소비자안전규제의 소비자 수용에 대한 연구

Abstract

This study aimed to provide some political suggestions for the formation, implementation,and evaluation of consumer safety regulations by analyzing consumer acceptance level of four consumer safety regulations and the factors affecting on consumer acceptance of the regulations. The consumer acceptance was analyzed into the acceptance attitude and the acceptance behavior and four consumer safety regulations were selected for this study: 1)speed limit; 2) restriction on using cellular phone while driving; 3) restriction on OTC drug sales; and 4) prohibition of unlicensed person from practicing nursing. The factors affecting on consumer acceptance of the regulations were composed of “Calculated motivation,”“Normative motivation,” “Social motivation,” and “Ability to accept,” and some demographic variables were added. “Calculated motivation” is divided into ‘Cost of observance’ and ‘Cost of violation’; ‘Economic cost,’ ‘Convenience cost,’ and ‘Quality cost’ belong to ‘Cost of observance’while ‘Safety cost,’ ‘Possibility of penalty,’ and ‘Degree of penalty’ belong to ‘Cost of violation.’“Normative motivation” includes ‘Necessity of the regulation’ and ‘Sense of guilty.’ and “Social motivation” includes ‘Agreement of others,’ ‘Observance of others,’ ‘Observance of providers,’and ‘Surveillance of the government.’ “Ability to accept” is measured by ‘Awareness of the regulations.’ An online survey on those regulations was conducted in September 2008 and the survey data collected from 500 adult consumers was used for this study. The results of this research are as follows. First, in terms of the acceptance attitude, a majority of respondents were found to agree with the four consumer safety regulations. In terms of the acceptance behavior, however,less than 20% of respondents answered that they obeyed the speed limit and the restriction on using cellular phone while driving, whereas about 80% responded that they obeyed the other two regulations. When classifying consumers by the acceptance attitude and the acceptance behavior, most respondents belonged to “attitude-behavior inconsistency” groups regarding to the speed limit and the restriction on using cellular phone while driving. However, most respondents belonged to “attitude-behavior consistency” groups regarding to the restriction on OTC drug sales and the prohibition of unlicensed person from practicing nursing. Second, when evaluating each variables in motivation factors, the respondents recognized ‘Necessity of the regulation’ and ‘Safety cost’ highly. Also, they evaluated ‘Agreement of others’ higher than ‘Observance of others’ in common. However, between the two drivingrelated regulations and the other two regulations, there was a big difference in several variables. Furthermore, the evaluation toward the restriction on OTC drug sales was quite different from the evaluation of the other three regulations in most variables. Third, this study found consistent directions among the motivation factors affecting consumer acceptance to the four consumer safety regulations. Also, it was found that there was a discrepancy between the variables affecting the acceptance attitude and the variables affecting the acceptance behavior. Lastly, certain variables such as ‘Possibility of penalty’and ‘Degree of penalty’, which were commonly expected to have important influences on observing regulations, had no influence on accepting any regulations. Based on the research results, this study came to the following conclusions and presented implications for consumer safety regulations according to the policy process: 1) policy formation; 2) policy implementation; and 3) policy evaluation. Regarding policy formation, it was found that ‘Safety cost’ when violating the regulations didn’t affect consumer’s acceptance behavior toward the three consumer safety regulations. Therefore, not only safety but also other values should be considered when introducing consumer safety regulations. In regard to policy implementation, the affecting variables on the acceptance attitude and those on the acceptance behavior were quite different. Therefore, the regulatory authorities should clarify their purpose of policy implementation, whether to improve the level of agreement or the level of observance. Also, ‘Possibility of penalty’ and ‘Degree of penalty’didn’t have significant influences on the acceptance attitude or the acceptance behavior. Thus, the regulatory authorities should recognize the limitations of traditional deterrence approach. Third, it was found that consumers didn’t evaluate that the government made enough effort to supervise provider but ‘Observance of providers’ and ‘Surveillance of the government’ affected on the acceptance behavior toward the restriction on OTC drug sales. Consequently, to increase the level of observance, the regulatory authorities should make enough effort to supervise providers. Fourth, this study found that the acceptance attitude and the acceptance behavior toward consumer safety regulations appeared differently according to some demographic variables. Regulatory authorities should devise managerial tools which fit to diverse consumer characteristics rather than “one size fits all” regulations. Lastly, with regard to policy evaluation, this study found that consumer’s acceptance attitude and acceptance behavior didn’t coincide. Therefore, to understand consumer acceptance of consumer safety regulations accurately, the integrative analysis is required, which contains both the acceptance attitude and the acceptance behavior. This study also examined four consumer safety regulations and each regulation had its own results. Therefore, it is required that each regulation should be studied and evaluated individually.