본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

소비자의 신념편향에 대한 연구

An Investigation of Consumers’ Belief Bias

이유재|한웅희
한국소비자학회 (Korean Society Of Consumer Studies)|2009.09|소비자학연구 (Journal of Consumer Studies)|제20권 제3호|pp. 27-60

0

조회

0

다운로드

21

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

관여도사전지식InvolvementPrior Knowledge신념편향공분산기반모형주관적 확률모형Belief BiasCovariation-Based ModelSubjective Probability Model
주제분류경제학

초록

본 연구는 사전지식과 관여도가 신념편향의 발생에 미치는 영향을 공분산기반모형을 사용하여 살펴보았다. 신념편향이란 어떤 주장의 결론을 강하게 믿는 사람이 그렇지 않은 사람보다 그 주장의 타당성 내지 논리성을 높이 평가하는 경향을 말한다. 연구 1에서는 사전지식 수준이 신념편향의 발생에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 조사하였다. 연구결과, 사전지식 수준은 신념편향의 발생에 영향을 미치며, 구체적으로 사전지식 수준이 높은 경우에는 신념편향의 발생이 억제되고 사전지식 수준이 낮은 경우에는 신념편향의 발생이 촉진되는 것으로 나타났다. 이것은 사전지식 수준이 높은 경우에 휴리스틱 시스템이 작동하고 그로 인해 신념편향이 발생할 것이라는 기존 견해와는 상반되는 결과이며, 사전지식 수준이 낮은 경우에 휴리스틱 시스템이 작동하여 신념편향이 발생하고 사전지식 수준이 높은 경우에는 분석적 시스템이 작동하여 신념편향이 발생하지 않을 것이라는 본 연구의 견해를 지지해 주는 것이라고 할 수 있다. 연구 2에서는 연구 1의 결과가 다른 제품 카테고리에서도 나타나는가와 관여도가 신념편향의 발생에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지를 알아보고자 하였다. 연구 결과, 다른 제품 카테고리에서도 연구 1과 동일한 결과가 나타 났고, 신념편향의 발생은 관여도에 따라 달라지지 않는 것으로 확인되었다. 이로써 사전지식 수준이 신념편향의 발생에 미치는 영향은 제품 카테고리에 따라 달라지지 않는다는 것이 입증되었고, 연구 1의 결과를 일반적인 소비재 카테고리에까지 확장할 수 있는 가능성이 발견되었다. 본 연구는 다음과 같은 시사점을 갖는다. 이론적인 측면에서 연구는 이원적 프로세스 이론의 작동과 신념편향의 발생에 미치는 사전지식의 영향을 새롭게 조명함으로써, 이원적 프로세스 이론과 신념편향 이론의 정교화에 기여할 것으로 보인다. 또한 신념편향의 측정에 공분산기반모형을 적용함으로써, 신념편향의 측정방법과 범위는 물론 공분산기반모형의 외연을 확장하는 효과도 기대할 수 있다. 마케팅적인 측면에서 본 연구는 사전지식 수준이 낮은 브랜드에 대한 마케팅 메시지의 결론을 소비자들이 믿을 수 있도록 구성하는 것이 왜 중요하고 어떤 효과를 기대할 수 있는지 분석함으로써, 설득적 마케팅 커뮤니케이션의 전략적 근거를 마련하는 데 기여할 것으로 보인다. 마지막으로 소비자 정책 측면에서 본 연구는 소비자들이 신념편향으로 인해 잘못된 결정을 내리지 않도록 소비자 교육을 강화하고 소비자 보호를 위한 법적ㆍ제도적 장치의 마련과 같은 정책적 뒷받침이 필요하다는 점을 부각시킬 수 있을 것으로 보인다.

