기업의 사회적 책임 활동이 중국 소비자의 인식과행동적 반응에 미치는 영향

하의의 ( Yiyi He ),이혜미 ( Hyemi Lee ) 한국소비자학회 2016 소비자학연구 Vol.27 No.3

본 연구는 중국 소비자들을 대상으로 기업의 사회적 책임 활동이 소비자 인식과 행동적 반응에 어떠한 영향을 미치며, 이러한 영향이 소비자의 자본주의적 태도에 따라 어떻게 달라질 수 있는지 살펴보았다. 기업의 사회적 책임 활동은 경제적 책임, 법적 책임, 윤리적 책임, 자선적 책임으로 구성되며, 소비자 인식은 기업 평판과 기업 태도를 중심으로 살펴보았고, 소비자의 행동적 반응은 구매의도로 측정되었다. 본 연구를 위해 중국의 베이징과 상하이 지역에 거주하는 20대~50대 소비자 387명을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였다. 연구의 주요 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 소비자 인식의 하위 요인인 기업 평판의 경우, 윤리적 책임을 제외한 경제적, 법적, 자선적 책임이 기업 평판에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났고, 소비자 인식의 또 다른 하위 요인인 기업 태도의 경우, 경제적 책임과 자선적 책임이 기업 태도에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 확인되었다. 둘째, 기업의 사회적 책임 활동 중 경제적 책임, 윤리적 책임, 자선적 책임이 소비자의 구매 의도에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 기업 평판 및 기업 태도는 구매 의도에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 확인되었다. 넷째, 소비자의 자본주의적 태도는 기업의 사회적 책임과 소비자 인식 및 소비자의 행동적 반응 간의 관계를 유의미하게 조절하지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구의 결과를 바탕으로 중국 내 기업들의 사회적 책임 활동에 대한 시사점을 제시하였다. With the rapid progress of globalization, the interest in Corporate Social Responsibility has increased and expanded into a global scale from the Chinese corporations to the world. As the Chinese consumers pay attentions to corporate social responsibility, the corporate social response activities become emphasized. Therefore, this study is designed to focus on how the social responsibility activities of corporations influence the awareness and response of the Chinese consumers. The results of this study are as follows. First of all, on the result analysis from the influences of corporate social responsibility activities on consumer awareness, it was found that economic responsibility, legal responsibility, charitable responsibility, all except for ethical responsibility, gave positive influences on corporate reputation in the case of corporate reputation as a sub-factor of consumer awareness. In the case of corporate attitude as a sub-factor of consumer awareness, economic responsibility and charitable responsibility were found to give positive influences on corporate attitude except for legal responsibility and ethical responsibility. Therefore, such results confirmed that corporate social responsibility activities affect consumer awareness. Secondly, on the result analysis from the influences of corporate social responsibility activities on consumer response, it was found that they gave positive influences on economic responsibility, ethical responsibility, and charitable responsibility except for legal responsibility. Among them, economical responsibility was the most influential element in consumer response compared to ethical responsibility. Thirdly, on the result analysis from the influences of consumer awareness on consumer response, it was found that the Chinese consumers had positive influences on purchase intentions from corporate reputation. In the case of corporate reputation as a sub-factor of consumer awareness, corporate attitude had significant influence on purchase intentions, and the Chinese consumers`` purchase intentions were positively impacted through good, favorable, and positive images on corporate reputation. Therefore, such results showed the influences of consumer awareness on consumer response. Fourthly, on the result analysis from the influences of capitalistic attitude on consumer awareness by interacting with corporate social responsibility, it was found that the corporate social responsibility according to capitalistic attitude did not influence consumer awareness at all. Although the attention on social responsibility activities related to the unique characteristics in China, such as the scientific development perspective, harmonious society, and sustainable development that emerged since 2002, it was found that capitalism over a ‘socialistic market economy” policy was not influential and suitable for the current Chinese circumstances. Fifthly, on the result analysis from the influences of capitalistic attitude on consumer awareness by interacting with corporate social responsibility, it was found that the corporate social responsibility according to capitalistic attitude also did not influence consumer response at all. Just like consumer awareness, it was found that capitalism over a ‘socialistic market economy” policy with the unique characteristics in China was not influential and suitable for the current Chinese circumstances either.

