 1995). On the contrary, consumer behavior theories suggest that a brand that is more similar to others is preferred to the brands that are less similar (e.g., Loken and Ward 1990). When a brand is more similar to others in attribute levels, the brand is perceived as being a typical brand, and people tend to prefer typical brands to less typical brands. This research attempts to integrate the two streams of research and presents that the influence of attribute similarity on choice is moderated by product familiarity which is defined as the extent to which a set of products are more familiar and easy to evaluate. In general, attribute similarity increases competition and substitutability, resulting in decreased choice probability. However, it is expected that influence will be more positive when products are less familiar, because attribute similarity is more likely to be used as an extrinsic cue. On the other hand, when the product is more familiar, the negative influence of attribute similarity on choice will be more prominent since attribute similarity does not play a role as a decision heuristic. Thus, it is predicted that when products are more familiar, consumers tend to prefer a brand that is more similar to others, whereas when products are less familiar, consumers prefer a more unique alternative. We test the moderating effect of product familiarity on the influence of similarity on choice by analyzing a set of discrete conjoint choice data. The data set includes consumer choice of a film camera out of three familiar products (i.e., 35mm cameras) and three less familiar products (i.e., APS cameras). The data were considered to be appropriate for the study because 35mm cameras are more familiar to consumers than are APS cameras, which were only newly introduced when the main study was conducted. A pretest also supported our conjecture regarding product familiarity showing that 35mm cameras were more familiar than were APS cameras. Thus, it is predicted that the effect on choice of attribute similarity is moderated by the type of camera: Attribute similarity will exert a negative effect on the selection of the 35mm camera, whereas attribute similarity will exert a positive influence on the selection of the APS camera. We tested the influence of attribute similarity by four different models that differ in the manner in which attribute similarity affects choice: The base model, the common attribute model, the interaction model, and the separate similarity model. The Base model assumes that the utility of brand is determined only by the level of attributes and the price. Thus, the model does not incorporate the influence of attribute similarity on choice. The common similarity model assumes that the attribute similarity of a brand with other alternatives in the choice set also influences choice. The Interaction Model includes the interaction between product type and attribute similarity that captures the differential influence of similarity on choice. It is predicted that the interaction term coefficient will be significantly positive, indicating that the influence of attribute similarity on choice is

소비자 구매행동은 혈액형과 연관이 있는가?

