본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

심적 시뮬레이션(Mental Simulation)의 활용 유형에 영향을 미치는 요인에 관한 연구: 개인 특성과 과업 특성에 의한 차이를 중심으로

Factors Affecting Types of Mental Simulation: Individual Characteristic and Task Characteristic

이진석|권익현
한국소비자학회 (Korean Society Of Consumer Studies)|2012.12|소비자학연구 (Journal of Consumer Studies)|제23권 제4호|pp. 261-285

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

vividness생생함현저성mental simulationsalience사고방식심적 시뮬레이션mind set조절모드결과중심 vs. 과정 중심outcome-focused vs. process-focused
주제분류경제학

초록

본 연구는 인지적 프로세스에 영향을 미치는 사고방식 중 하나인 심적 시뮬레이션(mental simulation)의 선택에 영향을 미치는 선행 요소에 대하여 고찰하였다. 첫째, 개인이 사용하는 심적 시뮬레이션 유형에 영향을 미치는 요인으로 개인특성을 제시하고 검증하였다. 개인특성으로는 일반적인 행동에 대한 자기조절 성향으로 이동모드(locomotion mode)와 평가모드(assessment mode)로 구분하는 개인특성인 조절모드(regulatory mode)를 활용하였다. 둘째, 개인의 심적 시뮬레이션의 활용 유형에 영향을 미치는 또 다른 요인으로서 과업 특성(task characteristic)을 제시하고 검증하였다. 과업 특성을 결정하는 요인으로 과업의 과정과 결과에 대한 현저성을 활용하였다. 가설은 각각의 구성 변수에 대한 과거 문헌 연구에 근거하여 다음과 같이 설정하였다. 먼저 개인의 조절 모드 성향에 따라 심적 시뮬레이션의 유형 활용에 있어서 차이가 나타날 것을 예상하였다. 구체적으로, 이동모드의 사람일수록 결과 중심적인 사고를 할 것이고 평가모드의 사람일수록 과정 중심적인 사고를 할 것이라고 가설을 설정하였다. 다음으로, 과업 특성에 따라 개인이 사용하는 심적 시뮬레이션 유형이 차이가 나타날 것으로 예상하였다. 구체적으로 결과에 대한 현저성이 높을수록 결과 중심적인 시뮬레이션을 할 것이고 과정에 대한 현저성이 높을수록 과정중심의 시뮬레이션을 할 것이라고 가설을 설정하였다. 이러한 연구의 목적과 가설 검증을 위하여 실험 연구를 진행하였다. 실험은 새로운 오피스용 소프트웨어, 새로운 여행 상품, 새로운 취미생활의 3가지의 과업 상황을 시나리오로 작성하여 활용하였다. 피험자가 심적 시뮬레이션에 사용한 유형의 비중(과정 중심 vs. 결과 중심)을 측정하였고, 조절모드 척도(Kruglanski et al. 2000)를 통해 피험자의 개인 특성을 측정하고, 과업 특성의 경우 과업별 결과와 과정에 대해 떠오르는 생생함 정도를 측정하였다. 연구 결과, 조절모드 성향에 따라 개인이 사용하는 심적 시뮬레이션의 유형이 차이가 나타났다. 가설에서 제시한 것과 같이 이동 모드 일수록 결과중심 시뮬레이션을 하는 것으로 나타났고, 평가 모드 일수록 과정중심 시뮬레이션을 하는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 과업 특성에 의한 효과는 제한적으로 확인되었다. 피험자들은 과정이 결과보다 상대적으로 더 생생하게 떠오르는 과업에서 기타 과업들에서 보다 과정 중심적인 심적 시뮬레이션을 더 활용하는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 본 연구에서의 이러한 결과는 과정과 결과에 대한 생생함 정도에 있어서의 상대적 차이만을 확인하였다는 면에서 제한적이라고 보아야 할 것이다.

