본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

시간해석과 자아해석이 소비자의 고려상표군 형성에 미치는 영향

The Influence of Temporal Construal and Self-Construal on Consideration Set Formation

박종철|류강석
한국소비자학회 (Korean Society Of Consumer Studies)|2012.03|소비자학연구 (Journal of Consumer Studies)|제23권 제1호|pp. 29-53|DOI http://dx.doi.org/

0

조회

0

다운로드

17

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

이질성heterogeneitysize크기self-construal자아해석consideration set고려상표군temporal construal시간해석
주제분류경제학

초록

기존문헌에서 소비자의 고려상표군 형성과 관련된 다양한 영향요인들이 제시되었지만, 시간해석과 자아해석의 효과에 대해서는 아직 연구가 이루어지지 않았다. 이러한 공백을 채우기 위하여 본 연구는 시간해석과 자아해석이 고려상표군의 크기와 이질성에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 실험을 통하여 탐구하였다. 먼저, 시간해석의 관점에서 보면, 가까운 미래보다 먼 미래에 일어날 소비상황에서 소비자들은 더욱 많은 수의 대안들을 고려상표군에 포함시키고, 이러한 대안들은 서로 다른 제품범주에 속할 가능성이 높은 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 상호의존적 자아해석과 비교하여독립적 자아해석이 강한 소비자들은 특정의 소비목적을 충족하기 위하여 더욱 많은 수의 대안을 고려하고, 고려상표군에 포함된 대안들의 이질성도 높은 것으로 분석되었다. 나아가, 시간해석과 자아해석이 동시에 작용하는 경우,독립적 자아해석이 강한 소비자들이 먼 미래의 선택을 할 때 고려상표군의 크기와 이질성이 가장 큰 것으로 보고되었다. 반면 나머지 세 조건(상호의존적 자아해석 - 가까운 미래, 상호의존적 자아해석 - 먼 미래, 독립적 자아해석- 가까운 미래) 간의 차이는 유의하지 않은 것으로 밝혀졌다. 즉, 다른 성향을 지닌 두 조건이 결합될 경우, 한 변수가 다른 변수의 효과를 약화시킨 것이다. 본 연구는 고려상표군 문헌과 시간 및 자아해석 문헌 각각에 대하여 새로운 연구결과를 제공할 뿐만 아니라, 시간해석과 자아해석의 연관성 및 상호작용 효과에 관한 시사점도 제시하고있다. 마지막으로, 기업의 고려상표군 전략과 관련하여, 브랜드 위상(예, 선도 vs. 후발 브랜드)이나 특성(예, 혁신vs. 개선제품)에 따라 어떤 마케팅활동이 더욱 적합하고 효과적일지 제안하고자 한다.