청소년의 소비자불만 대응과 소비자시민 역량이 소비생활 만족도에 미치는 영향

조현영,강우성 한국소비자원 2024 消費者問題硏究 Vol.55 No.1

모바일 기기에 익숙한 청소년은 온라인 비대면 거래를 촉발한 COVID-19를 기점으로 소비의 주체로 떠올랐다. 각종 제품/서비스와 관련된 정보를 익숙하게 접할 수 있어 까다로운 소비 기준을 갖게 된 청소년 소비자는 그만큼 소비생활에서 불편을 경험할 가능성도 커졌다. 본 연구는 청소년의 소비자불만 경험, 그리고 불만에 대한 대응여부가 이들의 소비생활 만족도에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 조사하고 이러한 소비자불만에 적절히 대응하는 능력으로 청소년의 소비자시민 역량을 살펴보았다. 소비자시민 역량은 소비자 권리와 관련된 정책이나 제도를 이해하고 소비자의 책임을 다하는 행동을 실천하는 능력이므로, 불만 대응시 필요한 소비자의 권리를 이해하는 데에 필수적인 능력이다. 본 연구는 청소년 소비자가 현재 소비자시민 역량을 어느 정도로 갖추고 있는지 살펴보고 이를 토대로 청소년을 대상으로 한 소비자 교육 정책을 수립하는 데 도움이 될 방향을 제시하고자 한다. 한국소비자원이 제공한 2022년 청소년 소비자역량지수 데이터를 사용하여 연구문제를 검증하였다. 교차분석, 일원분산분석, 로지스틱 회귀분석을 사용해 데이터를 분석한 결과, 소비자불만 경험은 소비생활 만족도에 부적인 영향을 미쳤고, 소비자불만을 경험하더라도 이에 대응하는 행동은 소비생활 만족도에 정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 소비자시민 역량 및 이 역량의 하위영역인 소비자시민 지식 및 실천은 불만대응 여부에 긍정적인 영향을 미쳐 소비자시민 역량이 청소년이 자신의 소비자불만에 대처할 수 있게 하는 중요한 요인임을 알 수 있었다. 소비자시민 역량은 청소년의 인구통계학적 요인에 따라 차이가 있었는데 여학생보다 남학생이, 대도시에 거주하는 청소년이 중소도시 및 읍면 지역에 거주하는 청소년에 비해 자신의 소비자시민 역량을 높게 평가했다. 반면, 불만 대응 정도는 남학생보다 여학생이 높고 지역에 따른 차이가 없었다. 이는 여학생과 남학생에게 각기 다른 방향의 소비자 교육이 필요하되, 전국적으로 균등하게 진행되어야 함을 시사한다. The adolescent familiar with mobile devices emerged as the subject of consumption with the onset of COVID-19, which triggered online non-face-to-face transactions. Adolescents, who have become familiar with various product/service-related information, have developed stringent consumption standards, increasing the likelihood of experiencing discomfort in their consumption lives. The ability to appropriately respond to such consumer dissatisfaction is a crucial factor positively influencing consumption satisfaction. This study examined consumer citizenship competence as a factor closely related to this ability. Consumer citizenship competence is the ability to understand policies or systems related to consumer rights and to practice behaviors that fulfill consumer responsibilities. It is the ability necessary to understand consumer rights required when dealing with dissatisfaction. Based on data from the 2022 Adolescent Consumer Competence Index provided by the Korea Consumer Agency, this study examined the research problem. Analyzing the data using cross-tabulation, one-way ANOVA, and logistic regression, it was found that experiences of consumer dissatisfaction had a negative impact on consumption satisfaction, and that even when experiencing consumer dissatisfaction, actions taken in response had a positive impact on consumption satisfaction. Furthermore, consumer citizenship competence and its sub categories, consumer citizenship knowledge and practice, positively influenced the response toward dissatisfaction, indicating that consumer citizenship competence is an important factor in dealing with consumer dissatisfaction. Consumer citizenship competence varied according to demographic factors; male adolescents and adolescents residing in large cities evaluated their consumer citizenship competence more highly than female adolescents and adolescents residing in small to medium-sized cities and rural areas. On the other hand, there was no regional difference in the extent of response toward dissatisfaction. This suggests the need for different directions of consumer education for female and male adolescents, while also indicating that such education should be conducted evenly nationwide.

THE RISK PERCEPTION ATTITUDE FRAMEWORK:CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT, PERCEPTIONS OF RISK, AND RESPONSES TO FOOD LABELS

Sujung Nam,Juran Kim,Kyung-Tae Gong 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2016 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2016 No.7