Abstract

Using the covariation-based model, this research addresses consumers’ belief bias, which is the tendency to assess the validity of message arguments on the basis of the believability of argument conclusion. In investigating the effect of beliefs on consumer information processing, this research examines whether belief bias is affected by prior knowledge or involvement through two experiments. The covariation-based model posits that beliefs in causal power are represented in terms of the degree of covariation between the cause and its effect. A person could be said to be biased by beliefs, when he or she with a high subjective probability about the conclusion of an argument(P(B)) shows a relatively higher evaluation on the validity or logicality of that argument(ΔB(=P(B∣A)-P(B∣￢A))) than a person with a low subjective probability. Therefore, the occurrence of belief bias can be detected first by observing if the ΔB value of the high P(B) group is larger than that of the low P(B) group, and then by analyzing whether the difference in the ΔB value between the two groups is statistically significant. Experiment 1 is performed to examine whether the occurrence of belief bias is affected by consumers’ prior knowledge. The results showed that for both ‘sneakers’ and ‘toothpaste’ (the two product categories used as experiment stimuli), when prior knowledge levels about the brand were low, belief bias occurred, whereas when prior knowledge levels about the brand were high, belief bias did not occur. Let us look at details in the case of sneakers. With ‘Nike,’ a high prior knowledge brand, the high P(B) group had a smaller ΔB value than the low P(B) group, and the difference was not significant(Mlow_P(B)=.1833 vs. Mhigh_P(B)=-.0281; t(36)=1.627, p=.112). On the other hand, with ‘Ethonic’ (a low prior knowledge brand), the high P(B) group had a larger ΔB value than the low P(B) group, and the difference was significant(Mlow_P(B)=.0214 vs. Mhigh_P(B)=.1292; t(36)=-1.790, p<.1). Thus, we can infer that the belief bias occurs not for brands with high prior knowledge, but only for brands with low prior knowledge. Similar results were obtained in the case of toothpaste. With ‘Perioe,’ a high prior knowledge brand, the high P(B) group had a smaller ΔB value than the low P(B) group, and the difference was not significant(Mlow_P(B)=.0556 vs. Mhigh_P(B)=.0100; t(36)=.575, p=.569). On the other hand, with ‘Tripledenta’ (a low prior knowledge brand), the high P(B) group had a larger ΔB value than the low P(B) group, and the difference was significant (Mlow_P(B)=.0077 vs. Mhigh_P(B)=.1280; t(36)=-1.724, p<.1). Thus, it can be inferred that the belief bias phenomenon occurs only for brands with low prior knowledge, not for brands with high prior knowledge. These results support Hypothesis 1 predicting that belief bias is affected by the level of consumers’ prior knowledge. Specifically, when the level of prior knowledge is high, the occurrence of belief bias is suppressed. In contrast, when the level of prior knowledge is low, the occurrence of belief bias is promoted. The results also confirm the viewpoint of our study. When prior knowledge levels are low, a heuristic system operates and belief bias occurs. On the other hand, when prior knowledge levels are high, an analytic system operates and belief bias does not occur. This viewpoint should be contrasted with the existing viewpoint that when prior knowledge levels are high, a heuristic system operates and as a result belief bias occurs. Experiment 2 was conducted to replicate this result in other product categories and to examine whether involvement moderates this relationship. ‘College preparation books’ and ‘instant noodles’ were used as experiment stimuli, and they showed lower involvement levels than the stimuli in Experiment 1. When prior knowledge levels about the brand were low, belief bias occurred. But when prior knowledge levels about the brand were high, belief bias did not occur. Let us take a look at the case of college preparation books. With ‘Concepts and Principles: Mathematics,’ a high prior knowledge brand, the high P(B) group had a smaller ΔB value than the low P(B) group, and the difference was not significant(Mlow_P(B)=.5400 vs. Mhigh_P(B)=.3765; t(37)=1.342, p=.188). On the other hand, with ‘Giltoraebi Mathematics’(a low prior knowledge brand), the high P(B) group had a larger ΔB value than the low P(B) group, and the difference was significant(Mlow_P(B)=.0333 vs. Mhigh_P(B)=.2238; t(37)=-2.264, p<.05). We can infer that in the case of college preparation books the belief bias phenomenon occurs not for brands with a high prior knowledge level, but only for brands with a low prior knowledge level. The case of instant noodles is also examined. With ‘Shin Ramen,’ a high prior knowledge brand, the high P(B) group had a larger ΔB value than the low P(B) group, but the difference was not significant(Mlow_P(B)=.0962 vs. Mhigh_P(B)=.1462; t(37)=-.726, p=.473). On the other hand, with ‘Mapsi Noodle’ (a low prior knowledge brand), the high P(B) group had a larger ΔB value than the low P(B) group, and the difference was significant(Mlow_P(B)=.0083 vs. Mhigh_P(B)=.2267; t(37)=-2.334, p<.05). Thus it can be inferred that in the case of instant noodles the belief bias phenomenon also did not occur for brands with a high prior knowledge level, but it occurs only for brands with a low prior knowledge level. The results of Experiment 2 show that even under low involvement, belief bias occurs only when prior knowledge levels are low, but not when prior knowledge levels are high. Hypothesis 2 predicting that the influence of prior knowledge levels on belief bias will differ according to involvement levels was not supported. Thus, involvement has no moderating effect on the influence of prior knowledge levels on the occurrence of belief bias. Nevertheless, the results of Experiment 1 are replicated in different product categories and the findings can be extended to general consumer products. Theoretical and managerial implications of these findings are discussed as follows. From a theoretical perspective, this study sheds new light on the effect of prior knowledge on the operation of the dual process and belief bias occurrence. This study then makes it possible to sophisticate the dual process theory and theories on belief bias. This study has also extended methods and ranges of belief bias measurement. Furthermore, the study makes it possible to extend the covariation-based model. From a managerial perspective, this study suggests that marketers should make a conclusion of marketing message believable for brands with a low prior knowledge level. In such a case, consumers who have positive responses to and strong beliefs in the conclusion of a message are likely to give a positive evaluation and believe the basis of the conclusion as well as the conclusion itself. From a consumer policy perspective, this study implies that it is necessary to prevent consumers from making wrong choices due to belief bias. It could be achieved by bolstering consumer education and political support such as legislation and institutional arrangements.

