본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

사회적 네트워크는 금융소비자의 위험선호를 증가시키는가?: 자기해석이재무적 위험선호에 미치는 영향에 관한 사회적 네트워크의 역할 검증

Does Social Network Impact Consumer Financial Risk Preference? The Role of Social Network in the Relationship between Self-Construal and Financial Risk Preference

김영두|하영원
한국소비자학회 (Korean Society Of Consumer Studies)|2016.04|소비자학연구 (Journal of Consumer Studies)|제27권 제2호|pp. 101-125

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

문화culture사회적 네트워크social network자기해석self-construalrisk preference위험선호도cushion hypothesis완충가설이익/손실영역gain/loss domain
주제분류경제학

초록

소비자 의사결정에 미치는 자기해석(self-construal) 및 문화의 영향을 검증해 보려는 시도가 늘어나고 있다. 자기해석(예컨대 독립적/상호의존적 자기해석)은 국가, 국적 혹은 지역적 구분과 같이 문화권 간 집단 수준에서 문화를 해석할 때 뿐 아니라 구성주의 혹은 상황주의적 접근을 통해 동일 문화권 내 개인 수준에서의 문화를 해석할 때에도 문화의 대용지표로서 광범위하게 활용되고 있다. 집단 수준(예컨대 동양 대 서양) 혹은 개인 수준(예컨대 자기해석)의 문화가 위험의사결정에 미치는 영향에 관한 기존 연구들에 의하면 전반적으로 동양은 서양에 비해 위험회피 수준이 높거나 위험추구 수준이 낮은 것으로 나타났으나 재무적 영역에서는 문화가 위험선호에 미치는 영향이 혼재되어 나타났다. 독립적 자기개념을 가지고 있는 사람이 상호의존적 자기개념을 가지고 있는 사람에 비해 위험선호가 높게 나타난 연구가 있는 반면 상호의존적 자기해석을 가지고 있는 사람(혹은 동양)이 독립적 자기해석을 가지고 있는 사람(혹은 서양)에 비해 위험선호가 높게 나타났다는 연구 결과도 보고된 바 있다. Hsee & Weber(1999)는 후자와 같은 현상을 완충(cushion)가설, 즉 사회적 네트워크가 실패에 대한 일종의 완충 역할을 수행하는데 실패했을 경우 사회적 네트워크로부터 도움을 받을 수 있는 수가 동양이 서양에 비해 많으므로 동양이 서양에 비해 재무적 영역에서는 위험추구 현상을 보인다는 가설을 제시하였으며, 문화가 재무적 위험선호에 미치는 영향을 사회적 네트워크가 매개하고 있음을 보여준 바 있다. 그러나 본 연구에서는 자기해석이 재무적 위험선호에 미치는 영향을 사회적 네트워크가 매개하는 역할을 수행하기 보다는 상황(이익영역 혹은 손실영역)에 따라서 그리고/혹은 자기해석과의 상호작용을 통해서 상이한 역할을 수행할 가능성이 있음에 주목하여 이를 검증해 보았다. 본 연구 결과에 따르면 기존 연구에서도 밝혀진 이익 보다는 손실영역에서 위험 선호도가 높게 나타난다는 현상을 검증한 것 이외에도 다음과 같은 사항이 발견되었다. 첫째, 재무적 영역(이익영역과 손실영역)과 사회적 네트워크 간에 이원상호작용이 나타났다. 즉, 재무적 영역에 따라 사회적 네트워크가 위험선호에 미치는 영향이 상이하게 나타났다. 이익영역에서는 사회적 네트워크가 재무적 위험선호에 긍정적인 영향(위험 선호 증대)을 미치지만 손실영역에서는 사회적 네트워크가 재무적 위험선호에 긍정적인 영향을 미치지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 재무적 영역, 사회적 네트워크 그리고 자기해석 간에 삼원상호작용이 나타났다. 특히 손실영역에서는 사회적 네트워크와 자기해석 간 상호작용이 발생하였으며, 독립적 자기해석이 강할수록 사회적 네트워크가 증가함에 따라 위험선호도는 상대적으로 약화되는 모습을 보였다. 이상의 발견사항들과 관련하여 마케팅 및 소비자학 관점에서의 시사점을 기술하였다.