Introduction Consumers throughout the world, including Asia, are showing increased concerns about food safety. Public policy, industry, and academic researchers are turning increased attention to the effects of food labeling requirements. General food labels provide information about serving size, servings per container, total calories per serving, calories from fat, and minimum daily nutritional value. Consumers must then use the food labeling information to make individual dietary choices. Thus it is appropriate for researchers to ask how consumers formulate product choices and evaluations according to food labeling information including calorie counts and standardized nutritional information (Ford et al. 1996; Keller et al. 1997; Roe, Levy, & Derby 1999). Long-term strategies are critically needed to find ways to protect public health and to assure food safety. Health practitioners and governmental regulators have increased their efforts to address the growing problem by sponsoring programs for food safety and by requiring nutritional labeling. In answer to the need for further research in food consumption behavior (RFC), this study was conducted to investigate how manufacturers might use consumers’ perceptions of risks and involvement for planning the most effective food labeling. Theoretical Framework To find ways to promote general and social marketing healthful consumer use of food labels (Lefebvre, 1988; McDermott, 2000), this study utilizes consumer segmentation techniques in which consumers are categorized according to psychological and demographic profiles (Slater, Kelly, & Thackeray, 2006). That is, they are segmented based on essential homogeneous responses (Forthofer, 2000; Kotler, 1971) and demographic characteristics, including age, gender, income and social class, although demographics may be less effective than psychological differences for predicting responses to health promotions (Lefebvre, 1988; Slater, 1991). The psychographics approach to consumer segmentation, derived from marketing techniques, selects variables that predict health behaviors; that is, consumers are segmented according to how they process communication channel properties and message features (Rimal & Adkins, 2003). By focusing on consumer segmentation we elucidate how consumers react to food labeling designed to promote health and food safety. Consumer segmentation should help us understand why consumers might reject risky unhealthful behaviors and adopt protective healthful behaviors (Slater, 2006). The risk perception attitude framework (Garretson & Burton, 2000; Rimal & Real 2003; Turner, Rimal, Morrison &, Kim, 2006) is a theoretical perspective for segmenting consumers based on their perceptions of risk and their beliefs about personal efficacy. According to the risk perception attitude framework, risk perceptions are usually insufficient to motivate behavior, but when high risk perceptions are coupled with strong efficacy beliefs, people are more motivated to engage in self-protective behaviors. Social cognitive theory and the extended parallel process model also support the importance of efficacy beliefs as moderating risk perception effects on self-protective behavior (Bandura 1986; Witte 1994). Using the risk perception attitude framework for purposes of this study, consumers are classified into four groups according to their risk perception and self-efficacy as indicated by their involvement in health concerns. 1) The indifference group comprises study participants who have low risk perceptions and low involvement; they believe they face few risks, lack control of their actions, and are thus not motivated to undertake protective behaviors. 2) The responsive group comprises study participants who have high risk perceptions and high involvement and thus are motivated to undertake extensive self-protective behaviors. 3) The proactive group comprises participants who have low risk perception but high involvement; they believe strongly in their personal abilities to take control, but perceive low risk and are thus not motivated to engage in self-protective behaviors. 4) The avoidance group comprises study participants who have high risk perceptions and low involvement; they are concerned about the need to counter risks but lack the self-efficacy and involvement to follow recommendations. Research Questions To examine the risk perception attitude framework in the context of research on food consumption behavior (RFC), three central research questions are posed: RQ1: How are consumers classified according to their level of perceived risk and involvement? RQ2: Do different consumer types show different attitudes toward paying higher prices for safer food and toward paying attention to food labels? RQ3: What factors influence consumer classifications? Methods Data for this study came from research on food consumption behavior (RFC) conducted by Korea Rural Economic Institute (KREI) in 2014. In 2013, the KREI began gathering data regarding food consumption behavior to help the food industry develop more efficient use of food resources. RFC data are appropriate because they include data about various consumption patterns regarding food lifestyles, purchases, and food safety. Specifically, RFC for this study, we gathered data for a stratified sampling of 6,311 consumers, 19 to 75-years-old, living in 16 metropolitan city-regions in South Korea. Table 1 shows general features of the research participants. Among the respondents, 44.2% were men; 55.8% were women; 10.7% were 19 to 25-years-old; 37.6% were high school graduates; 46.9% had lower than middle school graduation levels, 21.9% were college graduates, 2.3% had post-graduate levels, 1.1% were uneducated; 36.5% had average monthly family incomes of 200~399; 1.3% had the highest rate of 1000 and more; 1.0% had low to moderate interest in health; 42.8% reported that they bought food two or three times weekly; 0.7% reported buying food once a month. Respondents reported an average 3.93 regarding risk perceptions for food safety. Their reported average level of involvement was 3.32; average of intention to pay higher prices for safe food was 3.37, and their average likelihood of checking food labels was 3.15. Measurement To score education levels, the uneducated group = 1, less than middle school = 2, high school graduates = 3, college graduates = 4, and postgraduates = 5. A five-point Likert-type scale was used to measure participants’ interest in their health (1 = complete indifference to 5 = very much interested). Also a five-point Likert scale was used to measure perceived risk for twelve items related to food safety: foreign substances, pesticide residue, use of antibiotics in livestock and fish, natural toxicity, food additives, heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, bacterial contamination, livestock disease, GMO, irradiation, packing hazards, and allergens (1 = not concerned at all to 5 = very concerned). Involvement was measured for three questions regarding food origin, food materials, and eco-friendly products (1 = not concerned at all to 5 = very concerned). Intentions to pay higher prices for safe food and to check food labels were measured from 1 = not at all to 5 = very positive. Results Four consumer groups were classified according to their level of perceived risk and involvement. We followed previous RPA model studies (e.g., Sullivan et al., 2008; Jo & Yoo, 2011) and classified groups based on median perceived risk and involvement: (≥4.00) for high perceived risk, (<4.00) for low perceived risk, (≥3.333) for high involvement, and (< 3.33) for low involvement. The responsive group had high perceived risk and high involvement; the proactive group had low perceived risk and high involvement; the avoidance group had high perceived risk and low involvement; and the indifference group had low perceived risk and low involvement. Additionally, ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test was conducted to examine the average difference among the four groups regarding their intentions to pay higher prices for safe food and to check food labels. Multinomial logit regression was performed to discover the factors that influence classification of consumer types. Classification of consumer types according to perceived risk and involvement Table 1 shows the consumer classifications according to the level of perceived risk and involvement: 1,198 participants, 21.8%, were in the indifference group with low perceived risk and low involvement; 1,254 participants, 22.8%, were in the proactive group with low perceived risk and high involvement; 1,125 participants, 20.5%, were in the avoidance group with high perceived risk and low involvement; 1,924 participants, 35.5%, were in the responsive group with high perceived risk and high involvement. Among the four groups, the responsive group had a statistically significant relatively high ratio: χ2 value for group classification was 79.695 (p <.001). Consumer classification differences in purchase intentions to pay higher prices for safe food and to check food labels Table 2 shows differences in intentions to pay higher prices for safe food and to check food labels. The proactive group showed the highest average intentions to pay higher prices for safe food at 3.52, followed by the responsive group at 3.51, the avoidance group at 3.25, and the indifference group at 3.16. The differences among the groups were statistically significant. A Tukey post-analysis showed that the high involvement group, in contrast with the low involvement group, showed higher average intentions to pay higher prices for safe food. Among the low involvement groups, those with high perceived risk had higher average intentions than those with low perceived risk. The responsive group showed the highest average intentions to check food labels at 3.44, followed by the proactive group at 3.43, the avoidance group at 2.74, and the indifference group at 2.27. The differences among the groups were statistically significant. A Tukey post-analysis showed that high involvement groups, in contrast with low involvement groups, showed higher average intentions to check food labels, but no difference was found according to the level of perceived risk. Influential factors of consumer segmentations Table 3 shows the results of examining the factors of gender, age, education, monthly average family income, and interest in health that are typical in consumer segments. Comparing all groups with the responsive group, the indifference group was most likely to comprise young women who had lower educational levels, lower monthly income, and less interest in health. The proactive group was most likely to be made up of men. The avoidance group was most likely to be made of young men who had lower educational levels, lower monthly incomes, and less interest in health. Discussion This study is an investigation of the theoretical framework of risk perception and involvement according to indifference, proactivity, responsiveness, or avoidance consumer segments. The study centrally indicates that the four risk perception–involvement framework groups differ in their perceptions of risk and the extent of their involvement. By revealing the importance of high involvement as a fruitful intervention strategy, the results suggest practical implications for public policymakers and marketers who strive to devise appropriate food labeling. Social cognitive theory has long stressed the importance of enhancing personal involvement (Bandura 1986). That insight can be applied to the risk perception attitude framework for identifying particular audiences who will respond to involvement-enhancing messages. Our findings suggest that a useful strategy in promoting change is to recognize that consumers will react differently according to their tendencies toward indifference, proactivity, responsiveness, or avoidance.