Abstract

People imagine their future. They think not only about events that they will do or experience, but they also imagine virtual events that would never happen to them. To imagine future virtual events is defined as mental simulation. Researchers have examined people's ability of mental simulation and implication of mental simulation in variety psychology research area, such as cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, social psychology(e.g. Singer 1972; Davies and Stone 1995). Taylor and Schneider(1989) defined a mental simulation as the imitative representation of real or virtual events. They suggested that mental simulation can serve important function for turning imagined experience into action. Mental simulation can increase the perceived validity of imagined experience and provide the organization of experience. Then, it increases the expectancy that people will meet imagined experience, and it generates motivation. There are various types of mental simulation such as process-focused vs. outcome-focused mental simulation, retrospective vs. anticipatory mental simulation, problem-focused vs. solution-focused mental simulation. However all types of mental simulation don't equally impact on people's attitude, intention, real act. Specifically, distinction between process-focused and outcome-focused mental simulation have the highest discriminating power on those variables(Taylor et al. 1998). Among varied distinctions concerning different types of mental simulation, process-focused mental simulation and outcome-focused mental simulation has been a research focus of researchers in psychology, education and consumer behavior. In psychology, researchers have focused on a goal achievement and self-regulation. Taylor et al.(1998) showed that outcome-focused mental simulation is more effective on motivation for attaining goal while process-focused mental simulation is more effective on making plans and emotional self-regulation. People with process-focused mental simulation can make higher performance than people with outcome-focused mental simulation(Oettingen and Mayer 2002; Pham and Talyor 1999; Rivkin and Taylor 1999; Taylor et al. 1998). Some research reported contracting results against finding described above (Fanning 1994; Thompson et al. 2009). In consumer research, the impact of mental simulation on consumers' attitude, decision making, and purchase intention etc. when consumer make purchasing decisions, they can imagine the process of using the product or the benefit of having product. Consumers' attitude and purchase intention toward alternatives can be different, depending on consumers' focus on whether process or outcome. As discussed so far, most of mental simulation research have attended to varied results generated by adopting different types of mental simulation in terms of various constructs. On the other hands, this study examined factors affecting people to rely on different types of mental simulation. First, we investigated individual difference. We adopted regulatory mode as an individual characteristic. Human behaviors are mostly the result of combining two essential regulatory mode: assessment mode and locomotion mode. Assessment mode is related to critical evaluation of entities or states, such as goals or means in relation to alternatives in order to judge relative quality. By contrast, locomotion mode means the tendency to movement from state to state and commitment to the psychological resources that will initiate and maintain goal-directed progress directly, without undue distractions or delays(Kruglanski et al. 2000). We hypothesize that locomotion-oriented people tend to use outcome-focused mental simulation more and assessment-oriented people may adopt process-focused mental simulation more. Secondly, this study examined the influence of a task characteristic as the factor affecting types of mental simulation. We adopted perceived salience toward process and outcome as a task characteristic. Nisbett and Ross(1980) suggested that vivid information can attract or hold people's attention, interesting, emotional arousal more than non-vivid information, and that people also can deliberate vivid information more easily. Many research have demonstrated that when people process salient information, people tend to overestimate the extents to which two phenomena are associated(Chapman 1967; Hamilton and Gifford 1976; Sanbonmatsu et al. 1987, 1994). We expect that people would rely on outcome-focused mental simulation more if they can envision outcomes more vividly. On the other hands, if people can imagine a process more vividly, they would use process-focused mental simulation more. In order to test our hypotheses, we conducted an experiment. 72 male and 75 female attended our experiment. We examined the effects of individual and the task characteristic on the weight of subjects' reliance on different types of mental simulation regarding 3 tasks. We developed 3 scenarios for tasks of new office software, new travel package and new hobby practice. Participants were inquired to read 3 separate scenarios. Then, they were asked to imagine the situation where they really make decisions concerning those tasks. Then relative reliance on different types of mental simulations, the vividness of outcome and process, regulatory mode scale and some potential confounding variables were measured. Research results supported the hypotheses related to individual differences. Research results of two tasks out of three tasks supported hypothesis statistically. As we expected, people with high locomotion mode tended to use outcome-focused mental simulation more while people with high assessment mode relied more on process-focused mental simulation. The hypothesis about the task characteristic were supported partially. Research results showed that subjects relied relatively more on process-focused mental simulation when they could imagine process more vividly than outcome. Unfortunately, however these findings confirmed relative differences only.

