RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      가격과 품질의 손실회피 비대칭성이 가격순서효과에 미치는 영향 = The Effects of Asymmetric Loss Aversion of Price and Quality on the Price Order Effect

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A106520565

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      The price order effect refers to the phenomenon that consumers tend to select a higher-price, higher-quality option when choice alternatives are presented in descending price order (i.e., highest to lowest) than in ascending price order (i.e., lowest to highest). The price order effect provides practical implications because consumers frequently make choices among options that are ordered according to price. Major online stores present items in an ordered format and provide a tool for sorting the items in an ascending or a descending order of price. Ordered price-based presentations are also frequently used offline. For instance, price-based ordering is one of the most common presentation formats for restaurant menus.
      Reference-dependent loss aversion has been proposed as theory that explains the price order effect. Consumer preferences are reference dependent in that the utility of an alternative can be affected by the standard against which it is evaluated. Thus, what becomes the reference is an important determinant of consumer choice. The information consumers are exposed to earlier is often used as reference standard for evaluating the information that appears later in the sequence. When prices are presented sequentially, people evaluate the current price of a product against its past prices or against the prices of other brands they have previously encountered. In simultaneous format presentations, the options that appear early in the list serve as reference points for the evaluation of the options that appear later. The earlier items also serve as a reference quality, as evidenced by the fact that prices are positively correlated with perceived quality. The reference quality to be higher with a descending than with an ascending price order. For the first-presented option, reference-dependent perception of gainloss is less likely. Because the impact of loss is greater than the impact of gain in terms of its contribution to overall reference-dependent utility, options presented later in the sequence should have a lower reference-dependent utility, regardless of whether the order is ascending or descending. As a result, the average price of the final choice should be higher with a descending than with an ascending price order.
      This research extends the theory by proposing that the effect is also accounted for by the asymmetric loss aversion of price and quality. In general, loss aversion is greater for quality than for price. Consumers are reluctant to sacrifice quality in exchange for a lower price, because quality represents the purpose of the purchase, whereas price is perceived as a means for obtaining the quality. Therefore, the impact of loss aversion is greater for quality(i.e., descending price order) than price (i.e., ascending price order), resulting in a greater impact of loss when options are aligned by price in descending than in ascending order.
      Two empirical studies tested (1) asymmetry of quality and price losses that is a key assumption of the proposed extended theory and (2) the influence of price presentation order on the formation of consideration sets. Study 1 tested the asymmetric loss aversion for quality and price using a multinomial logit model. The data used for the analysis were consumer choice of an option given the list of items presented in either ascending or descending order. Participants were also presented with quality information of options. Depending on the condition, quality scores were either positively correlated with prices or not correlated with prices. The model estimated price gain, price loss, quality gain, and quality loss coefficients, in addition to brand preference dummies. The results of Study 1 present evidence supporting that the impact of loss aversion on choice is greater for quality than price.
      Study 2 tests the effects of the asymmetry in loss aversion on the formation of the consideration set. The formation of the consideration set has no restriction on the number of options selected, thus allowing for testing the asymmetric loss aversion hypothesis by examining the size and composition of the consideration set. Because the impact of loss is greater for quality than for price, the perceived loss of the options presented later compared to those presented earlier should be greater with a descending price order than with an ascending order. Thus, it is predicted that the size of consideration set will be smaller and the price range of the items in the set will be narrower when the price order is descending than ascending. It is also predicted that the average price of the options included in the consideration set will be higher with the descending order, as we found for the choice task. The results show that the brands included in the consideration set are higher in price, smaller in number, and narrower in the price range in descending price order than in ascending price order. These findings are explained by the proposed extended theory that incorporates asymmetrical influences of quality and price loss aversion.
      번역하기

      The price order effect refers to the phenomenon that consumers tend to select a higher-price, higher-quality option when choice alternatives are presented in descending price order (i.e., highest to lowest) than in ascending price order (i.e., lowest ...