석관호 ( Kwan Ho Suk ),구지은 ( Ji Eun Koo ) 한국소비자학회 2012 소비자학연구 Vol.23 No.2

소비자의 혈액형에 따라 시장을 세분화하거나 제품을 추천하는 혈액형 마케팅이 빈번히 사용되고 있다. 본 연구 는 이와 같은 혈액형 마케팅이 과학적인 사실에 바탕을 두고 있는 지를 검증하고자 하며, 이를 위해 소비자 구매결정 과정에 영향을 미치는 개인의 소비행동 특성변수에 초점을 맞추어 해당 변수가 혈액형과 관련이 있는 지를 연구 하고자 한다. 소비자 행동 연구에 따르면 소비자 구매결정은 총 5개의 단계로 구성되는데, 욕구의 인지. 정보탐색, 대안의 평 가, 구매, 구매 후 행동으로 이루어진다. 소비자 개인의 특성변수는 (1) 소비자 구매결정 각 단계와 관련성이 있는 지, (2) 혈액형에 대한 특성을 반영할 수 있는 지를 기준으로 선택되었다. 그 결과 욕구 인지 단계에서는 소비자의 독특성 욕구(need for uniqueness), 정보 탐색 단계에서는 인지 욕구(need for cognition), 대안 평가 단계에서 는 위험추구(risk taking) 성향, 구매 단계에서는 충동구매(impulse purchase) 성향, 구매 후 행동 단계에서는 불평행동(complaining behavior)이 개인 특성변수로 선정되었다. 사전조사에서는 혈액형별 성격과 혈액형별 소비행동의 특징에 대한 지식, 그에 대한 믿음을 측정하였다. 그 결과, 혈액형과 성격 간의 관계에 대해서는 대부분의 응답자들이 알고 있으며, 절반 이상의 응답자가 실제로 두 변수간의 관련성을 믿고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 혈액형과 소비행동 간의 관계에 대한 지식이나 믿음은 상대적으로 약하지만 27%의 응답자가 혈액형과 소비행동 특성간의 관련성에 대해 보통이상으로 인지하고, 37%의 응답자가 혈액형과 소비행동 특성의 관련성에 대해 보통 이상의 믿음을 가지고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 사전조사에서는 또한 독특성 욕 구, 인지욕구, 위험추구 성향, 충동구매 성향, 불평행동과 같은 소비행동이 어떤 혈액형에서 가장 많이 나타날 지에 대한 믿음(lay belief)을 측정하였다. 그 결과 응답자들은 각각의 혈액형이 특정 소비행동과 밀접히 연관되어 있음 을 강하게 믿고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 구체적으로는 AB형은 독특성 욕구가, A형은 인지욕구가, B형의 경우 위험 추구 성향, 충동구매 성향, 불평행동이 두드러질 것이라 믿고 있었다. 첫 번째 실증 연구에서는 대학생들을 대상으로 앞서 선정한 개인의 다섯 가지 소비행동 특성변수를 측정하였다. 분석 결과, 혈액형은 소비행동 특성변수와 관계가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 다섯 개의 소비자 개인 특성변수 모두 혈액형에 따른 차이를 보이지 않았으며, 이는 혈액형과 소비행동 간에 유의미한 관계가 없음을 나타내는 결과라 볼 수 있다. 두 번째 실증 연구에서는 독특성 욕구, 인지 욕구, 위험 추구 성향, 충동구매 성향을 자기 보고(self-report)가 아닌 다양한 선택 상황에서의 소비자 의사결정을 통해 측정하였다. 그 결과, 첫 번째 연구와 마찬가지로 혈액형에 따른 차이를 보이지 않았다. 본 연구의 결과들은 일반적인 믿음과는 달리 혈액형과 소비행동 간에는 유의한 관계가 없음을 보여주었다. Market segmentation and product differentiation based on consumers` blood type is frequently practiced in Korea. For example, a fusion bar recommends different side dish menus to consumers with different blood type. This research investigates whether the blood type marketing is grounded by scientific evidence showing consumers behavior is related to blood type. This research examines associations between blood type and five dimensions of consumer behavior characeristics that are related to consumer buying decision process. Research on consumer behavior has suggested that consumer decision making consists of five sequential decision stages: Need recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase, and postpurchase behavior. We selected five consumer behavior characteristic variables that are related to each stage of the decision making process and are supposedly related to lay beliefs about the characteristics of blood type. Specifically, we selected need for uniqueness (need recognition), need for cognition (information search), risk taking (evaluation of alternatives), impulse buying (purchase), and complaining behavior (postpurchase behavior) that represent the buying decision process. This research examined whether the five consumer behavior measures are related to blood type. A pretest explored university stduents` knowledge and beliefs about the relationship between blood type and personality and the relationship between blood type and consumer behavior. Respondents were well aware of the personality characteristics of each blood type and more than half of the respondents believed that personality and blood type are related. Beliefs and knowledge about the relationship between blood type and consumer behavior were weaker compared with those of the relationship between blood type and personality. We also measured lay beliefs about which blood type consumer is most likely to be related to need for uniqueness, need for cognition, risk taking, impulse buying, and complaining behavior. The results showed that the respondents have strong lay beliefs about the association between blood type and specific consumer behaviors. Respondents believed that need for uniqueness is most strongly related to blood type AB and be weakly related to blood type A or O. Need for cognition is strongly related to blood type A, but weakly related to other types. Consumers with blood type B are believed to be most likely to seek risk, buy with impulse, and complain after experiencing dissatisfaction. In sum, these findings suggest that people have stereotypes of blood type with respect to certain dimensions of consumer behavior. Study 1 examined the relationship between respondents` blood types and the five dimensions consumer behavior characteristics. In the study, respondents self reported their consumer behavior traits such as need for uniqueness, need for cognition, risk taking, impulse buying, and complaining behavior. We also manipulated the order in which ABO blood type is measured. In the ABO first condition, blood type was measured before measuring the five consumer behavior traits. In the ABO last condition, blood type was measured after the five consumer behavior measures. It was expected that, as gender stereotypes, measuring blood types first should activate blood type stereotypes, resulting in greater differences across blood types. The results of study 1 showed that blood type is not related to consumer behavior. For all the five consumer behavior measures, we found no significant differences across the consumers with different blood types. In addition, activation of blood type stereotype did not change the result. The findings of this study indicate that there is no significant relationship between blood type and individual difference characericists of consumption behavior. One shortcoming of Study 1 is that consumer behavior characteristics were measured by self-reports, which may not reflect actual consumer decisions. Therefore, we conducted Study 2 Study 2 further examined whether blood type is related to various consumer decisions that are related to need recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, and purchase. Specifically we tested the relationship between consumers` blood type and purchase of unique options (i.e., need for uniqueness), decision making time (i.e., need for cognition), choice of risky option (i.e., risk taking), and impulse buying intention (impulse buying). Specifically we tested whether respondents` blood types were reslated to various consumer decision makings such as the extent to choose unique versus ordinary choice options, the amount of time taken to search for product information before making choice decisions, the likelihood of choosing risky over safe options, and their willingness to buy without planning in a given purchase situation. The results showed that blood type was not significantly related to these consumer decision makings In sum, the results of the current research demonstrate that consumers` blood types are not strongly related to consumer behavior, contrary to some beliefs that blood types are related to certain types of consumer behavior. However, future research using different methods (e.g., analyzing shopping data of different blood types) should present more compelling evidence regarding the association between blood type and consumer behavior. Another direction for future research is to test the influence of blood type marketing on consumer perception, attitude, and purchase behavior.