A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK ON BRAND THREAT EFFECTS AND CONSUMER RESPONSES

Paurav Shukla,Dina Khalifa 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2017 Global Fashion Management Conference Vol.2017 No.07

Brand threats are unexpected, widely spread negative brand occurrences that are manifest in various forms such as rumours (Einwiller et al., 2008), negative publicity (Ahluwalia et al., 2000), ethical scandals (Huber et al., 2010; Lisjak et al., 2012; Trump, 2014) and product failures (Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; Ahluwalia et al., 2001). They are quite common in the marketplace with adverse effects on brand reputations and brand equity (Duttta and Pullig, 2011) by thwarting consumers` expected benefits from the brand (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; Dutta and Pullig, 2011). Due to the frequency and seriousness of brand threats, academic interest in studying the effects of brand threats as well as predicting consumers responses has been rising in the past decade (Swaminathan et al., 2007; Cheng et al., 2012; Lisjak et al., 2012; Trump, 2014). Brand threat literature has evolved over the years from few case studies focusing on organizational response strategies to empirical work documenting cognitive and attitudinal responses by consumers to different types of threats. However, there are still a number of inconsistencies within this loose body of work that requires further research attention. The following section will highlight some of the most imminent controversies within the brand threat literature and thus paving the way for the current review paper to synthesize different streams of research and offer some conceptual clarity on brand threats. First, with regards to the conceptualization of brand threats, there appears to be no broad agreement on a precise definition of what constitutes a threat at the brand level. Over the past few years, scholars have expressed this notion using words such as negative brand publicity (Ahluwalia et al., 2000;2001; Pullig et al., 2006), brand scandal (Roehm and Tybout, 2006), brand failure (Roehm and Brady, 2007; Cheng et al., 2012), brand-related crisis ( Dawar and Lei, 2009; Dutta and Pullig, 2011), brand misconduct (Huber et al., 2010) and brand transgression (Trump, 2014). While these definitions can be used interchangeably as they reflect the overall characteristic of brand threats; they draw upon different theoretical foundations. As a result, competing views and understandings of brand threats have materialised, resulting in perennial dissensus within the extant literature. In addition, there is a debate in the literature with regards to the differential effects of brand threat types. The majority of prior research on brand threats has predominantly focused on two types of threat which is product–related brand threat (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; 2001; Cheng et al., 2012; Swaminathan et al., 2007) and values-related brand threats. Product-related threats usually involve defective or dangerous products and reduce a brand's perceived ability to deliver its functional benefits (Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; Pullig et al., 2006; Roehm and Brady, 2007; Dawar and Lei, 2009). Values-related threats, on the other hand can be defined as unexpected events that threaten a brand's perceived ability to deliver expressive or symbolic benefits (Dawar and Lei, 2009; Pullig et al., 2006). They do not involve the product but rather the social or ethical values of the brand (e.g., Pullig et al., 2006). Both types of threats have negative impact such as brand equity, satisfaction and choice likelihood (Dutta and Pullig, 2011), however existing work offer contradictory findings with regards to the degree of damage caused by either type of brand threat. While some studies implicate the product related threats are more damaging to the brand, other studies indicate that values related threats have more negative impact. For instance, product related threats have been reported to damage brand image and trust (Dawar and Pillutla, 2000), lead to consumer brand switching and consequently cause financial losses (Cleeren et al., 2008). On the other hand, Huber et al. (2010) report that a brand's moral threat can be more damaging for consumers` relationship quality with the brand as well as repurchase intention. In addition, Folkes and Kamins (1999) indicate that negative ethical information is perceived as more diagnostic than product attribute information. Additionally, Trump (2014) compared both types of threats (product vs. ethical) in the same study and reported that ethical-related brand threats can be more damaging than product-related threats. This in turn has contributed to growing inconsistencies within the brand threat literature and elaborated the need for more empirical work to reconcile these conflicting streams of research. An additional layer of controversy within the brand threat literature pertains to the impact of consumer brand relationship in predicting consumer responses. The general assumption is that the stronger the relationship between the consumer and the brand, the more insulated the brand remains from the negative impact of brand threats, however research yield mixed results. While some studies indicate the positive role of strong consumer brand relationship in mitigating the negative impact of brand threats (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; 2001; Einwiller et al., 2006), studies by Roehm and Brady, (2007) and Cleeren et al., (2008) suggest that these positive impacts are only shortlived. While other researchers show that high quality brand relationship may actually result in more negative consumer responses following threat (Hubler et al., 2010). Lastly, there has not been a unified conceptual framework to predict consumer responses to brand threat; different studies have used different theoretical underpinnings to examine the phenomenon reporting different results. Earlier studies on the subject were quite sparse, apart from a few attempts limited to case studies from public relations and publicity literature, there has been no systematic study of how consumers respond to brand threats (Ahluwaia et al., 2000). A common assumption in that literature was that brand threats in the form of negative publicity is considered more credible and influential than the brand`s marketing communications and therefore will always lead to serious adverse consequences (Bond and Kirshenbaum, 1998). Moreover, consumers were assumed to always respond in a uniform manner (Mgrconi, 1997; Pearson and Mitroff 1993). Although these studies have offered insights into how people process negative information and form evaluations, their findings were limited to experimental contexts in which subjects have to evaluate unfamiliar individuals. Although, several theoretical models have been proposed to understand consumers' responses to different types of brand threats (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; Dawar and Pillutla, 2000; Dawar and Lei, 2009; Huber et al., 2010; Roehm and Tybout, 2006; Cleeren et al., 2008; Dutta and Pullig, 2011), the findings of these studies reported mixed findings. Additionally, this body of work failed to present a unifying theoretical framework that predicts how consumers respond to negative information about commercial brands that they are familiar with nor did they identify the factors that could moderate the response strategies (Ahluwalia et al., 2000). Therefore, the current study seeks to review the existing literature on brand threats to propose an integrative classification framework that predicts consumer responses to different types of brand threats. Specifically, this review will offer four important contributions. Firstly, the review will offer a holistic conceptualization of brand threats and its different forms. Secondly, it will highlight existing studies that demonstrate consumer responses to brand threats and the important moderating factors captured in previous studies clustered around four main categories: corporate responses, threat-related characteristics, consumer characteristics, and consumerbrand relationships. Thirdly, the review will propose a theoretical framework and a number of propositions that predict the conditions under which consumers pursue specific responses to brand threat. The proposed framework will also identify a number of situational factors and individual traits that moderate may consumer responses. Lastly, the review will conclude by highlighting underdeveloped theoretical intersections pertaining to the long term effects of brand threats and suggesting potentially fruitful directions for future inquiry. The above contributions will integrate brand threat research in marketing and management theory within a single organizing framework. Moreover, by consolidating past results and setting the stage for further efforts, this review will seek to foster greater integration of fresh perspectives from other disciplines such as social psychology, sociology, consumer research and management to broaden the scope of research on band threat.

