고려상표군 간의 집단유인 효과에 관한 탐험적 연구
Group Attraction Effect among Consideration Sets
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
마케팅 분야에서 선택확률의 연구는 중요한 이슈이며, 현재도 사용되는 소비자 선택모델의 보편적인 가정은 신규브랜드가 시장에 진입할 때 기존브랜드의 선택확률은 감소하거나 최소한 증가할 수 없다는 것이었다. 그러나 연구결과 어떤 특정한 경우에는 이러한 가정과 달리 신규브랜드가 진입할 경우에도 기존브랜드의 시장점유율이 증대되는 현상이 발견되었다. 본 연구에서는 이러한 유인효과의 현실적용의 한계를 극복하고자, 전체시장을 복수의 고려상표군으로 구성된 집합체라고 가정하고 개별 브랜드 2개를 기준으로 연구되었던 유인효과의 선행연구 결과를 바탕으로, 현실적인 시장상황을 반영할 수 있도록 다수의 브랜드를 고려상표군으로 묶어, 선행연구에서 개별브랜드 간에유인효과가 발생했던 것과 동일하게 고려상표군 간에도 집단적인 유인효과가 발생하는지에 대한 검증을 진행하였다. 본 연구의 목적은 첫째, 전체시장이 몇 개의 고려상표군으로 이루어진다는 가정을 통해, 2개 브랜드를 기준으로 연구된 유인효과가 현실적인 소비자의 구매상황인 다수 브랜드로 구성된 전체시장에서 고려상표군이 형성되고 형성된고려상표군 간에서도 발생하는 지를 검증하는 것이며 둘째, 개별 브랜드를 대상으로 한 선행연구 결과와 같이 고려상표군 간에도 제품군에 따라 관여도와 친숙도, 정당화에 따른 유인효과의 발생강도 차이가 있는지에 대하여 검증하는 것이다. 본 연구의 가장 시사점 이라고 할 수 있는 것은, Huber et al.(1982) 이후 지속적으로 확인되어 온유인효과의 존재를 고려상표군에서도 확인 할 수 있었다는 점이다. 이는 유인효과의 연구결과를 실제 시장에 적용함에 있어 “제품이 수십 개가 있는 경우에 어떻게 유인효과를 적용할 것인가?” 라는 질문에 대한 전략적 시사점을제공해 줄 수 있는 것이라고 판단된다. 즉 다수의 브랜드를 몇 개의 고려상표군으로 군집화 하여 신규 브랜드 진입에 따른 소비자의 선호변화와 선택확률 변화를 현실적인 시장상황 하에서도 검토할 수 있다는 것이다.
Abstract
The consumer's choice model and how the introduction of a new brand into a market will beinfluenced in market share are Important topic of Marketing. Most of consumer choice model isto assume that a new brand will take share from others original share. This assumption isincorporated in the Luce(1959) model of consumer choice. However certain types of new brandentry has the ability to induce violation of some basic assumption in choice model, such as theregularity assumption that an inferior new entry should not increase share of an existingbrand. The phenomenon that new entry brand increase the original exist brand's market sharewhich called “attraction effect” (Huber et al., 1982; Huber and Puto, 1983; Simonson, 1989Lehmann and Pan, 1994)Attraction effect has been studied for 30 years, but till now there are lots of researchers whohave suspiciousness about the existence of it (Luce et al.,1998) that’s why the attraction effectwas investigated by too simple experimental method and attributes and alternatives. Recently,trying to overcome criticism which is lacking in a practical adaptation, new movement of studyingstarts among the attraction effect researchers. For example, most of prior studies typicallyassumed that the market only has 3 alternatives (Target, Competitor, Decoy) and consist ofonly 2 attributes (e.g., price & durability) but nowadays many researchers increase the numberof attributes, alternatives and other limitations in their study to make the condition more realistic. Following new study trend, this research borrowed the concept “consideration set” which camefrom consumer purchasing process like purchase funnel and tested with multi-alternatives those had been grouped to 3 consideration sets (Target set, Competitor set, Decoy set) whichcontains 2 ~3 alternatives, using hierarchical cluster analysis. The purpose of this study is verifying the existence of group Attraction/Compromise effectamong Consideration Sets and checking the results are supporting previous study (Huber etal., 1982, Huber and Puto, 1983). We investigated the existence of group attraction / compromisedeffect, 4 experiments (within test) are involving a total of 131 subjects and 4 products providecredible empirical support for the hypothesized effects. The result show that entering decoy set makes group attraction and compromised effect andthe group attraction effect is stronger than compromised effect in terms of the changing of targetset’s preference and share but familiarity and involvement have not impacted on attarction andcompromise effect. Finally, “Justification” has a positive impact on group attraction effect butin case of compromise effect wasn’t supported. Of course, this study has some limitations andemployed students in a paper-and-pencil task. In spite of the limitation, this study seems toprovide evidence of existence of group attraction / compromised effect and support previous studies. Apparently, further study is needed to corroborate and refine the concept of group attractioneffect and conclusions.
