인사선발에 있어서 유인효과와 타협효과에 관한 실험연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Previous research on consumer choice behavior has demonstrated that, contraryto rational model of choice, adding a third alternative (i.e., decoy) to an existingchoice set can increase the attractiveness and choice probability of the originalalternative. Extending the existing work on the attraction and comprise effect, this
study examines these effects in the process of employee selection and furthermore
the consistency and stability of selection decision across time and context. Twohundred and ninety undergraduate and graduate students attending businessclasses participated in Experiment 1, and one weeks after the first experiment, 216students participated in Experiment 2.The result showed a strong attraction effect in personnel selection decision insuch a way that adding an asymmetrically dominated candidate to the two-candidate choice set (i.e., target and competitor) increased the probability of choosing the dominating candidate (i.e., target) and decreased the choice probabilityof the competitor. Second, the result also supported the compromise effect in that
the likelihood of selecting the target candidate increased when the target became a compromise or middle alternative after introducing an extreme candidate to the original choice set. Third, testing the preference reversal hypothesis by comparing the proportions of participants who selected the different candidate at Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, the result showed that the proportion of inconsistent selections was quite high: 22.7% and 36.5% in attraction and compromise condition, respectively. Especially, the consistency of selection decision was significantly lower in the
experimental group (i.e., the three-candidate choice condition including the decoy)than in the control group (i.e., the two-candidate choice condition). These results imply that the judgment and choice of candidates may be affected not only by their inherent attributes, but also by the context that is incurred by the choice set construction. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings were discussed.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이상민, "인사관리연구에 게재된 인사관리 분야 논문 분석 :1980년부터 2008년까지" 한국인사관리학회 34 (34): 177-218, 2010

2 하영원, "열등한 대안의 위치와 빈도가 유인효과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구" 23 (23): 201-232, 1993

3 박종원, "신제품 포지셔닝에 있어서 유인효과의 전략적 활용" 28 (28): 1163-1182, 1999

4 Kahneman, D., "생각에 관한 생각" 김영사 2012

5 장석훈, "상식 밖의 경제학" 청림출판 2008

6 박세훈, "미끼대안의 다양한 위치와 빈도에 따른 유인효과" 27 (27): 955-982, 1998

7 Hedgcock, W., "Trade-Off Aversion as an Explanation for the Attraction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study" 46 : 1-13, 2009

8 Ratneshwar, S., "Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity" 13 : 520-533, 1987

9 Tversky, A., "The Causes of Preference Reversal" 80 (80): 204-217, 1990

10 Mao, W., "The Attraction Effect is More Pronounced for Consumers Who Rely on Intuitive Reasoning" 23 : 339-351, 2012

11 Kim, S., "The Attraction Effect in Decision Making: Superior Performance by Older Adults" 58A (58A): 120-133, 2005

12 Pan, Y., "The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two Elections" 4 (4): 85-101, 1995

13 Lichtenstein, S., "Reversals of Preference Between Bids and Choices in Gambling: An Extended Replication in Las Vegas" 101 : 16-20, 1971

14 Kahneman, D., "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk" 47 (47): 263-291, 1979

15 Seidl, C., "Preference Reversal" 16 (16): 621-655, 2002

16 Huber, J., "Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects" 10 : 31-44, 1983

17 Tversky, A., "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model" 106 : 1040-1061, 1991

18 Luce, R. D., "Individual Choice Behavior" John Wiley & Sons 1959

19 Rooderkerk, R. P., "Incorporating Context Effects into a Choice Model" 48 : 767-780, 2011

20 Parducci, A., "Handbook of Perception, Vol. I I" Academic Press 1974

21 Pettibone, J. C., "Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice" 81 (81): 300-328, 2000

22 Slaughter, J. E., "Effects of Two Selection Batteries on Decoy Effects in Job-Finalist Choice" 37 (37): 76-90, 2007

23 Grether, D. M., "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon" 69 : 623-638, 1979

24 Wedell, D. H., "Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induces Preference Reversals" 17 (17): 767-778, 1991

25 Highhouse, S., "Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates" 65 (65): 68-76, 1996

26 Slaughter, J. E., "Context Effects on Group-based Employee Selection Decisions" 100 : 47-59, 2006

27 Simonson, I., "Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion" 29 : 281-295, 1992

28 Yoon, S., "Choice Set Configuration as a Determinant of Preference Attribution and Strength" 35 : 324-336, 2008

29 Amir, O., "Choice Construction Versus Preference Construction: The Instability of Preferences Learned in Context" 45 : 145-158, 2008

30 Simonson, I., "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects" 16 : 158-174, 1989

31 Heath, T. B., "Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality Versus High-Quality Brands: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence" 22 : 268-284, 1995

32 Schwartz, J. A., "Are More Options Always Better? The Attractiveness Effect in Physicians’ Decisions about Medications" 19 (19): 315-323, 1999

33 Chakravarti, D., "Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10" Association for Consumer Research 289-297, 1983

34 Huber, J., "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis" 9 : 90-98, 1982