참고문헌 (49)

  1. 박종원, "소비자의 기억, 정서, 판단에 관한 연구의 최신 동향", 소비자학연구, 21(2), pp.237~287 (2010), 한국소비자학회
  2. 여준상, "혁신적 신제품에 대한 소비자반응에 있어 심적 시뮬레이션 영향 연구", 마케팅연구, 25(1), pp.25~47 (2010), 한국마케팅학회
  3. 성형석, "고객의 자기조절성향이 서비스 실패에 따른부정적 감정과 고객반응에 미치는 영향 -귀인과정에 따른 조정적 역할을 중심으로-", 아시아마케팅저널, 12(2), pp.83~110 (2010), 한국마케팅학회
  4. Albinsson, Pia A, "Price Surcharge and the Effects ofConstrual Level", The Journal of AppliedBusiness and Economics, 11(4), pp.56~69 (2010)
  5. Anderson, Craig. A., "Imagination and expectation : The effect of imagining behavioral scripts on personal intentions", journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, pp.293~305 (1983)
  6. Berlyne, Daniel E., "The influence of complexity and novelty in visual figures on orienting responses", Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(3), pp.289~296 (1958)
  7. Biernat, Monica, "Categorization and stereotyping : Effects ofgroup context on memory and social judgment", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(2), pp.166~202 (1993)
  8. Borgida, Eugene, "The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, pp.258~271 (1977)
  9. Carroll, John. S., "The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event : An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic", Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 14, pp.88~96 (1978)
  10. Castano, Raquel, "Managing Consumer Uncertainty in the Adoption of New Products: Temporal Distance andMental Simulation", Journal of Marketing Research, 45, pp.320~336 (2008)
  11. Chapman, Loren J., "Illusory correlation in observational report", Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, pp.151~155 (1967)
  12. Davies, Martin, "mental simulation: Evaluations and Applications" (1995), Blackwell
  13. Escalas, Jennifer Edson, "Imagine yourself in the product : mental simulation, narrative transportation and persuasion", Journal of advertising, 33(2), pp.37~49 (2004)
  14. Escalas, Jennifer Edson, "Process versus Outcome Thought-Focus and Advertising", Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 13(3), pp.246~254 (2003)
  15. Escalas, Jennifer Edson, "Understanding the effects of Process-Focused vs. Outcome-Focused Thought inResponse to Advertising", Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), pp.274~285 (2004)
  16. Fanning, Patrick, "Visualization for change(2nd ed. )" (1994), New Harbinger
  17. Freitas, Antonio L, "Abstract and concrete self-evaluativegoals", Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 80, pp.410~424 (2001)
  18. Gregory, Larry W, "Self-relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does imagining make it so?", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, pp.89~99 (1982)
  19. Hamilton, David L., "Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception : A cognitive basis of stereotypicjudgments", Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 12, pp.392~407 (1976)
  20. Higgins, Edward Tory, "Knowledge accessibility and activation: Subjectivity and suffering from unconscious sources, In Unintended thought: The limits of awareness, intention and control" (1989), Guilford
  21. Higgins, Edward Tory, "Does personality provide unique explanations for behavior? : Personality as cross-person variability in general principles", European Journal of Personality, 14, pp.391~406 (2000)
  22. Higgins, Edward Tory, "Social psychology: handbook of basic principles" (1996), Guilford press
  23. Kanouse, David E., "language, labeling and attribution. In E. E. Jones et al., Attibution: Perceiving the causes of behavior" (1972), General Learning Press
  24. Keller, Punam Anand, "Vividness Effects: A Resource-MatchingPerspective", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, pp.295~304 (1997)
  25. 김학균, "Consumer response to brand extensions: Construal level as a moderator of the importance of perceived fit", JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 18(2), pp.116~126 (2008), ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
  26. Klem, Adena, "Getting started on something versus waiting to do the “right” thing: Locomotion and assessment as distinct regulatory modes" (1996), Columbia University
  27. Koffka, Kurt, "Principles of gestalt psychology" (1935), Harcourt, Brace
  28. Kruglanski, Arie W., "To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives", Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 79, pp.793~815 (2000)
  29. Lewin, Kurt, "Field theory in social science" (1951), Harper
  30. Markus, Hazel, "Possible selves", American Psychologist, 41, pp.954~969 (1986)
  31. Martin, Joanne, "Truth or corporate propaganda?, In Organizational symbolism" (1983), JAI Press
  32. Nissbett, Richard E., "Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of social Judgment" (1980), Prentice Hal
  33. Oettingen, Gabriele, "The Motivating Function of Thinking About the Future: Expectations Versus Fantasies", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), pp.1198~1212 (2002)
  34. Petrova, Petia K., "Fluency of Consumption Imagery and theBackfire Effects of Imagery Appeals", Journalof Consumer Research, 32(3), pp.442~452 (2005)
  35. Pham, Lien B., "From Thought to Action : Effects of Process-Versus Outcome-Based Mental Simulations on Performance", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, pp.250~260 (1999)
  36. Pierro, Antonio, "Regulatory mode effects on counter factual thinking and regret", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), pp.321~329 (2008)
  37. Rivkin, Inna D, "The Effects of Mental Simulation on Coping with Controllable Stressful Events", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, pp.1451~1462 (1999)
  38. Sanbonmatsu, David M, "Illusory correlation in the perception of performance by self or a salient other", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, pp.518~543 (1987)
  39. Sanbonmatsu, David M, "Salience, set size and illusory correlation : Making Moderate Assumptions about extreme targets", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), pp.1020~1033 (1994)
  40. Singer, Robert N., "Coaching, Athletics and psychology" (1972), McGraw Hill
  41. Taylor, Shelley E, "Harnessing the Imagination:Mental Simulation, Self-Regulation and Coping", American Psychologist, 53, pp.429~439 (1998)
  42. Taylor, Shelley E, "Coping and the Simulation of Events", Social Cognition, 7(2), pp.174~184 (1989)
  43. Taylor, Shelley E., "Point of view and perceptions of causality", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol, 32(3), pp.439~445 (1975)
  44. Taylor, Shelley E., "Solo status as a psychological variable: The power of being distinctive" (1977), Harvard University
  45. Taylor Shelley E., "Stalking the elusive ‘vividness’ effect", PsychologicalReview, 89, pp.155~181 (1982)
  46. Thompson, Debora V., "When mental simulation hinders behaviors: the effects of process-oriented thinking on decision difficulty and performance", Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), pp.562~574 (2009)
  47. Titchener, Edward Bradford, "Attention as sensory clearness" (1966)
  48. Vallacher, Robin R, "Levels of personal agency: Individual variationin action identification", Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57, pp.660~671 (1989)
  49. Zhao, Min, "Mental simulation and preference consistencyover time: The role of process-versusoutcome-focused thoughts", Journal of MarketingResearch, 44, pp.379~388 (2007)