THE EFFECT OF MASS CUSTOMIZATION IN FOOD SERVICE ON CONSUMER’S PERCEIVED VALUE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND FOOD TYPES

Jaewon Hwang,Yong-Ki Lee 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2018 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2018 No.07

Introduction In recent times, mass customization strategy has been actively adapted even in the food service industry, which provides services wherein consumers select the main ingredients of the food they order according to their preference. In this study, we examine the effect of mass customization strategies perceived by consumers in the food service industry. We also includes the external and internal environmental factors stimuli surrounding the situation of purchasing customized food items to better predict how consumer’s perceived value of mass customization might be formed within the context of service industry. Evidence shows that consumers’ perceived value is high for mass customization in food consumption service compared to food service for a fixed menu. The findings further suggest that this effects of mass customization on consumer perception is moderated by social influence (group vs. individual) and food type (utilitarian vs. hedonic). Theoretical Development Recent research in the field of mass customization has demonstrated that the advantage of designing consumer’s own products is in increasing consumer's perceived benefits while engaging in the customization of tangible products. These studies have shown that the mass customization provides consumers with a utilitarian value due to the purchase of optimized products that meet their individual needs and various values that are embedded in the customization process, such as hedonic value, self-expressive value, and creative achievement (Merle, Chandon, Roux, & Alizon, 2010; Yoo & Park, 2016), and that this value recognition leads to positive attitudes and behavioral responses such as high willingness to pay (Franke, Keinz, & Steger, 2009; Schreier, 2006), purchase intent, and loyalty (Yoo & Park, 2016). However, whereas research on mass customization focusing on tangible products has been actively conducted, research in the field of intangible services, is still lacking in two respects. First, there has been very little discussion of the effectiveness of mass customization strategies in the food service industry. Specifically, based on the stimuli-organism-response (S-O-R) framework, which states that environmental stimuli (S) lead to the formation of a customer perception (O) that induces consumers’ behavioral responses (R) (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974), existing research focused on the relationship of customer’s behavioral response to mass-customized food service (S-R relationship) (Kuo & Cranage, 2010; Wolf and Zhang, 2016), failing to embrace S-O relationship that focuses on how mass customization differs from a standard system in terms of how consumers perceive value. Considering that mass customization services can be regarded as a form of customer engagement strategy (Chathoth et al., 2014; Chathoth et al., 2016), it can be assumed that mass customization in services can induce positive consumer perception. Second, little research has yet examined situational factors that affect consumer response in purchasing mass customization of products/service. Considering that service environments play a significant role in service delivery by strengthening customer perceptions and retention (Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal, & Voss, 2002; Sherman, Mathur, & Smith, 1997), it is necessary to identify the internal and external environmental factors that limit or enhance consumers’ perceived value of the mass customization for effective implementation of the mass customization strategy. The aim of the present research is to empirically examine the effects of mass customization on consumer responses. It is hypothesized that consumers’ perceived value might be high for mass customization in food consumption service (compared to food service for a fixed menu) (H1), which is consistent with previous literature on consumer responses to mass customization in tangible. Furthermore, the current research further includes various environmental stimuli surrounding the situation of purchasing customized food items to better predict how consumer’s perceived value of mass customization might be formed within the context of service industry. Based on the assumption that (a) people's choice of consumption is affected by the expectations of how others evaluate their decisions (Ariely & Levav, 2000; Calder & Burnkrant, 1977) and that (b) consumers are more concerned about social norms and therefore make similar choices to blend in resulting in uniformity at the group level (Tice, Butler, Muraven, & Stillwell, 1995), it is expected that consumers sometimes feel compelled to refrain from choosing favorites because of how they expect to be perceived by others, hindering consumer’s benefits of mass customization. In addition, there are two food types based on the goal of consuming food: utilitarian food and hedonic food (craving for sweetness, e.g., desserts) (Wansink, Ittersum, & Painter, 2004; 2005). In pursuing the hedonic goal, the consumer tendency to engage in various behaviors is strengthened by the desire to express one’s personality to others (Ariely & Levav, 2000; Ratner & Kahn, 2002). Accordingly, in the present research, we explore the perceived value of mass customization moderated by social influence (H2), and food type (H3). In this model, social influence (group vs. individual), which is the factor outside the scope of customizing process, is regarded as an external variable and food types (utilitarian vs. hedonic), divided according to the purpose of food consumption, as an internal variable. Method We used a 2 (customization: low vs. high) × 2 (social influence: individual vs. group) between subject experiment conducted on the subjects regarding two types of food service: utilitarian food (main course) and hedonic food (dessert). We assigned 208 participants randomly to one of four conditions. Participants were asked to imagine they were visiting the high customized restaurant with their colleague together (vs. alone) that provide high customized service (vs. low customized service) and saw a menu for a food item. Modified from Kuo and Cranage (2010) study, two level of customized menu scenarios were used in this study. In the high customization scenario, participants are told that they were in a restaurant where they were offered to customize their dishes with choices of ingredients. In the low customization condition, participants were told that they were in a restaurant where they ordered among fixed menu items. Based on pretest result, we used pasta, which is entr?e for the utilitarian food, and use ice-flake, which is dessert for the hedonic food. After reading the scenario, participants provide their perceived value of mass customization ratings of the service process. Results and Conclusion First, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect of mass customization demonstrating that on perceived value, participants who read mass customization service condition had a higher perceived value on their food than participants in the fixed menu condition (H1). Second, in order to examine whether social influence (H2) and food type (H3) moderate the effect of mass customizatino on consumer perceptions, a moderated moderation model was performed a bootstrapping procedure with 5000 samples using the PROCESS model 3 (Hayes, 2016). The result revealed a significant three-way interaction effect among level of customization (high vs. Low), social influence (group vs. individual), and food types (utilitarian vs. hedonic). As the level of customization increases, the overall perceived value increases; however, it is confirmed that, when making decisions about food in a group situation, there are restrictions on perceiving the value that the consumer can customize and feel as compared to the individual situation. Finally, impact of social influence on the perceived value of customization is moderated by food type (hedonic vs. utilitarian). In other words, in hedonic food consumption situation, the modeartion effect of social influence on the perceived value of customization is weakened. Consumers are more likely to appreciate the process and consider it more palatable when they use mass customization service in restaurant. However, when people are conscious of the presence of others, the act of selecting food ingredients according to one’s own preference is restricted. Therefore, even if customized food is ordered in the presence of the group, its perceived value will be as lower than that of a fixed menu. In addition, when people use mass customization service in hedonic food consumption situations, regardless of group influence, they perceive that the value of customized menu is higher than that of the fixed menu. We expect that the study findings and framework will provide practical and theoretical implications such as the development of theories on food service situations, as well as aid restaurants in establishing marketing strategies. In addition, identifying internal and external environmental factors that limit consumers’ perceived value of mass customization will enable restaurants to find a suitable menu composition method to enhance and maintain customers’ perceived value and build a promotional strategy accordingly.