Abstract

Despite a long tradition of research on consideration set formation, little is known about the impact of temporal construal and self-construal on the phenomenon. To fill this gap in the literature, the research examines how temporal construal and self-construal, respectively as well as interactively, influence the size and heterogeneity of consumers' consideration sets in an experimental setting. According to the construal level theory and its related research findings, individuals tend to construe consumption occasions or goals in more abstract way, to pursue maximal or desirable outcomes, to avoid ommission errors, and to have broader categories as the temporal distance increases. In contrast, when the temporal distance decreases, people are likely to construe consumption occasions or goals in more concrete way, to pursue minimal or feasible) outcomes,to avoid commission errors, and to have narrower categories. These differences across temporal contrual levels lead us to develop Hypothesis 1-1 and 1-2, stating that consumers will form a larger and more heterogeneous consideration set when they make a decision for a distant future rather than for a near future. The literature on self-construal suggests that independent construals tend to be promotionfocused,to value positive outcomes and benefits, to take risks, to perceive a higher degree of similarity due to decontextualized information processing, and to rely on ‘exclusion’ mode of screening, whereas interdependent construals tend to be prevention-focused, to value not making mistakes, to avoid risks, to have a narrow and detailed category structure due to contextualized information processing, and to use ‘inclusion’ mode of screening. Thus we can predict that consumers who have independent self-contruals are likely to include a larger number ofand more diverse brands in their consideration set than those who have interdependent self-contruals (Hypothesis 2-1 and 2-2). As to the interaction between temporal distance and self-construal, we need to look into each of the four conditions separately. First, when consumers with interdependent self-construal make a decision for a near future, they will formulate a smallest and least heterogenous consideration set(condition 1). Second, when consumers with independent self-construal make a decision for a distant future, they will form a largest and most heterogenous consideration set(condition 4). Third, when consumers with interdependent self-construal make a decision for a distant future(condition 2) or when consumers with independent self-construal make a decision for a near future(condition 3), there are two possibilities. The first is that only one of the two variables has effects with the other one dormant, especially one that is expected to bring about a larger and more heterogenous consideration set. Under this possibility, the consideration set will be significantly larger and more heterogeneous in the condition 2 or 3than in the condition 1. The other is that one variable suppresses the impact of the other variable, which makes it harder to predict whether the combined effects (condition 2 or 3) will be significantly different from that in the condition 1. Therefore, Hypothesis 3-1 and 3-2 deal with only the two extreme conditions(1 and 4), and posit that the consideration set will be bigger and more diverse when consumers with independent self-construal make a decision for a distant future compared to when consumers with interdependent self-construal make a decision for a near future. A laboratory experiment, with a 2 (self-construal: independent vs. interdependent) x 2(temporal distance: near vs. distant) full-factorial between-subjects design, was conducted to test the hypotheses. One hundred and eighty-five college students participated in the experiment as part of a course requirement. In the experiment, self-construal was manipulated by asking the participants to write a story using 'I(i.e., independent self)' or 'we(i.e., interdependent self)' about a travel done by oneself or with a group of friends after seeing a corresponding photo. Then they chose multiple alternatives of performances(e.g., play, movie, concert, etc.)for further consideration, assuming that they are going to watch it tomorrow(i.e., near future)or a month later(i.e., distant future). The manipulations turned out to be successful. Four separate t-tests were performed to test the main effect hypotheses(Hypothesis 1-1,1-2, 2-1, 2-2), and two ANOVAs, followed by planned contrasts, were used to test Hypothesis 3-1 and 3-2. The analysis results confirmed our predictions. First, participants included a larger number of and more heterogeneous alternatives in their consideration sets for the distant rather than near future purchase occasion(size: t=2.820, p<.01; 5.37 vs. 4.62, heterogeneity:t=3.079, p<.01; 2.47 vs. 2.13). Second, the consideration sets comprised of a larger number of and more heterogeneous brands for participants of independent self-construal compared to those of interdependent self-construal(size: t=2.316, p<.05; 5.29 vs. 4.67, heterogeneity:t=1.618, p=.10; 2.39 vs. 2.20). Moreover, when both types of construals were in operation,participants formulated the largest and most heterogeneous consideration sets when making decision for the distant furture with independent self-construal activated(size 5.86; heterogeneity 2.61). On the other hand, there were no significant differences in the size or herogeneity of consideration sets between the rest of the three consditions(i.e., near future - interdependent self-construal[4.47; 2.07], near future - independent self-construal[4.78; 2.19], and distant future - interdependent self-construal[4.89; 2.34]). This research add new findings not only to the literature on consideration set formation, but also proposes a possibility that temporal construal and self-construal may be closely related to each other in terms of generating similar effects from consumers. It also provides some insights for the nature of interactions between the two constructs. That is, one variable suppresses the impact of the other variable to a certain extent when the two variables operate simultaneously with opposite effects. Finally,firms should devise different strategies depending on the status of their brands(e.g., leader vs. follower) or nature of their products(e.g., really innovative vs. incremental) to increase the probability for them to be considered by consumers.