Abstract

Recently, it has been found that self-construal, as a proxy for intra-cultural (e.g., European American vs. Asian American) and inter-cultural variations (e.g., Western vs. Easterm), has a significant influence on marketing, consumer behavior, and decision making. For example, it has been reported that motivation, consumer preference, attitudes toward brand extension, brand choices, new product adoption, persuasion, and negotiation were influenced by self-construal. A bulk of studies reported that Eastern people (e.g., Asian) tended to be less risk-seeking or more risk-averse than Western people (e.g., American, European) within the social domain. Within the financial domain, however, reports have shown mixed findings. Whereas some reports have shown that Asian people (e.g., Chinese individuals), or those who have interdependent self-construal, have higher risk preferences than Western people (American individuals), or those who have independent self-construal in both gain or loss domains when considering financial decision making (Hsee & weber 1999; Mandel 2003), other research findings have demonstrated the opposite (Hamilton & Biehal 2005) or no relationship between cultural background and risk preference (Li, Bi, & Zhang 2009). Some researchers have insisted that because Asian people, or those with interdependent self-construal, tend to have larger social network compared to Western people, or those with independent self-construal, this can help the decision maker in the case of a failure (called the ‘cushion hypothesis’). They, therefore, had higher risk preferences when compared to Westerners. Social network size was found to support and mediate these preferences. In this study, however, the authors proposed that social network size strengthened risk preference in the gain domain, while lessening risk preference in the loss domain. And in the loss domain, social network interacted with self-construal. That is to say, the objective of the study identified the differential role of social network in the relationship between self-construal and financial risk preference. Prospect theory predicts that people are generally risk-averse in the gain domain, whereas risk-seeking in the loss domain. In the gain domain, however, because people preferred implicit social support and decision makers expected to receive implicit social support from their social networks even after a failure to decision making, risk preference was strengthened with increased social network size. In the loss domain, decision makers expected to receive both implicit and explicit social support from their social networks. While European Americans were willing to receive explicit social support from their social networks, they experienced stress when facing implicit social support. Stress led self-construal to reach lower level, and when low construal level was boosted, people thoroughly investigated and dwelled on the negative aspects. Therefore, independent self-construal lessened their risk preference in the loss domain as social network increased. Whereas Korean Americans were unwilling to receive explicit social support from their social networks, they experienced low levels of stress when facing implicit social support. This means that interdependent self-construal, compared to independent self-construal, strengthened their risk preferences in the loss domain as social network size increased. Therefore, the financial domain (gain vs. loss) and/or self-construal interact in relation to social network. An experiment was conducted following the analysis of previous research, and the results are listed below: First, financial domain (gain vs. loss) was found to differentially influence financial risk preference. Financial risk preference was higher in the loss domain than the gain domain. Second, social network interacted with financial domain (gain vs. loss). This means that social network was found to moderate the impact of financial domain (gain vs. loss) on financial risk preference. More specifically, social network size positively influences financial risk preference in the gain domain but not the loss domain. Third, a three-way interaction was found among three variables (financial domain, social network size, and self-construal). More specifically, social network size interacted with self- construal in the loss domain. Independent self-construal relatively decreased financial risk preferences in the loss domain as social network size increased. Theoretical and practical implications were described from the perspective of marketing and consumer studies.

참고문헌 (54)