기업과 소비자의 사회적 책임이 지속가능소비생활 실천과 소비생활만족에 미치는 영향

이민환(Lee, Min-HWan),이서진(Lee, Seojin Stacey) 한국상품학회 2021 商品學硏究 Vol.39 No.5

본 연구의 목적은 기업의 사회적 책임과 소비자의 사회적 책임이 소비생활만족에 미치는 영향을 파악하는 것이며, 구체적으로 기업의 사회적 책임과 소비자의 사회적 책임이 지속가능소비생활 실천을 통하여 소비생활만족에 미치는 영향을 살펴보고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 한국소비자원에서 2년 주기로 조사·발표되고 있는 「2019 한국의 소비생활지표」통계 데이터를 활용하여 실증분석을 수행하였다. 분석결과 기업의 사회적 책임과 소비자의 사회적 책임은 지속가능소비생활 실천과 소비생활만족에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 기업의 사회적 책임과 소비자의 사회적 책임은 지속가능한 소비생활실천을 통하여 소비생활만족에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타나 매개효과가 검증되었다. 이러한 연구변수 간의 관계에 대한 영향력의 유무와 크기는 나이, 성별, 소비자교육 및 소비자참여활동 참여의사와 같은 개인적 특성에 따라 차이를 보여 조절효과가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 특히, 소비자교육 및 소비자참여활동 참여의사의 정도에 따라 지속가능한 소비생활 실천의 매개효과의 유무와 영향력의 방향성이 상반되는 결과를 보이며 주도적이고 적극적인 소비자의 역할에 따른 유의미한 차이를 나타냈다. 이러한 결과를 통해 기업의 사회적 책임과 소비자의 사회적 책임을 강화하고 이를 지속가능소비와 연결시키고자하는 학문적 및 정책적 기여에 대하여 논의하였고, 본 연구의 한계점과 향후 연구방향을 제시하였다. This research aims to investigate the effects of corporate social responsibility, consumer social responsibility, and sustainable consumption practice on consumer life satisfaction. We hypothesize that both corporate social responsibility and consumer social responsibility positively influence consumer life satisfaction via sustainable consumption practice. The structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to analyze the data from 「2019 Korea Consumer Life Index」, which is investigated and published every two years by the Korea Consumer Agency. The findings suggest that corporate social responsibility and consumer social responsibility have positive effects on sustainable consumption practice and consumer life satisfaction. Especially, sustainable consumption practices mediate the effects of corporate social responsibility as well as consumer social responsibility on consumer life satisfaction. Furthermore, it is confirmed that individual differences including age, gender, participation intention of consumer education, and participation intention of consumer participation activities moderates the observed effects. In particular, the presence and the direction of sustainable consumption practice showed a meaningful difference in the leading and active consumers. Theoretical and practical implications of the present studyare discussed, and limitations and future research directions are suggested.