참고문헌 (65)

  1. 정헌수, "소비자 혁신성과 고려제품군 형태간의 관계에 관한 연구", 소비자학연구, 14(4), pp.3~72 (2003), 한국소비자학회
  2. 한상만, "소비자의 다양성추구성향에 따른고려상표군 형성에 관한 비교연구", 마케팅연구, 12(1), pp.49~76 (1997)
  3. Aaker, Jennifer L, "‘I’ Seek Pleasures and ‘We’ Avoid Pains : The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion", Journal of Consumer Research, 28, pp.33~49 (2001)
  4. Agrawal, Nidhi, "The Effects of Self-Construal and Commitmenton Persuasion", Journal of ConsumerResearch, 31, pp.841~849 (2005)
  5. Allenby, Greg M, "The Effects of In-store Displays and Feature Advertising on Consideration Sets", International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(1), pp.67~80 (1995)
  6. Ariely, Dan, "A Timely Account of the Role of Duration in Decision Making", Acta Psychologica, 108, pp.187~207 (2001)
  7. Bettman, Jmanes R, "An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Behavior" (1979), Addison-Wesley
  8. Bronnenberg, Bart J, "Limited Choice Sets, Local PriceResponse, and Implied Measures of PriceCompetition", Journal of Marketing Research, 33, pp.163~173 (1996)
  9. Cross, Susan E, "The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal", Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), pp.142~179 (2011)
  10. Dehaene, Stanislas, "The Neural Basis of the Weber-Fechner Law: A Logarithmic Mental Number Line", Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, pp.145~147 (2003)
  11. Desai, Kalpesh K, "Descriptive Characteristics of Memory-Based Consideration Sets: Influence ofUsage Occasion Frequency and Usage LocationFamiliarity", Journal of ConsumerResearch, 27, pp.309~323 (2000)
  12. Desai, Kalpesh K, "Adverse Influence of Brand Commitment on Consideration of and Preference for Competing Brands", Psychology and Marketing, 24(7), pp.595~614 (2007)
  13. Diehl, Kristin, "Smart Agents: When Lower Search Costs for Quality Information Increase Price Sensitivity", Journal of ConsumerResearch, 30(1), pp.56~71 (2003)
  14. Escalas, Jennifer E., "Self-Construal, Reference Groups,and Brand Meaning", Journal of ConsumerResearch, 32, pp.378~389 (2005)
  15. Fujita, Kentaro, "Construal Levels and Self-Control", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), pp.351~367 (2006)
  16. Gardner, Wendi L., "‘I’ Value Freedom, But ‘We’ Value Relationships : Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment", Psychological Science, 10(4), pp.321~326 (1999)
  17. Gensch, Dennis H, "A Two-Stage Disaggregate Attribute Choice Model", Marketing Science, 6(여름), pp.223~231 (1987)
  18. Hἅubl, Gerald, "Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments", Marketing Science, 19(1), pp.4~21 (2000)
  19. Heine, Steven J., "Is There a Universal Need for Positive Self-Regard?", Psychological Review, 106(4), pp.766~794 (1999)
  20. Irwin, Julie R, "Ethical Decisions and Response Mode Compatibility:Weighting of Ethical Attributesin Consideration Sets Formed by ExcludingVersus Including Product Alternatives", Journalof Marketing Research, 46(2), pp.234~246 (2009)
  21. Jain, Shailendra P, "The Influence of Chronic and Situational Self Construal on Categorization", Journal of Consumer Research, 34, pp.66~76 (2007)
  22. Kardes, Frank R, "Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage", Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), pp.62~75 (1993)
  23. Kikuchi, Fumiaki, "Influence of Product Life Cycle Stage on Consideration Set Size : the Case of ‘Think Products’", Marketing Review, 10(1), pp.41~55 (2010)
  24. Kim, Kyeongheui, "Effects of Temporal and Social Distanceon Consumer Evaluations", Journalof Consumer Research, 35(4), pp.706~713 (2008)
  25. Kivetz, Yifat, "Tomorrow I'll be Me : The Effects of Time Perspective on the Activation of Idealistic versus Pragmatic Selves", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, pp.193~211 (2007)
  26. Leach, Frederick R, "Regret for Errors of Commission andOmission in the Distant Term Versus NearTerm: The Role of Level of Abstraction", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), pp.221~229 (2009)
  27. Lee, Angela Y, "The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Self-Construals: The Role of Interdependence in Regulatory Focus", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), pp.1122~1134 (2000)
  28. Levin, Irwin P, "Prescreening of Choice Options in ‘Positive’ and ‘Negative’ Decision-Making Tasks", Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(4), pp.1279~293 (2001)
  29. Liberman, Nira, "Promotion and Prevention Choices Between Stability and Change", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), pp.1135~1145 (1999)
  30. Liberman, Nira, "The Effect of Temporal Distanceon Level of Mental Constraul", Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 38(6), pp.523~534 (2002)
  31. Liberman, Nira, "The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions : A Test of Temporal Construal Theory", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), pp.5~18 (1998)
  32. Liviatan, Ido, "Interpersonal Similarity as a SocialDistance Dimension: A Construal LevelApproach to the Mental Representationsand Judgments of Similar and DissimilarOthers’ Actions", Unpublished manuscript,New York University, ~ (2006)
  33. Ma, Zhenfeng, "Effect of Self-Construal on New product Adoption Decisions : Role of Innovation Newness and Risk Type", Advances in Consumer Research, 37, pp.469~470 (2010)