  1. 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(1), pp.33~39 (2001)
  2. Agrawal, N., "The Effects of Self-construal and Commitment on Persuasion", Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), pp.841~849 (2005)
  3. Aiken, L. S., "Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions" (1991), Sage
  4. Briley, Donnel A., "Reasons as Carriers of Culture: Dynamic versus Dispositional Models of Cultural Influence on Decision Making", Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), pp.157~178 (2000)
  5. Briley, Donnel A., "The Effect of Group Membership Salience on the Avoidance of Negative Outcomes: Implications for Social and Consumer Decisions", Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), pp.400~415 (2002)
  6. Briley, Donnel, "A Dynamic View of Cultural Influence: A Review", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), pp.557~571 (2014)
  7. Cartwright, Dorwin, "Risk Taking by Individuals and Groups: An Assessment of Research Employing Choice Dilemmas", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20(3), pp.361~378 (1971)
  8. Chan, Eugene Y., "Online Social Networking Increases Financial Risk-Taking", Computers in Human Behavior, 51, pp.224~231 (2015)
  9. Chang, Janet, "The Interplay Between Collectivismand Social Support Processes Among Asian and Latino American College Students", Asian American Journal of Psychology, 6(1), pp.4~14 (2015)
  10. Cross, Susan E., "The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal", Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), pp.142~179 (2011)
  11. Gelfand, Michele J., "Toward a Culture-by-Context Perspective on Negotiation: Negotiating Teams in the United States and Taiwan", Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), pp.504~513 (2013)
  12. Gelfand, Michele J., "Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations", Academy of Management Review, 31(2), pp.427~451 (2006)
  13. Hamilton, Rebecca W., "Achieving Your Goal or Protecting Their Future? The Effects of Self-View on Goals and Choices", Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), pp.277~283 (2005)
  14. Hong, Jiewen, "“I” Follow My Heart and “We” Rely on Reasons: The Impact of Self-Construal on Reliance on Feelings versus Reasons in Decision Making", Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), pp.1392~1411 (2015)
  15. Hsee, Christopher K., "Cross-National Differences in Risk Preference and Lay Predictions", Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(2), pp.165~179 (1999)
  16. Idson, Lorraine Chen, "Distinguishing Gains from Nonlosses and Losses from Nongains: A Regulatory Focus Perspective on Hedonic Intensity", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), pp.252~274 (2000)
  17. Kahneman, Daniel, "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk", Econometrica, 47(2), pp.263~291 (1979)
  18. Kim, Heejung S., "Pursuit of Comfort and Pursuit of Harmony: Culture, Relationships, and Social Support Seeking", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(12), pp.1595~1607 (2006)
  19. Kim, Heejung S., "Culture and Social Support", American Psychologist, 63(6), pp.518~526 (2008)
  20. Kitayama, Shinobu, "A Cultural Task Analysis of Implicit Independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), pp.236~255 (2009)
  21. Krishna, A., "The Effect of Self-construal on Spatial Judgments", Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), pp.337~348 (2008)
  22. 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)
  23. Li, Shu, "Asian Risk Seeking and Overconfidence", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(11), pp.2706~2736 (2009)
  24. Lun, Janetta, "On Feeling Understood and Feeling Well: The Role of Interdependence", Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), pp.1623~1628 (2008)
  25. Ma, Zhenfeng, "Consumer Adoption of New Products: Independent Versus Interdependent Self-Perspectives", Journal of Marketing, 78(2), pp.101~117 (2014)
  26. Maier, Erik, "The Impact of Stress on Consumers' Willingness to Pay", Psychology & Marketing, 31(9), pp.774~785 (2014)
  27. 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)
  28. Markus, Hazel, "Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion and Motivation", Psychological Review, 98(2), pp.224~253 (1991)
  29. Oyserman, Daphna, "Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions andMeta-Analyses", Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), pp.3~72 (2002)
  30. Petersen, J. Andrew, "Marketing Communication Dtrategies and Consumer Financial Decision Making: The Role of National Culture", Journal of Marketing, 79(1), pp.44~63 (2015)
  31. Polyorat, K., "Self-Construal and Need-for-Cognition Effects on Brand Attitudes and Purchase Intentions in Response to Comparative Advertising in Thailand and the United States", Journal of Advertising, 34(1), pp.37~48 (2005)
  32. Rieger, Marc Oliver, "Risk Preferences Around the World", Management Science, 61(3), pp.637~648 (2015)
  33. Shavitt, Sharon, "Handbook of Consumer Psychology", pp.1103~1132 (2008), Taylor & Francis Group
  34. Shupp, Robert S., "Risk Preference Differentials of Small Groups and Individuals", Economic Journal, 118(525), pp.258~283 (2008)
  35. Singelis, Theodore M., "The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), pp.580~591 (1994)
  36. Taylor, Shelley E., "Culture and Social Support: Who Seeks It and Why?", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), pp.354~362 (2004)
  37. Taylor, Shelley E., "Cultural Differences in the Impact of Social Support on Psychological and Biological Stress Responses", Psychological Science, 18(9), pp.831~837 (2007)
  38. Torelli, C. J., "Individuality or Conformity? The Effect of Independent and Interdependent Self-Concepts on Public Judgments", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), pp.240~248 (2006)
  39. Triandis, Harry C., "The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts", Psychological Review, 96(3), pp.506~520 (1989)
  40. Triandis, Harry C., "Individualism and Collectivism" (1995), Westview
  41. Vieider, Ferdinand M., "Common Components of Risk and Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts and Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries", Journal of the European Economic Association, 13(3), pp.421~452 (2015)
  42. Walker, G. J., "Culture, Self-construal, and Leisure Theory and Practice", Journal of Leisure Research, 37, pp.77~99 (2005)
  43. Wallace, Michael A., "Group Influence on Individual Risk Taking", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(2), pp.75~86 (1962)
  44. Wang, Shu-wen, "Cultural Differences in Daily Support Experiences", Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(3), pp.413~420 (2010)
  45. Weber, Elke U., "Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes towards Perceived Risk", Management Science, 44(9), pp.1205~1217 (1998)
  46. Weber, Elke U., "Models and Mosaics: Investigating Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception and Risk Preference", Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6(4), pp.611~617 (1999)
  47. Weber, Elke U., "Culture and Individual Judgment and Decision Making", Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), pp.32~41 (2000)
  48. Weber, Elke U., "What Folklore Tells Us about Risk and Risk Taking: Cross-Cultural Comparisons of American, German, and Chinese Proverbs", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(2), pp.170~186 (1998)
  49. Wrzus, Cornelia, "Social Network Changes and Life Events Across the Life Span: AMeta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), pp.53~80 (2013)
  50. Wu, Eugenia C., "How Asking “Who Am I?” Affects What Consumers Buy: The Influence of Self-Discovery on Consumption", Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), pp.296~307 (2011)
  51. Yang, Haiyang, "Pursuing Attainment Versus Maintenance Goals: The Interplay Of Self-Construal And Goal Type On Consumer Motivation", Journal of Consumer Research, 42(1), pp.93~108 (2015)
  52. Zhang, Y., "The Attractiveness of Enriched and Impoverished Options: Culture, Self-Construal, and Regulatory Focus", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), pp.588~598 (2007)
  53. Zhang, Y., "The Influence of Self-construal on Impulsive Consumption", Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), pp.838~850 (2009)
  54. Zhou, Rongrong, "Promotion and Prevention across Mental Accounts:When Financial Products Dictate", Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), pp.125~135 (2004)