소비자 문제해결 창구 인식이 지속가능 소비생활에 미치는 영향 : 소비자 권리와 책임 행동과 소비생활 여건 인식의 효과

박승배,홍재원 한국기업경영학회 2021 기업경영연구 Vol.28 No.3

본 연구는 제도적 측면에서 소비자 문제해결 창구의 활용인식이 지속가능 소비생활에 미치는 영향에 있어서 소비자 권리와 책임 인식과 소비생활 여건 인식의 효과를 파악하는 연구이다. 즉, 소비자문제를 해결하기 위한 시스템의 구축이 지속가능 소비생활을 실천하도록 유도할 수 있는지를 파악하고 개인적인 특성으로서 소비자 의 권리와 책임, 제도적인 소비생활 여건에 대한 인식의 효과의 차별적인 영향을 파악하는 연구이다. 구조방정 식 모형을 통해 제시된 가설을 검증한 연구결과는 다음의 몇 가지로 요약된다. 첫째, 소비자 문제해결 창구의 활용은 직접적으로 지속가능 소비생활에 역의 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 즉, 소비자 문제해결 창구가 정비 되어 있다고 해도 지속가능 소비생활에 역의 관련성이 있다. 이는 제도적인 측면에서 소비자 문제해결 창구가 지속가능 소비생활을 활성화하는 것은 아니라는 것을 시사한다. 둘째, 소비자 문제해결 창구의 활용은 소비생 활 여건 인식과 소비자 권리와 책임에 긍정적인 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 즉, 소비자 문제해결 창구의 활용은 소비생활 여건 인식을 향상시키며 소비자 권리와 책임에 대하여 더 인식하게 한다. 셋째, 소비생활 여건 인식과 소비자 권리와 책임은 지속가능 소비생활에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 넷째, 소비 생활 여건 인식과 소비자 권리와 책임행동이 소비자 문제해결 창구 인식과 지속가능 소비생활과의 관계에서 매개적 역할이 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 소비자문제해결 창구의 활용이 소비생활 여건 인식과 소비자 권리 와 책임에 대한 소비자들의 평가에 긍정적 영향을 주고, 나아가 지속가능 소비생활 향상에 기여함을 나타낸다. 본 연구는 개인적 특성으로서 소비자 권리와 책임 행동과 제도적인 측면에서 문제해결 창구 활용과 소비생활 여건 인식을 다루고 있다는데 기존의 연구와 차별점이 있다. This study identifies the mediating effects of consumer rights and responsibility recognition and consumer living conditions in the impact of the perception of the use of consumer problem-solving windows on sustainable consumption life in an institutional aspect. In other words, the study identifies whether the establishment of a system to solve consumer problems can induce sustainable consumption life to be practiced, and identifies the discriminatory effects of consumer rights, responsibilities, and awareness of institutional consumption conditions as personal characteristics. The results of the study that verified the hypothesis presented through a structural equation model are summarized in several ways: First, it has been shown that the use of consumer problem-solving channels directly affects sustainable consumption life. In other words, even if a consumer problem-solving window is maintained, it is inversely related to sustainable consumption life. This suggests that on the institutional side, a consumer problem-solving channel does not activate sustainable consumption life. Second, the use of consumer problem-solving windows has a positive impact on consumer rights and responsibilities and awareness of consumer living conditions. In other words, the use of consumer problem-solving windows improves awareness of consumer living conditions and makes them more aware of consumer rights and responsibilities. Third, awareness of consumer living conditions and consumer rights and responsibilities have a positive impact on sustainable consumption life. Fourth, awareness of consumer living conditions and consumer rights and responsibilities play a mediating role between the use of consumer problem solving channels and sustainable consumption life. This indicates that the use of consumer problem solving channels positively affects on awareness of consumer living conditions and consumers’ assessment of consumer rights and responsibilities, and further contributes to the improvement of sustainable consumption life. This study differs from existing studies that it deals with the use of problem-solving windows and the perception of consumer living conditions in terms of consumer rights, responsibility behavior and institutional aspects as personal characteristics.

소비자의 기업평가에 있어서 기업과 소비자의 사회적 책임활동의 상호작용효과

박상준(Sang-June Park),변지연(Ji-yeon Byun) 한국경영과학회 2012 經營 科學 Vol.29 No.2

Business firms and consumers exist within a society, and their activities influence a society, because they are not separated from a society. Thus, consumers as well as business firms have been asked to conduct socially responsible actions (i.e., environmentally friendly production and socially friendly activities). Previous researchers have investigated on the relationship between corporate social responsibilities and business performances. For example, researchers have analyzed the effects of corporate social responsibility on consumer’s corporate evaluations. The corporate social responsibility is commonly classified into the three dimensions (economic, social, and environmental responsibility). In this paper, we demonstrated that the consumer social responsibility can also be classified into the three dimensions. Previous researchers have shown that the three dimensions of corporate social responsibility influence consumer’s corporate evaluation. However, they have not considered the interaction effect of the corporate social responsibility and the consumer social responsibility on consumers’ corporate evaluation. Different from the past studies, this study investigated on the interaction effect of consumer social responsibility (economic, social, environmental responsibility) and corporate social responsibility (economic, social, environmental responsibility) on consumer’s corporate evaluation. For the study, we collected survey data of 200 consumers and analyzed the interaction effect with ANOVAs. The result showed that the three dimensions of social responsibility to both corporate and consumers influence positively the corporate evaluation. They also showed that the interaction effect of consumer responsibility and corporate responsibility on the corporate evaluation was statistically significant. This implies that it is necessary for corporate to conduct corporate social responsibility differently depending on consumer’s activity for consumer social responsibility.

The Effects of Consumer Emotional Intelligence, Performance-relatedness, and Intentionality on Consumers’ Brand Coping Responses

( Tae Hoon Lee ),( Kyuhyun Choi ),( Dong Cheon Won ) 한국체육학회 2021 International journal of human movement science Vol.15 No.3

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of consumer emotional intelligence (CEI) on coping responses in the consumer-brand relationship, to investigate the influence of consumer perceptions of endorser’s intentions on the relationship between CEI and coping responses, and to explore a broader set of consumer responses. To fulfill this purpose, a factorial (performance-relatedness × intentionality × consumer emotional intelligence) experiment was conducted. 414 participants were collected who lived in the United States using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Data analyses included Independent Samples t-test, two-way, and three-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance(MANOVA) using SPSS 26.0 statistical packages. The findings suggested that the high and low CEI consumers differ in their coping responses on athlete transgression. The destructive coping response of low-CEI consumers was significantly higher when athlete transgression was performance-related, regardless of intentionality. High-CEI consumers’ destructive coping response displayed significantly higher when intentional performance-related transgression while they displayed higher when unintentional non-performance-related transgression. These findings showed that stakeholders such as brand managers can be aware of the potential impact of athlete transgression and estimate the extent of consumer coping responses based on transgression type (performance-relatedness × intentionality). and consumer emotional intelligence. Therefore, adequate strategies (e.g., cutting off endorser or suspension of endorsement) can be developed in the perspective of brand management when they utilize athlete as their endorser.