  34. Mandel, Naomi, "Shifting Selves and Decision Making : The Effects of Self-Construal Priming on Consumer Risk-Taking", Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), pp.30~40 (2003)
  35. Mandeville, Thomas, "An Information Economics Perspective on Innovation", International Journal of Social Economics, 25(2, pp.3 (1999), 4)[DOI]
  36. Markus, Hazel R, "Culture and Self: Implication for Cognitions,Emotion, and Motivation", PsychologicalReview, 98(2), pp.224~253 (1991)
  37. Mitra, Anusree, "Toward a Reconciliation of Market Powerand Information Theories of AdvertisingEffects on Price Elasticity", Journal ofConsumer Research, 21(4), pp.644~659 (1995)
  38. Nedungadi, Prakash, "Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets : Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluation", Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), pp.263~276 (1990)
  39. Nisbett, Richard E., "Culture and Systems of Thought : Holistic versus Analytic Cognition", Psychological Review, 108(2), pp.291~310 (2001)
  40. Nussbaum, Shiri, "Creeping Dispositionism : The TemporalDynamics of Behavior Prediction", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), pp.485~497 (2003)
  41. Nussbaum, Shiri, "Predicting the Near and Distant Future", Journal of Experimental Psychology : General, 135(2), pp.152~161 (2006)
  42. Oyserman, Daphna, "Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, 128, pp.3~72 (2002)
  43. Parra, José F, "Consideration Sets in Online Shopping Environments : the Effects of Search Tool and Information Load", Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, 8(5), pp.252~262 (2009)
  44. Pennington, Ginger L, "Regulatory Focus and Temporal Distance", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, pp.563~576 (2003)
  45. Punj, Girish, "Information Search and Consideration Set Formation in a Web-based Store Environment", Journal of Business Research, 62(6), pp.644~650 (2009)
  46. Ratneshwar, S., "Goal-Derived Categories and the Antecedents of Across-Category Consideration", Journal of Consumer Research, 23, pp.240~250 (1996)
  47. Ratneshwar, S., "Goal-Derived Categories : The Role of Personal and Situational Goals in Category Representations", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), pp.147~157 (2001)
  48. Reilly, Michael, "Individual and Product Correlates of EvokedSet Size for Consumer Package Goods", Advancesin Consumer Research, 12, pp.492~497 (1985)
  49. Robert, John H, "Development and Testing of a Model ofConsideration Set Composition", Journal ofMarketing Research, 28, pp.429~440 (1991)
  50. Rohini, Ahluwalia, "How Far Can a Brand Stretch? Understanding the Role of Self- Construal", Journal of Marketing Research, 45, pp.337~350 (2008)
  51. Sagristano, Michael D., "Time-Dependent Gambling : Odds Now, Money Later", Journal of Experimental Psychology : General, 131(3), pp.364~376 (2002)
  52. Shavitt, Sharon, "Cross-Cultural Consumer Psychology, In Handbook of Consumer Psychology", pp.1103~1132 (2008), Erlbaum
  53. Shocker, Allan D., "Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models, and Suggestions", Marketing Letters, 2, pp.181~198 (1991)
  54. Siddarth, S., "Making the Cut: Modeling and Analyzing Choice Set Restriction in Scanner Panel Data", Journal of Marketing Research, 32, pp.255~266 (1995)
  55. Smith, Pamela K, "You Focus on the Forest When you're in Charge of the Trees: Power Priming and Abstract Information Processing", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, pp.578~596 (2006)
  56. Suh, Jung-Chae, "The Role of Consideration Sets in Brand Choice: The Moderating Role of Product Characteristics", Psychology and Marketing, 26(6), pp.534~550 (2009)
  57. Swaminathan, Vanitha, "‘My’ Brand or ‘Our’ Brand: The Effects of Brand Re- lationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on Brand Evaluations", Journal of Consumer Research, 34, pp.248~259 (2007)
  58. Trope, Yaacov, "Temporal Construal and Time-Dependent Changes in Preference", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), pp.876~889 (2000)
  59. Trope, Yaacov, "Temporal Construal", Psychological Review, 110, pp.403~421 (2003)
  60. Trope, Yaacov, "Construal Levels and Psychological Distance : Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior", Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 17(2), pp.83~95 (2007)
  61. Wakslak, Cheryl, "Knee Deep in the Big Muddy, butOnly from Up Close: Psychological DistanceModerates the Tendency to Make the SunkCost Error", Unpublished Manuscript, NewYork University, ~ (2006)
  62. Winterich, Karen P, "Promotion Matching : The Role of Promotion Type and Self-Construal on Purchase Intentions", Advances in Consumer Research, 35, pp.646~647 (2008)
  63. Wright, Peter, "Phased Decision Strategies: Sequels to an Initial Screening, In Multiple Criteria Decision Making: North Holland TIMS Studies in Management Science", pp.91~109 (1997), North Holland
  64. Zhang, Yinlong, "The Influence of Self-Construal on Impulsive Consumption", Journal of Consumer Research, 35, pp.838~850 (2009)
  65. Zhao, Min, "Effects of Social and Temporal Distance on Consumers' Responses to Peer Recommendations", Journal of Marketing Research, 48, pp.486~496 (2011)