참고문헌 (93)

  1. 한웅희, "사전지식 및 관여도가 소비자의 신념불일치에 미치는 효과", 마케팅연구, 24(1), pp.51~76 (2009), 한국마케팅학회
  2. Adelson, B., "When Novices Surpass Experts: The Difficulty of a Task May Increase with Experts", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, pp.483~495 (1984)
  3. Ajzen, I., "Attitudes and Thought System in Advances in Social Cognition", pp.79~86 (1991), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  4. Alba, J. W., "Dimension of Consumer Expertise", Journal of Consumer Research, 13, pp.411~454 (1987)
  5. Allan, L. G., "A Note on the Measurement of Contingency Between Two Binary Variables in Judgement Tasks", Bulletin of the Psychometric Society, 10, pp.237~242 (1980)
  6. Areni, C. S., "The Proposition-Probability Model of Argument Structure and Message Acceptance", Journal of Consumer Research, 29, pp.168~187 (2002)
  7. Areni, C. S., "The Effects of Structural and Grammatical Variables on Persuasion: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective", Psychology and Marketing, 20(4), pp.349~375 (2003)
  8. Areni, C. S., "The Effects of Conditional Indicative Language on The Comprehension and Acceptance of Advertising Claims", Journal of Marketing Communications, 10, pp.229~240 (2004)
  9. Beatty, S. E., "Adolescent Influence in Family Decision Making: A Replication with Extension", Journal of Consumer Research, 21, pp.332~341 (1994)
  10. Biek, M., "Working Knowledge, Cognitive Processing, and Attitudes: On the Determinants of Bias", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(6), pp.547~556 (1996)
  11. Brucks, M., "The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior", Journal of Consumer Research, 12, pp.1~16 (1985)
  12. Celsi, R. L., "The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes", Journal of Consumer Research, 15, pp.210~224 (1988)
  13. Chaiken, S., "Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), pp.752~766 (1980)
  14. Chaiken, S., "Dualprocess Theories in Social Psychology" (1999), Guilford Press
  15. Cheng, P. W., "From Covariation to Causation: A Causal Power Theory", Psychological Review, 104(2), pp.367~405 (1997)
  16. Cheng, P. W., "Covariation in Natural Causal Induction", Psychological Review, 99, pp.365~382 (1992)
  17. Denes-Raj, V., "Conflict Between Intuitive and Rational Processing: When People Behave Against Their Better Judgement", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, pp.819~829 (1994)
  18. Epstein, S., "Integration of the Cognitive and Psychodynamic Unconscious", American Psychologist, 49, pp.709~724 (1994)
  19. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "Heuristic and Analytic Processing in Reasoning", British Journal of Psychology, 75, pp.451~468 (1984)
  20. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "Bias in Human Reasoning: Causes and Consequences" (1989), Erlbaum
  21. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "Logic and Human Reasoning: An Assessment of the Deduction Paradigm", Psychological Bulletin, 128, pp.978~996 (2002)
  22. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "In Two Minds: Dual-Process Accounts of Reasoning", Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, pp.454~459 (2003)
  23. Evans,Jonathan St.B.T, "How to Do Research: A Psychologist's Guide" (2005), Psychology press
  24. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "The Heuristic- Analytic Theory of Reasoning: Extension and Evolution", Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), pp.378~395 (2006)
  25. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "On the Resolution of Conflict in Dual Process Theories of Reasoning", Thinking and Reasoning, 13(4), pp.321~339 (2007)
  26. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "Hypothetical Thinking: Dual Processes in Reasoning and Judgement" (2007), Psychology Press
  27. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgement and Social Cognition", Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), pp.255~278 (2008)
  28. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "On the Conflict Between Logic and Belief in Syllogistic Reasoning", Memory and Cognition, 11, pp.295~306 (1983)
  29. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "Rapid Responding Increases Belief Bias: Evidence for the Dual-Process Theory of Reasoning", Thinking and Reasoning, 11, pp.382~389 (2005)
  30. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "Rationality and Reasoning" (1996), Psychology Press