      The price order effect refers to the phenomenon that consumers tend to select a higher-price, higher-quality option when choice alternatives are presented in descending price order (i.e., highest to lowest) than in ascending price order (i.e., lowest to highest). The price order effect provides practical implications because consumers frequently make choices among options that are ordered according to price. Major online stores present items in an ordered format and provide a tool for sorting the items in an ascending or a descending order of price. Ordered price-based presentations are also frequently used offline. For instance, price-based ordering is one of the most common presentation formats for restaurant menus.
      Reference-dependent loss aversion has been proposed as theory that explains the price order effect. Consumer preferences are reference dependent in that the utility of an alternative can be affected by the standard against which it is evaluated. Thus, what becomes the reference is an important determinant of consumer choice. The information consumers are exposed to earlier is often used as reference standard for evaluating the information that appears later in the sequence. When prices are presented sequentially, people evaluate the current price of a product against its past prices or against the prices of other brands they have previously encountered. In simultaneous format presentations, the options that appear early in the list serve as reference points for the evaluation of the options that appear later. The earlier items also serve as a reference quality, as evidenced by the fact that prices are positively correlated with perceived quality. The reference quality to be higher with a descending than with an ascending price order. For the first-presented option, reference-dependent perception of gainloss is less likely. Because the impact of loss is greater than the impact of gain in terms of its contribution to overall reference-dependent utility, options presented later in the sequence should have a lower reference-dependent utility, regardless of whether the order is ascending or descending. As a result, the average price of the final choice should be higher with a descending than with an ascending price order.
      This research extends the theory by proposing that the effect is also accounted for by the asymmetric loss aversion of price and quality. In general, loss aversion is greater for quality than for price. Consumers are reluctant to sacrifice quality in exchange for a lower price, because quality represents the purpose of the purchase, whereas price is perceived as a means for obtaining the quality. Therefore, the impact of loss aversion is greater for quality(i.e., descending price order) than price (i.e., ascending price order), resulting in a greater impact of loss when options are aligned by price in descending than in ascending order.
      Two empirical studies tested (1) asymmetry of quality and price losses that is a key assumption of the proposed extended theory and (2) the influence of price presentation order on the formation of consideration sets. Study 1 tested the asymmetric loss aversion for quality and price using a multinomial logit model. The data used for the analysis were consumer choice of an option given the list of items presented in either ascending or descending order. Participants were also presented with quality information of options. Depending on the condition, quality scores were either positively correlated with prices or not correlated with prices. The model estimated price gain, price loss, quality gain, and quality loss coefficients, in addition to brand preference dummies. The results of Study 1 present evidence supporting that the impact of loss aversion on choice is greater for quality than price.
      Study 2 tests the effects of the asymmetry in loss aversion on the formation of the consideration set. The formation of the consideration set has no restriction on the number of options selected, thus allowing for testing the asymmetric loss aversion hypothesis by examining the size and composition of the consideration set. Because the impact of loss is greater for quality than for price, the perceived loss of the options presented later compared to those presented earlier should be greater with a descending price order than with an ascending order. Thus, it is predicted that the size of consideration set will be smaller and the price range of the items in the set will be narrower when the price order is descending than ascending. It is also predicted that the average price of the options included in the consideration set will be higher with the descending order, as we found for the choice task. The results show that the brands included in the consideration set are higher in price, smaller in number, and narrower in the price range in descending price order than in ascending price order. These findings are explained by the proposed extended theory that incorporates asymmetrical influences of quality and price loss aversion.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 박태희, "구매의사결정 과정에서 가격제시순서(오름/내림차순)와 정보처리목표 점화가 가격지각 및 구매의도에 미치는 효과" 한국소비자·광고심리학회 19 (19): 349-372, 2018

      2 이성근, "가격 제시순서 효과와 제품의 추가속성 선택" 한국상품학회 32 (32): 181-189, 2014

      3 Stanley, T. D., "What Meta-Analyses Reveal About the Replicability of Psychological Research" 144 (144): 1325-1346, 2018

      4 Pieters, Rik, "Visual Attention during Brand Choice : The Impact of Time Pressure and Task Motivation" 16 (16): 1-16, 1999

      5 Lichtenstein, Donald R., "The Relationship between Perceived and Objective Price-Quality" 26 (26): 429-443, 1989

      6 Völckner, Franziska, "The Price-Perceived Quality Relationship : A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of Its Determinants" 18 (18): 181-196, 2007

      7 Suk, Kwanho, "The Influence of Ascending versus Descending Price Presentation Order on Consumer Choice" 49 (49): 708-717, 2012

      8 Suk, Kwanho, "The Effect of Reference Point Diagnosticity on Attractiveness and Intentions Ratings" 47 (47): 983-995, 2010