참고문헌 (30)
- Bettman, "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes", The Journal of Consumer Research, 25, pp.187~217 (1998)
- Bettman, Luce, "An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice" (1979), Addison- Wisley Publishing Company
- Brunswick. E, "The conceptual framework for psychology" (1952), University of Chicago Press
- Butler, D. H., "Development of Statistical Marketing Models, In Speaking of Hendry, Croton-on-Husson", pp.125~145 (1976), Hendry Corporation
- Day, G. S., "Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying Product- Markets", Journal of Marketing, 43(Fall), pp.8~19 (1979)
- Frank R. Kardes, "Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and The Pioneering Advantage", Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), pp.62~75 (1993)
- Itamar Simonson, "Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion", Journal of Marketing Research, 26, pp.281~295 (1992)
- Itamar Simonson, "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects", The Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), pp.158~174 (1989)
- Joel Huber, "Adapting Cutoffs to the Choice Environment: The Effects of Attribute Correlation and Reliability", Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3), pp.346~357 (1991)
- Joel Huber, "Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects", The Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), pp.31~44 (1983)
- Joel Huber, "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated alternatives: Violation of regularity and the similarity hypothesis", The Journal of Consumer Research, 9, pp.90~98 (1982)
- Lehmann Donald R., "Context Effects, New Brand Entry and Consideration Sets", Journal of Marketing Research, 31, pp.364~374 (1994)
- Luce, R. D., "Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis" (1959), Wiley
- Marius Usher, "Loss Aversion and Inhibition in Dynamical Models of Multi alternative Choice", Psychological Review, 111(3), pp.757~769 (2004)
- McFadden, Daniel, "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice Among Products", The Journal of Business, 53(3), pp.S13~S29 (1980)
- McFadden, Daniel, "Conditional Logit Analysis of Quantitative Choice Behavior, In Frontiers of Econometrics", pp.105~142 (1974), Academic Press
- Montgomery, H., "From cognition to action: The search for dominance in decision making, In Process and Structure in Human Decision", pp.23~49 (1989), Wiley
- Parducci, Allen, "Contextual Effects: A Range-Frequency Analysis, In Handbook of perception, Vol.2" (1974), Academic Press
- Peter, J.P., "Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 4th Edition" (1995), Irwin
- Prashant Malaviya, "The Influence of Choice Justification and Stimulus Meaningfulness on the Attraction Effect", The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, (fall), pp.20~29 (2002)
- Ratneshwar, Srinivasan, "Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity", The Journal of Consumer Research, 13, pp.520~533 (1987)
- Roberts, John R., "Consideration: Review of Research and Prospects for Future Insights", Journal of Marketing Research, 34, pp.406~413 (1997)
- Roberts, John R., "Development and Testing of a Model of Consideration Set Composition", Journal ofMarketing Research, 28, pp.429~440 (1991)
- Ravi Dhar, "The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice", The Journal of Marketing Research, pp.146~160 (2003)
- Sanjay Mishra, "Antecedents of the Attraction Effect: An Information-Processing Approach", Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), pp.331~349 (1993)
- Sheng, Shibin, "Understanding the Mechanism and Determinants of Compromise Effects", Psychology & Marketing, 22(7), pp.591~609 (2005)
- Shocker, A.D., "Consideration Set Influences on Consumer Decision-Making and Choice: Issues, Models, and Suggestions", Marketing Letters, 2, pp.181~198 (1991)
- Tversky, Amos, "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference- Dependent Model", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), pp.1039~1061 (1991), MIT Press
- Tversky, Amos, "Elimination By Aspects: A theory of Choice", Psychological Review, 79, pp.281~299 (1972)
- Yigang Pan Lehmann, "The Influence of New Brand Entry on Subjective Brand Judgment", Journal of Consumer Research, 20, pp.76~86 (1993)