  31. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T., "If" (2004), Oxford University Press
  32. Fugelsang, J. A., "A Dual-Process Model of Belief and Evidence Interactions in Causal Reasoning", Memory and Cognition, 31, pp.800~815 (2003)
  33. Fugelsang, J. A., "Examining the Representation of Causal Knowledge", Thinking and Reasoning, 12(1), pp.1~30 (2006)
  34. Giere, R. N., "Understanding Scientific Reasoning(4th ed.)" (1997), Harcourt Brace College Publishers
  35. Gigerenzer, G., "Dread Risk, September 11, and Fatal Traffic Accidents", Psychological Science, 15, pp.286~287 (2004)
  36. Hastie, R., "Social Inference", Annual Review of Psychology, 34, pp.511~542 (1983)
  37. Herr, P. M., "Priming Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects", Journal of Consumer Research, 14, pp.387~403 (1989)
  38. Hilton, D., "Knowledgebased Causal Attribution: The Abnormal Conditions Focus Model", Psychological Review, 93, pp.75~88 (1986)
  39. Howson, C., "Scientific Reasoning" (1993), Open Court
  40. Johnson, E. J., "Product Familiarity and Learning New Information", Journal of Consumer Research, 11, pp.542~550 (1984)
  41. Kahneman, D., "Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgement in in Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement", pp.49~81 (2002), Cambridge Univ. Press
  42. Kahneman, D., "Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases" (1982), Cambridge Univ. Press
  43. Kardes, F. R., "Consumer Behavior and Managerial Decision Making", pp.2002, Pearson
  44. Kardes, F. R., "Moderating Effects of Prior Knowledge on the Perceived Diagnosticity of Beliefs Derived from Implicit versus Explicit Product Claims", Journal of Business Research, 29, pp.219~224 (1994)
  45. Kardes, F. R., "Down the Garden Path: The Role of Conditional Inference Processes in Self-Persuasion", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(3), pp.159~168 (2001)
  46. Kardes, F. R., "Consumer Inference: A Review of Processes, Bases, and Judgement Contexts", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), pp.230~256 (2004)
  47. Kelly, H., "The Process of Causal Attribution", American Psychologist, 28, pp.107~128 (1973)
  48. Klaczynski, P. A., "Motivated Scientific Reasoning Biases, Epistemological Beliefs, and the Theory Polarization: A Two-Process Approach to Adolescent Cognition", Child Development, 71, pp.1347~1366 (2000)
  49. Klaczynski, P. A., "Domain-specific Identity, Epistemic regulation, and Intellectual ability as Predictors of Belief-biased Reasoning: A Dual-Process Perspective", Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(1), pp.1~24 (2005)
  50. Klauer, K. C., "On Belief Bias in Syllogistic Reasoning", Psychological Review, 107, pp.852~884 (2000)
  51. Klayman, J., "Varieties of Confirmation Bias", The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 32, pp.385~417 (1995)
  52. Kokis, J. V., "Heuristic and Analytic Processing: Age Trends and Associations with Cognitive Ability and Cognitive Styles", Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, pp.26~52 (2002)
  53. Kruglanski, A. W., "Motivated Resistance and Openness to Persuasion in the Presence or Absence of Prior Information", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), pp.861~876 (1993)
  54. Lewis, D., "Causal Decision Theory", Australian Journal of Philosophy, 59(1), pp.5~30 (1981)
  55. Lord, C., "Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effect of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, pp.2098~2109 (1979)
  56. Maheswaran, D., "The Effects of Knowledge, Motivation and Type of Message on Ad Processing and Product Judgement", Journal of Consumer Research, 17, pp.66~73 (1990)
  57. Marcus, G., "Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind" (2008), Houghton Mifflin Company
  58. McGuire, W. J., "The Probabilogical Model of Cognitive Structure and Attitude Change in Cognitive Responses in Persuasion", pp.291~307 (1981), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  59. McGuire, W. J., "The Content, Structure, and Operation of Thought System in Advances in Social Cognition (vol.4)", pp.1~78 (1991), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  60. Newstead, S. E., "Individual Differences in Deductive Reasoning", Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, pp.33~60 (2004)
  61. Neys, W. D., "Dual Processing in Reasoning: Two Systems but One Reasoner", Psychological Science, 17(5), pp.428~433 (2006)
  62. Neys, W. D., "Conflict Monitoring in Dual Process Theories of Thinking", Cognition, 106, pp.1248~1299 (2008)
