선택/포기 메시지 프레이밍과 준거 대안 간 조화성이 소비자의 태도 변화에 미치는 효과 = The Effect of Compatibility of Message Framing and Focused Alternative on Consumer’s Attitude Change

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In accordance to the response compatibility Hypotheses, this study aims to find out how to lead consumer’s attitude change depending on which alternative is on focus, whether the chosen one or the not-chosen one. It assumes, as Shfir(1993) has suggested in his response compatibility hypothesis, the fit of focused alternative and message framing would have different effects on attitude change. It also predicts the effect of this fit on attitude certainty and the mediation effect of attitude certainty towards the attitude change. Experiment 1 was conducted in order to investigate consumer’s cognitive response depending on the 2(Focused alternative: chosen option/not chosen option) X 2(Message framing: choice/reject) condition. The results suggests that in ‘the chosen option’ condition, ‘choice framing’rather than ‘reject framing’ showed faster response time while in ‘the not-chosen option’ condition, ‘reject framing’ rather than ‘choice framing’ showed faster response. Also, content analysis was conducted in order to find out what was in mind of participant when it comes to focused alterative. In experiment 2, participants were randomly divided in 2(Focused alternative: chosen option/not chosen option) X 2(Message framing: choice/reject) experimental design. As a result, in ‘the chosen option’ condition, the attitude change by different message framing was not strong and it only influenced on the attitude certainty. However, in ‘the not-chosen option’ condition, it reveals strong attitude change depending on the message framing where the attitude of not-chosen option became more favorable in the ‘choice framing’ and more unfavorable in the ‘reject framing’. In this condition, the message framing has different effects on attitude change, and this was mediated by the attitude certainty. The result was mainly analyzed with the valence and this suggests participants were more prone to positive focus in the choice framing while negative focus in the reject framing. The result of study provides implication in various related fields.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 Shafir(1993)가 제안한 반응 조화설을 바탕으로, 준거 대안과 메시지 프레이밍 간 조화성이 비교 대안들에 대한 소비자의 태도 변화에 영향을 미칠 것으로 보았다. 또한 이 과정을 태도 확신성이 매개할 것이라고 예측하였다. 우선 실험 1에서는 선택/포기 과업이 메시지 프레이밍으로 적용됨에 따라 소비자의 인지 반응이 어떠한 차이를 보이는지를 일차적으로 검증하였다. 참여자의 기술 내용 분석 결과, 대안 처리의 긍정적 초점화 반응은 ‘포기’보다 ‘선택’ 메시지 프레이밍에서 유의하게 나타났다. 반면 부정적인 초점화 반응은 ‘선택’보다 ‘포기’ 메시지 프레이밍에서 유의하게 나타났다. 또한 준거 대안과 프레이밍의 조화성에 따른 대안의 인지적 처리 반응 시간 차이를 확인하였다. 실험 2에서는 준거 대안이 무엇인지에 따라 집단을 구분한 뒤, 선택/포기 메시지 프레이밍이 태도 변화를 유도할 수 있는지를 확인하였고, 태도 확신성의 매개 역할을 검증하였다. 실험 결과, 준거가 ‘채택 대안’일 경우에는 메시지 프레이밍에 따른 태도의 변화 차이가 명확히 나타나지 않았으며, 이 조건에서는 메시지 프레이밍이 태도 확신성에만 영향을 미친 것으로 나타났다. 반면 준거가 ‘비 채택 대안’일 경우에는 메시지 프레이밍에 따라 태도의 극성이 변화된 양상을 보였다. 즉 메시지 프레이밍이 ‘선택’으로 제시된 경우, 비 채택 대안에 대한 태도가 호의적인 방향으로 변화하였고, ‘포기’로 제시된 경우에는 비호의적인 방향으로 변화하였다. 특히 이 조건에서 메시지 프레이밍은 태도 확신성에 차별적인 영향을 미친 것으로 나타났고, 태도 확신성은 대안과 메시지 프레이밍 간 조화성이 태도 변화에 미치는 영향을 매개한 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과들은 선호가 이미 형성된 시점 이후에도 대안 처리의 초점화를 다르게 유도하는 프레이밍을 통해 소비자의 태도 변화를 효율적으로 이끌 수 있음을 시사한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이영애, "선택과 거부의 의사결정문제에서 Sharif(1993)의 반응 조화설 검증" 13 (13): 234-251, 2001

2 안상지, "결정에서 반응 조화설의 재검증" 한국인지과학회 20 (20): 197-223, 2009

3 Ülkümen, G., "Will I spend more in 12 months or a year?: The effect of ease of estimation and confidence on budget estimates" 35 : 245-256, 2008