현저성 효과와 속성 평가가능성 효과가 속성중요도 측정에 미치는 영향

윤성아(Song Oh Yoon),석관호(Kwan Ho Suk) 한국마케팅학회 2011 마케팅연구 Vol.26 No.3

기존의 연구들은 속성중요도(attribute importance)가 측정 방법에 따라 그 결과가 달라진다는 것을 보여주었다. 특히, 소비자들이 속성중요도를 직접적으로 평가하는 주관적(subjective) 속성중요도와 다속성으로 구성된 제품에 대한 소비자의 선호에서 속성 가중치를 통계적 방법으로 측정하는 추정된(estimated) 속성중요도 사이의 상관관계가 높지 않다는 결과들이 많이 보고되어왔다. 본 연구는 이러한 불일치의 중요한 이유가 속성중요도를 추정하기위해 사용되는 선호도 평가과업(evaluation task)의 특성 때문이라는 것을 제시하고자 한다. 다속성제품의 선호도 측정을 위해서 많이 쓰이는 평점(rating)과 순위(ranking) 과업은 평가척도(response scale)와 평가모드(response mode)에서 차이를 보이며, 이러한 과업의 특징으로 인해 추정된 속성중요도가 주관적속성중요도와 차이를 보이게 된다. 본 연구의 결과는 분리평가(separate evaluation) 모드에 의존하는 평점 과업의 경우, 단독으로 평가가 어려운 비교속성(comparable attribute)에서 주관적 속성중요도와 불일치성이 크다는 것을 보여주었다. 반면에 순위 과업에 의해 추정된 속성중요도의 경우, 가장 중요한 속성에 실제보다 더 많은 가중치를 부여하는 현저성(prominence) 효과로 인해 주관적 속성중요도와의 일치성이 낮아진다는 것을 보여주었다. 이러한 결과들은 평점과 순위 과업 모두 다른 유형의 편향으로 인해 추정된 속성중요도가 주관적 속성중요도간의 낮은 일치성을 유발한다는 것을 의미한다. 또한 본 연구는 평점 과업과 동일한 평가척도를 사용하지만 순위 과업과 유사한 공동평가 모드를 사용하는 "공동평점(joint rating)" 과업이 이들 두 과업보다, 주관적 속성중요도를 더 잘 반영해줄 수 있다는 점을 제시하였다. 공동평점 과업의 경우 현저성 효과나 속성 평가가능성 효과가 크게 나타나지 않았으며, 이로 인해 다른 두 과업보다 주관적 속성중요도와 더 좋은 일치성을 보여주었다. A number of methods have been proposed to assess consumer`s attribute importance. From a theoretical perspective, attribute importance is an integral component in explaining consumer attitude formation and the decision making process. For example, multiattribute judgment models posit that the evaluation of a product option is a function of attribute values and attribute importance using some linear combination rules. The accurate assessment of attribute importance has tremendous practical importance. Managers often rely on consumer`s expressed attribute importance when making strategic decisions on many key issues such as market segmentation and product configuration development. The attribute importance measures are largely classified as subjective and indirectly estimated methods. The subjective methods use self-report approaches to assess consumers` attribute importance. The indirect methods, on the other hand, derive attribute importance statistically from consumer`s expressed preference for product options, which are often elicited by different types of evaluation tasks (e.g., rating or ranking). Despite the theoretical connections between the direct and indirect measures, prior studies, however, have shown only a week to moderate level of convergence between the two approaches. The substantial divergence among different measurement approaches is problematic given the ubiquitous interchangeable use of direct and indirect methods in marketing research and practice. The current research suggests that the type of response task used to elicit preference in deriving indirect attribute importance (e.g., ranking or rating) is an important factor affecting the degree of correspondence between the subjective and indirectly estimated attribute importance. We propose that response tasks differ in their underlying characteristics, and each characteristic is associated with different type of weighting bias. Specifically, responses tasks differ in the response scale and response mode. Response scale refers to whether the underlying processing mode evoked by the given task is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Response mode refers to whether the preference is constructed based on separate or joint evaluation modes. We examine this issue through the comparison of the two most frequently used preference elicitation methods in indirect attribute importance measures: rating task and ranking task. With respect to the response scale, the rating task involves the evaluation of alternatives by assigning numbers along the given scale. Thus, the rating task can be defined as a quantitative scale. The ranking task, on the other hand, is based on qualitative scale since it encourages process of sequential arrangement of presented alternatives based on given criteria. The ranking task which relies on qualitative reasoning, in turn, leads to disproportionately great weighting of the most important attribute (i.e., the prominence effect) because a qualitative task evokes more qualitative or ordinal reasoning such as a lexicographic decision rule. Conversely, the conventional rating task renders quantitative weighting of attributes and hence is relatively free of the prominence bias. Therefore, we hypothesize that the prominence effect (i.e., a great divergence with direct weights in the most important attribute) is observed only for the ranking-based indirect attribute importance and not for the rating-based indirect attribute importance (H1). In terms of response mode, a conventional rating task resorts to the separate evaluation mode since the task calls for minimal comparisons of the target option to other options. Ranking, on the other hand, relies on the joint evaluation mode since the task requires comparisons among available alternatives. Due to this joint versus separate evaluation distinction, the two tasks differ in the types of attributes for which they can provide relatively accurate measurements. Specifically, indirect attribute impor