  63. Nisbett, R., "Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgement" (1980), Prentice- Hall
  64. Novick, L. R., "Assessing Interactive Causal Inference", Psychological Review, 111, pp.455~485 (2004)
  65. Oakhill, J., "Believability and Syllogistic Reasoning", Cognition, 31, pp.117~140 (1989)
  66. Oberauer, K., "What Makes Us Believe a Conditional?: The Role of Covariation and Causality", Thinking & Reasoning, 13(4), pp.340~369 (2007)
  67. Osman, M., "An Evaluation of Dual-Process Theories of Reasoning", Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, pp.988~1010 (2004)
  68. Park, C. W., "Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics", Journal of Consumer Research, 8, pp.223~230 (1981)
  69. Petty, R. E., "Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches" (1981), WCB
  70. Petty, R. E., "Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change" (1986), Springer-Verlag
  71. Petty, R. E., "Thought Systems, Argument Quality, and Persuasion Advances in Social Cognition(vol.4)", pp.147~162 (1991), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  72. Raaij, W. F., "Conscious and Unconscious Processing in Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires in Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires", pp.330~339 (2005), Routledge
  73. Rao, A. R., "The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluation", Journal of Consumer Research, 15, pp.253~264 (1988)
  74. Rao, A. R., "The Effect of Prior Knowledge on Price Acceptability and the Type on Information Examined", Journal of Consumer Research, 19, pp.256~270 (1992)
  75. Reyna, V. F., "How People Make Decisions that Involve Risk: A Dual-Processes Approach", Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), pp.60~66 (2004)
  76. Robertson, T. S., "Consumer Behavior" (1984), Scott, Foresman
  77. Shanks, D. R., "Is Human Learning Rational?", Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, pp.257~279 (1995)
  78. Shanks, D. R., "Judging Covariation and Causation in Blackwell Handbook on Judgement and Decision Making", pp.220~239 (2004), Blackwell
  79. Sherif, C. W., "Personal Involvement, Social Judgement, and Action", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, pp.311~327 (1973)
  80. Sherif, M., "Social Judgement: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change" (1961), Yale Univ. Press
  81. Sloman, S. A., "The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning", Psychological Bulletin, 119, pp.3~22 (1996)
  82. Stanovich, K. E., "Who is Rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning" (1999), Erlbaum
  83. Stanovich, K. E., "Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for The Rationality Debate", Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, pp.645~726 (2000)
  84. Sujan, M., "Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgements", Journal of Consumer Research, 12, pp.31~46 (1985)
  85. Torrens, D., "Individual Differences and the Belief Bias Effect: Mental Models, Logical Necessity, and Abstract Reasoning", Thinking and Reasoning, 5, pp.1~28 (1999)
  86. Wilkins, M. C., "The Effect of Changed Material on the Ability to do Formal Syllogistic Reasoning", Archives of Psychology, 16, pp.102~102 (1928)
  87. Wood, W., "Retrieval of Attitude-Relevant Information From Memory: Effects on Susceptibility to Persuasion and on Intrinsic Motivation", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), pp.798~810 (1982)
  88. Wood, W., "Communicator Attributes and Persuasion: Recipients' Access to Attitude-Relevant Information in Memory", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(1), pp.172~182 (1988)
  89. Wyer, R. S., "Cognitive Organization and Change: An Information-Processing Approach" (1974), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  90. Wyer, R. S., "The Construction and Use of Thought Systems: Some Theoretical Ambiguities in Advances in Social Cognition (vol.4)", pp.203~214 (1991), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  91. Wyer, R. S., "A Probabilistic Analysis of the Relationships Between Beliefs and Attitudes", Psychological Review, 77, pp.100~120 (1970)
  92. Wyer, R. S., "Memory and Cognition in Its Social Context" (1980), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  93. Yi, Youjae, "Contextual Priming Effects in Print Advertisements: The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge", Journal of Advertising, 22(1), pp.1~10 (1993)

