http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Auh Seigyoung (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Aligning Benefits with Payments in a Consumer Financing Context - A Test of the Alignment Hypothesis
Auh Seigyoung,Chuan Fong Shih 한국마케팅과학회 2006 한국마케팅과학회 학술대회 발표 논문집 Vol.- No.-
This article extends the literature on consumer financing decisions by drawing on mental accounting and prospect theory. Specifically, the authors test the alignment hypothesis, which states that consumers prefer financing schemes that not only match the length of benefits with payments but also employ corresponding patterns. Through four studies, the authors find general support for the alignment hypothesis.
-
The Impact of Collective Guilt on the Preference for Japanese Products
Amro A,Maher,Anusorn Singhapakdi,Hyun-Soo Park,Seigyoung Auh 한국마케팅과학회 2010 마케팅과학연구 Vol.20 No.2
阿拉伯人?合抵制丹??品,澳大利?人?合抵制法??品,而中?人??日本?品,?些是?家?的??行?影?消?行?的案例。?意文?中已考??消?者?其他?家??行?的反?,以及???意如何影?消?者????家?品的?度和?向。例如,中?消?者不愿??日本?品,是由于日本人在第二次世界大?中的暴行,以及不平等的??往?(Klein, Ettenson and Morris 1998)。然而在市???文?中,却?有考??那些?他??施??行?的?家消?者的反?,?些??行?是否?影?他???受害??品的?度。社?心理?文???,消?者面???的??行??,??生一?集?犯罪感。集?犯罪感源于???成?????要??害其他??的行????所?生的痛苦感(Branscombe, Slugoski, and Kappenn 2004)。案例包括美?人由于美?在Abu Ghraib??的暴行而?生犯罪感(Iyer, Schamder and Lickel 2007),荷?由于?去?印度尼西?的占?而?生犯罪感(Doosje et al. 1998)。本硏究的主要目的是考???家成??他?有??行??消?者的感知,??感知是否?影?他?????家?品的?度。更准?的?,本硏究的目?之一是考?集?犯罪感的感知前提,以及??家成??他?有??行??,人?的情?反?。?一?目?是考?集?犯罪感如何影?消?者?????品的感知和?向。如果集?犯罪感能起到明?的?言作用,????方的公司可能????不幸的事件中受益。本硏究利用了由Klein, Ettenson and Morris (1998)提出??Klein (2002)?展的?意模式。Klein??美?消?者?日本人?有?意,起因是二?期?的事件(如日???珍珠港)和近年?日本的??威?。因此本硏究??,二??的事件(如???崎的原子?爆炸)可能?致美?消?者的集?犯罪感。曾有?一系列的三?假?,第一?假??于集?犯罪感的前提。之前有硏究???消?者感知到侵害造成的非法?害,?且??侵犯者?自的?家??此??,集?犯罪感就?生了(Wohl, Branscombe, and Klar 2006)。因此提出下列假?:假?1a:感知到的?害非法性越高,集?犯罪感越强烈。假?1b:?任越大,集?犯罪感也肯定越强烈。第二?和第三?假??于集?犯罪感??向日本?品的影?。Klein (2002)???日本的?意越强,相比????品?日本?品的?向越小,但相比?美??品?日本?品的?向?未?小。?些?果?明集?犯罪感存在?,消?者在??日本?品和???品??更?向于前者,但在??日本?品和美??品??未受影?。假?2:集?犯罪感???日本?品的?向大于???品有Ð Arab boycotts of Danish products, Australian boycotts of French products and Chinese consumer aversion toward Japanese products are all examples of how adverse actions at the country level might impact consumers’ behavior. The animosity literature has examined how consumers react to the adverse actions of other countries, and how such animosity impacts consumers’ attitudes and preferences for products from the transgressing country. For example, Chinese consumers are less likely to buy Japanese products because of Japanese atrocities during World War II and the unjust economic dealings of the Japanese (Klein, Ettenson and Morris 1998). The marketing literature, however, has not examined how consumers react to adverse actions committed by their own country against other countries, and whether such actions affect their attitudes towards purchasing products that originated from the adversely affected country. The social psychology literature argues that consumers will experience a feeling called collective guilt, in response to such adverse actions. Collective guilt stems from the distress experienced by group members when they accept that their group is responsible for actions that have harmed another group (Branscombe, Slugoski, and Kappenn 2004). Examples include Americans feeling guilty about the atrocities committed by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison (Iyer, Schamder and Lickel 2007), and the Dutch about their occupation of Indonesia in the past (Doosje et al. 1998). The primary aim of this study is to examine consumers’ perceptions of adverse actions by members of one’s own country against another country and whether such perceptions affected their attitudes towards products originating from the country transgressed against. More specifically, one objective of this study is to examine the perceptual antecedents of collective guilt, an emotional reaction to adverse actions performed by members of one’s country against another country. Another objective is to examine the impact of collective guilt on consumers’ perceptions of, and preference for, products originating from the country transgressed against by the consumers’ own country. If collective guilt emerges as a significant predictor, companies originating from countries that have been transgressed against might be able to capitalize on such unfortunate events. This research utilizes the animosity model introduced by Klein, Ettenson and Morris (1998) and later expanded on by Klein (2002). Klein finds that U.S. consumers harbor animosity toward the Japanese. This animosity is experienced in response to events that occurred during World War II (i.e., the bombing of Pearl Harbor) and more recently the perceived economic threat from Japan. Thus this study argues that the events of Word War II (i.e., bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) might lead U.S. consumers to experience collective guilt. A series of three hypotheses were introduced. The first hypothesis deals with the antecedents of collective guilt. Previous research argues that collective guilt is experienced when consumers perceive that the harm following a transgression is illegitimate and that the country from which the transgressors originate should be responsible for the adverse actions. (Wohl, Branscombe, and Klar 2006). Therefore the following hypothesis was offered: H1a. Higher levels of perceived illegitimacy for the harm committed will result in higher levels of collective guilt. H1b. Higher levels of responsibility will be positively associated with higher levels of collective guilt. The second and third hypotheses deal with the impact of collective guilt on the preferences for Japanese products. Klein (2002) found that higher levels of animosity toward Japan resulted in a lower preference for a Japanese product relative to a South Korean product but not a lower preference for a Japanese product relative to a U.S. product.
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