      9 Rao, Akshay R., "The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers' Perceptions of Product Quality : An Integrative Review" 26 (26): 351-357, 1989

      10 Cohen, Jacob, "Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences" Academic Press 1977

      1 박태희, "구매의사결정 과정에서 가격제시순서(오름/내림차순)와 정보처리목표 점화가 가격지각 및 구매의도에 미치는 효과" 한국소비자·광고심리학회 19 (19): 349-372, 2018

      2 이성근, "가격 제시순서 효과와 제품의 추가속성 선택" 한국상품학회 32 (32): 181-189, 2014

      3 Stanley, T. D., "What Meta-Analyses Reveal About the Replicability of Psychological Research" 144 (144): 1325-1346, 2018

      4 Pieters, Rik, "Visual Attention during Brand Choice : The Impact of Time Pressure and Task Motivation" 16 (16): 1-16, 1999

      5 Lichtenstein, Donald R., "The Relationship between Perceived and Objective Price-Quality" 26 (26): 429-443, 1989

      6 Völckner, Franziska, "The Price-Perceived Quality Relationship : A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of Its Determinants" 18 (18): 181-196, 2007

      7 Suk, Kwanho, "The Influence of Ascending versus Descending Price Presentation Order on Consumer Choice" 49 (49): 708-717, 2012

      8 Suk, Kwanho, "The Effect of Reference Point Diagnosticity on Attractiveness and Intentions Ratings" 47 (47): 983-995, 2010

      9 Rao, Akshay R., "The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers' Perceptions of Product Quality : An Integrative Review" 26 (26): 351-357, 1989

      10 Cohen, Jacob, "Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences" Academic Press 1977

      11 Volkmann, John, "Social Psychology at the Crossroads" Harper 273-298, 1951

      12 Nedungadi, Prakash, "Recall and Consideration Sets : Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations" 17 (17): 263-276, 1990

      13 Bornemann, Torsten, "Psychological Distance and the Dual Role of Price" 38 (38): 490-504, 2011

      14 Kahneman, Daniel, "Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk" 47 (47): 363-391, 1979

      15 Lichtenstein, Donald R., "Price Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behaviors : A Field Study" 30 (30): 234-245, 1993

      16 Glazerman, Steven, "Nudging Parents to Choose Better Schools:The Importance of School Choice Architecture" Mathematical Policy Research 2018

      17 Hardie, Bruce G. S., "Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice" 12 (12): 378-394, 1993

      18 Thaler, Richard, "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice" 4 (4): 199-214, 1985

      19 Mazumdar, Tridib, "Loyalty Differences in the Use of Internal and External Reference Prices" 6 (6): 111-122, 1995

      20 Tversky, Amos, "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice : A Reference-Dependent Model" 106 (106): 1039-1061, 1991

      21 Mitra, Debanjan, "How Does Objective Quality Affect Perceived Quality? Short-Term Effects, Long-Term Effects, and Asymmetries" 25 (25): 230-247, 2006

      22 Rajendran, Kharan N., "Contextual and Temporal Components of Reference Price" 58 (58): 22-34, 1994

      23 Tellis, Gerard J., "Consumer Purchasing Strategies and the Information in Retail Prices" 63 (63): 279-297, 1987

      24 Bettman, James R., "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes" 25 (25): 187-217, 1998

      25 Shocker, Allan D., "Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice : Issues, Models, and Suggestions" 2 (2): 181-197, 1991

      26 Simonson, Itamar, "Choice in Context : Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion" 29 (29): 281-295, 1992

      27 Bronnenberg, Bart J., "Asymmetric Promotion Effects and Brand Positioning" 15 (15): 379-394, 1996

      28 Tversky, Amos, "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty" 5 (5): 297-323, 1992

      29 Della Bitta, Albert J., "Advances in Consumer Research 1" Association for Consumer Research 359-369, 1974

      30 Helson, Harry, "Adaptation-Level Theory:An Experimental and Systematic Approach to Behavior" Harper and Row 1964

      31 Winer, Russell S., "A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products" 13 (13): 250-256, 1986

      32 Janiszewski, Chris, "A Range Theory Account of Price Perception" 25 (25): 353-368, 1999

      33 Guadagni, Peter M., "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data" 2 (2): 203-238, 1983

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2026 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2017-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2013-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2006-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2004-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2001-07-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      1999-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 1.48 1.48 1.67
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      1.7 1.88 2.351 0.15
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