관련 논문AI추천

브랜드 관련정보에 대한 사전지식이 광고메시지 타당성 평가에 미치는 영향김현숙, 한상필한국광고PR실학회 · 광고PR실학연구2012 · 제5권 제2호선호 강도가 선호 불일치정보에 대한 소비자 반응에 미치는 영향 : 사전지식과 메시지 강도의 조절효과김문용, 김수영한국산업경영학회 · 경영연구2010 · 제25권 제2호소비자 지식이 사고체계와 온라인 탐색경향에 미치는 영향: 제품가격의 조절효과를 중심으로이미아, 이유재한국소비자학회 · 소비자학연구2012 · 제23권 제1호주목 유창성이 브랜드 연상과 평가에 미치는 영향: 소비자 지식의 조절효과류강석, 박기경, 풍부현한국소비문화학회 · 소비문화연구2024 · 제27권 제3호A Theoretical Investigation of Consumers’ Subjective Product Knowledge서미옥, 양연조, 윤성욱, Lisa L. Scribner한국소비문화학회 · 소비문화연구2005 · 제8권 제2호사전지식, 광고맥락, 처리목적이 광고정보처리에 미치는 영향양윤한국소비자·광고심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고2004 · 제5권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)

패션상품 고객충성 대상의 다면적 구조에 관한 연구이은영, 문희강pp. 1-25미국 소비자의 GM농식품 의무적 표시제를 위한 추가지불 의향한재환pp. 61-74소비자 불평행동 결정요인: 한국과 미국의 비교를 중심으로백병성, 이윤금pp. 75-98“소비자 - 기업 협력”에 대한 탐색적 연구: 소비자 참여 마케팅 활동 사례의 비판적 고찰구혜경, 나종연pp. 99-133프로슈머의 개념화와 성향측정도구 개발이기춘, 백혜란pp. 135-161
원문 보기