관련 논문AI추천

브랜드 확장의 적합성과 시기적 적합성 효과: 브랜드 확장 평가에 대한 확장 적합성, 자아해석, 시간적 거리의 역할을 중심으로김태엽, 유동호한국기업경영학회 · 기업경영연구2017 · 제24권 제1호자기해석(Self-construal)이 제품 구색에 대한 선호와 다양성 추구 행동(Variety Seeking Behavior)에 미치는 효과 연구김수민, 이병관한국소비자·광고심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고2015 · 제16권 제3호브랜드확장의 적합성에 따른 시간적 거리의 제시 효과: 브랜드컨셉과 브랜드 친숙성을 중심으로도선재, 문영준, 전주언한국소비자·광고심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고2009 · 제10권 제1호조절초점과 의사결정 어려움이 고려상표군 구성의 이질성에 미치는 효과류강석, 박기경, 한영지한국소비자학회 · 소비자학연구2016 · 제27권 제6호자기해석, 사고유형, 시간적 거리에 따른 가격-품질 판단양윤, 이한슬한국소비자·광고심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고2017 · 제18권 제1호소비 목표와 자아 해석이 구색 크기 선호에 미치는 효과김채영, 박세훈한국소비자학회 · 소비자학연구2018 · 제29권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

담합의 소비자피해와 규제효과 분석여정성, 오지영pp. 1-28국가에 대한 우발적 감정이 원산지 효과에 미치는 영향: 감정의 사회기능적 접근법을 중심으로정보희, 김재일, 김한구pp. 55-85색상은 영어 브랜드명 회상을 촉진하는가? 제2언어로서의 영어 능력의 조절효과이혜문, 김소현, 이은주pp. 87-113소비자 지식이 사고체계와 온라인 탐색경향에 미치는 영향: 제품가격의 조절효과를 중심으로이미아, 이유재pp. 115-142수면확산의 네트워크적 특성에 대한 연구한상만, 조웅현pp. 143-162
원문 보기