관련 논문AI추천

자아해석(Self-Construal)이 위험추구행동에 미치는 영향박종철, 서옥림, 이한준한국소비문화학회 · 소비문화연구2013 · 제16권 제1호자기 또는 타인을 위한 구매 결정상황에서 자기해석과 해석수준이 위험감수 정도에 미치는 영향김화민한국소비자·광고심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고2017 · 제18권 제2호사회비교 정보가 금전적 위험이 수반된 경제적 의사결정에 미치는 영향김학진, 이용실한국소비자·광고심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고2011 · 제12권 제3호사회적 네트워크상에서 선호유사성이 구매에 미치는 영향김윤식, 조웅현, 한상만한국소비자학회 · 소비자학연구2012 · 제23권 제2호극대화 성향, 자기해석, 자기-타인이 제품선호에 미치는 영향양윤, 신선미한국소비자·광고심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고2020 · 제21권 제2호자기해석의 관점에서 소비자 불평 의도와 행동에 대한 이해김완석, 김정식, 이성수한국소비자·광고심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고2005 · 제6권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)

고객만족도 조사 참여가 기업 충성도에 미치는 영향: 고객-기업간 관계규범의 역할박기경pp. 1-24아파트 주거만족도 평가 모형의 개발과 적용: KARSI(Korea Apartment Resident Satisfaction Index) 모형을 중심으로문선희, 이유재pp. 25-5550세 이상 장년층 세대 유형별 주거선호 연구 - 베이비부머의 미래 주택 요구를 중심으로 -조희경, 구혜경pp. 57-84가계의 사교육비 지출과 자녀의 학업성취: 중학생 자녀를 중심으로이성림, 한윤선pp. 85-100소비자의 브랜드 애착행동: 제품변형행동을 중심으로박승배pp. 127-149
원문 보기