관련 논문AI추천

심적 시뮬레이션 유형과 조절모드와의 조절 적합성이 심적 시뮬레이션 활성화와 심적 시뮬레이션의 활성화를 유발하는 광고의 효과에 미치는 영향권익현, 이진석한국소비자학회 · 소비자학연구2016 · 제27권 제4호심적 시뮬레이션이 점진적 신제품 평가에 미치는 영향: 소비자 인지적 사고특성(종결욕구, 확신성, 해석수준)의 조절효과를 중심으로박효현, 정강옥한국상품학회 · 상품학연구2015 · 제33권 제2호심적 시뮬레이션(mental simulation)이 자기통제(self-control)에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구권익현, 이진석한국소비자·광고심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고2018 · 제19권 제2호심적 시뮬레이션이 서비스실패에 대한 소비자 반응에 미치는 영향권익현, 김희영한국소비문화학회 · 소비문화연구2018 · 제21권 제4호심적 시뮬레이션 메시지가 제품평가에 미치는 영향 : 사회적 파워의 조절효과김영조서비스마케팅학회 · 서비스마케팅저널2022 · 제15권 제1호조절초점이 시뮬레이션초점 효과에 미치는 영향송환웅, 여준상한국전략마케팅학회 · 마케팅논집(Journal of Marketing Studies)2011 · 제19권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (13건)

기대수명 증가와 종신연금김세완, 주소현pp. 1-24시장통달자의 집단성향을 고려한 고객도움행동 촉진 방안 연구김현식pp. 25-44서비스접점에서 고객의 상황에 따른 판매원의 설득전략유애리, 김상희pp. 45-78소비자의 식품안전 체감 및 역량척도 개발 연구주소현, 유현정pp. 79-104소비자의 윤리적 소비행동과 관련요인 분석김우성, 허은정pp. 105-130
원문 보기