RESPONSIBLE VS. ACTIVE BRANDS? A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF BRAND PERSONALITY ON CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIPS

Sebastian Molinillo,Arnold Japutra 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2016 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2016 No.7

Increasingly, there is a rise of interests from practitioners and academics on the topic of consumer-brand relationships (CBR). It has been argued that consumer build relationship with a brand in consonance with its personalities. Thus, this study investigates the role of brand personality in predicting prominent CBR constructs, such as brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty. Researchers consider brand personality as one of the prominent constructs in predicting consumer preferences and choices (e.g. Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013; Gordon, Zainuddin, & Magee, 2016; Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2013). It has been established that brands are capable to have personalities (Aaker, 1997; Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf, 2009). The study of brand personality flourished since Aaker (1997) created a brand personality scale (BPS). According to her, brand personality reflects five main dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Out of these dimensions, many studies mainly focus on two dimensions, sincerity and excitement respectively (e.g. Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, 2001; Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2006; Ivens & Valta, 2012; Sung, Choi, Ahn, & Song, 2015). These studies consider these two dimensions to be of important since these dimensions appear to capture much of the variance in personality ratings of brands (Aaker, 1997) and are considered prominent to the marketing landscape (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2013; Toldos-Romero & Orozco-Gómez, 2015). Although Aaker's BPS represents the most prominent operationalization of brand personality (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013; Matzler, Strobl, Stokburger-Sauer, Bobovnicky, & Bauer, 2016; Freling, Crosno, & Henard, 2011), her model has been the subject of several critiques. Researchers argue that the scale measures brand identity rather than brand personality (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003), the scale is too general and simplistic (Austin, Siguaw, & Mattila, 2003), the scale does not include negative factors (Bosnjak, Bochmann, & Hufschmidt, 2007), and the scale is non-generalizable and non-replicable cross culturally (Arora & Stoner, 2009; Geuens et al., 2009). These shortcomings led researchers to construct an alternative to Aaker’s BPS. Geuens et al. (2009) develop a new measure of brand personality, which includes five dimensions: responsibility, activity, aggressiveness, simplicity, and emotionality. Although many studies scrutinize on Aaker’s brand personality scale, only limited studies apply Geuens et al.’s BPS (e.g. Garsvaite & Caruana, 2014; Goldsmith & Goldsmith, 2012; Gordon et al., 2016; Matzler et al., 2016). Thus, the present study investigates the relationships between brand personality, using Geuens et al.’s (2009) scale, and three important consumer-brand relationships (CBR) constructs. These three constructs are brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty. Aaker (1991) conceptualize brand equity to include five important constructs, which includes brand awareness and brand loyalty. Meanwhile, Keller (1993) notes that brand knowledge is an important component of brand equity, consists of brand awareness and brand image. In addition, brand trust has been considered to be essential in influencing brand performance (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Hence, the focus of the present study lies on these three variables. As it has been discussed above, researchers consider sincerity and excitement to be essential in investigating consumer behavior. In light of a shortage of studies in applying Geuens et al.’s (2009) BPS, the present study examines two personality dimensions, which are conceptually similar to Aaker’s (1997) BPS: responsibility to replace sincerity and activity to replace excitement (see Table 1). To the best of our knowledge, no research has investigated the relationships between these three consumer-brand relationships constructs (i.e. brand awareness, brand trust and brand loyalty) and the two most relevant brand personality dimensions (i.e. responsibility and activity). The present study contributes to the marketing literature in three different ways. First, this study adds to the body of knowledge on the relationship between brand personality and CBR constructs using the new measure of BPS. Second, this study assesses the individual level of the new BPS, particularly responsibility and activity, on the three CBR constructs. In doing so, this study responds Keller and Lehmann’s (2006) and Geuens et al.’s (2009) call to assess the individual capacity of the brand personality dimensions to get consumer preference or loyalty. Third, this study displays which out of the two dimensions of the new BPS (i.e. responsible and active) are more important to predict the three CBR constructs. In this research, data were collected from Spanish respondents using online survey with snowballing technique. In total, 347 respondents participated in the survey. After checking for incomplete questionnaires and missing values, 8 questionnaires were dropped. Hence, 339 questionnaires were used for the analysis. Before conducting multivariate analysis, normality tests were conducted. The measurement and structural models was tested using AMOS 18, employing the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method. We find that brand personality predicts these three CBR constructs. Brand personality explains 56%, 58%, and 45% of the variance in brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty, respectively. The results show that the strongest link is between brand personality and brand trust. Su and Tong (2015) find that there is no relationship between exciting personality and brand awareness. On the contrary, this study displays that being an active brand leads to higher brand awareness. Even the results show that active brands are more likely to build brand awareness compared to responsible brands. However, in order to build brand trust and brand loyalty, responsible brands are more preferred compared to active brands. These results are in line with Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer (2013) that reveal weak relationships between excitement on brand attitude and brand commitment. These days, consumers prefer the brands to be more responsible or sincere. As Kotler (2011) argues that there is a shift in marketing that consumers pay more attention toward social responsibilities. Interestingly, the results show that being too active could negatively affect brand trust and brand loyalty. Although the association is not statistically significant, Banerjee (2016) finds that excitement brand personality has a negative association with brand preference. A study also finds that excitement does not predict employer brand trust (Rampl & Kenning, 2014). One explanation could be that the brands would like to be something that is an opposite of what they are claiming. Guèvremont and Grohmann (2013) argue that when a sincere brand attempts to flatter the consumers, it decreases brand attitude and increases disappointment. However, this does not occur when flattery comes from exciting brands. Brand managers should be very careful in communicating their brands personalities. Communicating to the consumers that their brands are responsible as well as active is good. However, brand managers should understand the interplay between these two opposing personalities. Consumers may believe that the brand is a responsible brand but also a little bit active. However, communicating two different opposing personalities at the same time may confuse the consumers. This is due to consumers’ disconfirmation of expectations (Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2013). Although this study enlightens the literature of brand management, it is not without its limitations. This study collects data from a cross-sectional study in Spain. In order to generalize the results of this study, future studies should replicate the conceptual framework cross culturally. Particularly on the negative effects of active personality toward the three CBR constructs. Furthermore, Spanish has been regarded as individuals with high uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001). Uncertainty avoidance increases the reliability of the brand personality dimensions, namely sincerity and excitement (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013). Thus, it would be interesting to know whether differences occur between high and low uncertainty avoidance respondents. In addition, future studies should also account for other individual differences, such as attachment style. Japutra, Ekinci, Simkin, and Nguyen (2014) note that attachment style plays a prominent role in predicting consumer behaviors.