4 Rucker, D. D., "When Resistance is futile: Consequences of failed counterarguing for attitude certainty" 86 : 219-235, 2004

5 Rucker, D. D., "What’s in a frame anyway?: A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty" 18 : 137-149, 2008

6 Tormala, Z. L., "What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty" 83 : 1298-1313, 2002

7 Briñol., P., "Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis" 82 (82): 722-741, 2002

8 Neumann, V., John,, "The theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd ed" Princeton, N. J. Princeton University Press 1947

9 Briñol, P., "The self-validation of cognitive responses to advertisements" 30 : 559-573, 2004

10 Fazio, R. H., "The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior processes" 16 : 280-288, 1989

11 Dhar, R., "The effect of forces choice on choice" 40 (40): 146-160, 2003

12 Dhar. R., "The effect of focus of comparison on consumer preference" 29 (29): 430-440, 1992

13 Slovic, P, "The construction of preference" 50 (50): 364-371, 1995

14 Tormala, Z. L., "Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion" 14 (14): 427-442, 2004

15 Lichtenstein, S., "Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling situations" 89 (89): 46-55, 1971

16 Tormala, Z. L, "Resisting persuasion by the skin of one’s teeth: The hidden success of resisted persuasive messages" 91 (91): 423-435, 2006

17 Shafir, E., "Reason-based choice" 49 (49): 11-36, 1993

18 Novemsky, N, "Preference fluency and consumer choice" 44 : 347-356, 2007

19 Anand, P., "Perceptual fluency and affect without recognition" 19 (19): 293-300, 1991

20 Kahneman. D, "On the psychology of prediction" 80 (80): 237-251, 1973

21 Tsai, C. I., "No Pain, No Gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence" 37 (37): 807-821, 2011

22 Baron, R. M., "Moderator-mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations" 51 (51): 1173-1182, 1986

23 Schwarz, N., "Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making" 14 (14): 332-348, 2004

24 Ganzach, Y, "Message framing and buying behaviors: A field experiment" 32 : 11-17, 1995

25 Tversky, A., "Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model" 106 (106): 1039-1061, 1991

26 Simmons, J. P., "Intuitive confidence: Choosing between intuitive and nonintuitive alternatives" 135 : 409-428, 2006

27 Ashcraft, M. H., "Human memory and cognition" Scott, Forcsman, and company 1989

28 Litt, A. B., "Fragile enhancement of attitudes and intentions following difficult decisions" 37 : 584-598, 2010

29 Haddock, Geoffrey, A. J, "Forming judgments of attitude certainty, intensity and importance: The role of subjective experiences" 25 (25): 771-782, 1999

30 Yaniv, I., "Elimination and inclusion procedures in judgment under uncertainty" 10 : 211-220, 1997

31 Tsai, C. I., "Effects of amount of information on judgment accuracy and confidence" 107 (107): 97-105, 2008

32 Tomala, Z. L., "Ease of retrieval effects in persuasion: A self-validation analysis" 28 : 1700-1712, 2002

33 Luce, M. F., "Do I know whether I like It? Extending work on within-alternative conflict to measures of confidence in consumer judgments" 30 : 464-472, 2003

34 Huber, V. L, "Decision bias and personnel selection strategies" 40 (40): 136-147, 1987

35 Abelson R. P., "Conviction" 43 : 267-275, 1988

36 Tversky, A., "Contingent weighting in judgment and choice" 95 (95): 371-384, 1988

37 Dhar, R., "Context and task effects on choice deferral" 8 (8): 119-130, 1997

38 Aaker, D. A, "Consumer evaluations of brand extensions" 54 (54): 27-41, 1990

39 Dhar, R., "Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods" 37 : 60-71, 2000

40 Bettman, J. R., "Constructive consumer choice processes" 25 (25): 187-217, 1998

41 Slovic, P., "Compatibility effects in judgment and choice, In Insights in decision making: Theory and applications" University of Chicago Press 5-27, 1990

42 Greenwald, G. A., "Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change, In Psychological Foundation of Attitude" Academic Press 1968

43 Shafir, E., "Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others." 21 (21): 546-556, 1993

44 Tversky, A., "Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision" 3 : 358-361, 1992

45 Meloy, M. G., "Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject" 93 (93): 114-128, 2004

46 Gross, S. R, "Attitude certainty, In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences" Erlbaum 215-245, 1995

47 Wedell, D. H., "Another look at reason for choosing and rejecting" 25 (25): 873-887, 1997