본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

친숙하다고 다 받아 들일까? - 친숙성의 역효과에 관한 연구 -

The Backfire Effect of Familarity

김경민|김경진
한국소비자학회 (Korean Society Of Consumer Studies)|2014.06|소비자학연구 (Journal of Consumer Studies)|제25권 제3호|pp. 117-140

0

조회

0

다운로드

10

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

인지자원regulatory focusfamiliarity조절초점향상초점prevention focus친숙성독특성 욕구need for uniquenessdeliberation인지욕구promotion focusneed for cognition방어초점심사숙고cognitive resource
주제분류경제학

초록

단순노출효과는 단순한 접촉만으로 호감이 높아지는 현상을 보여주었다. 소비자는 반복접촉으로 친숙성이 높아진 대상에 대하여 인지적 편안함(fluency)을 느끼게 된다. 이 때, 편안한 느낌에 대해 그 대상이 장점이 많다고 오귀인(misattribution)하게 되어 호의적인 태도를 형성하게 된다고 한다. 그러나 이러한 오귀인을 시정하도록 지시하면 친숙성에 의한 자동적인 호감 효과가 사라지게 된다. 본 연구에서는 방어초점 소비자의 경계심을 활성화하는 조건에서 오귀인에 의한 친숙성 효과가 사라지고, 오히려 과조정(overcorrection)에 의한 친숙성의 역효과까지 일어날 수 있음을 제안하였다. 실험 1에서 인지적 자원이 충분한 방어초점 소비자에게 초기판단을 심사숙고하도록 지시하면, 친숙한 제품보다 덜 친숙한 제품을 더 호의적으로 평가하는 친숙성의 역효과를 보여주었다. 매개테스트 결과, 이 조건에서 소비자는 경계심(vigilance)을 많이 느끼는 것으로 나타났다. 다른 조건, 즉 향상초점이나 인지적 자원의 고갈, 또는 심사숙고 지시가 없는 경우에는 경계심 수준이 낮았으며, 친숙한 제품을 덜 친숙한 제품보다 더 호의적으로 평가하는 친숙성 효과가 나타났다. 실험 2에서 인지욕구가 높은 방어초점 소비자도 친숙성의 역효과를 보여준다는 것을 검증하였다. 실험 2에서는 실험 1과 달리 조절초점의 측정 대신 설정, 인지자원 설정 대신 인지욕구 측정, 친숙성의 측정 대신 설정이라는 다른 방법론을 취했는데도 동일한 결과가 나타나 친숙성의 역효과 현상을 거듭 확인해주었다. 실험 3은 실험 1, 2의 결과와 달리 경계심이 높아진 방어초점 소비자가 오히려 친숙성 효과를 보이고, 향상초점 소비자가 오히려 친숙성의 역효과를 보이는 현상을 보여주었다. 인지자원이 충분한 조건에서, 독특성 욕구가 높은 방어초점 소비자와 향상초점 소비자는 친숙성에 관한 각기 반대의 행동을 보여주었다.

Abstract

The mere exposure effect said that repeated mere exposures cumulate favor. Consumers who have been exposed repeatedly may feel fluency for the exposed things. Feeling fluency stimulates misattribution toward virtue of the exposed. Instruction against this misattribution, however, mitigates automatic favorable attitude of consumers who feel familiarity and fluency. This study suggested that prevention-focused consumers who are activated their vigilance do not take automatic favorable attitude for familiar things. All the more, the preventional consumers may put their attitude toward familarity negatively because of overcorrection process. Experiment 1 showed that the prevention-focused consumers who were under condition of proper cognitive resource and of deliberation instruction for their first judgment preferred the unfamiliar product to the familiar. Mediation test said that the preventional consumers under this condition felt vigilance. However, the other conditions related with promotion focus, cognitive depletion, or less deliberation induced the familiarity effect. Experiment 2 also showed that the prevention-focused consumers who had high need for cognition took negative attitude against familiarity. This experiment replicated the results of the first experiment through another methods, that is, manipulation of regulatory focus rather than measure, measure of need for cognition rather than depletion of cognitive resource, and manipulation of familiarity rather than measure. Experiment 3 suggested the opposit patterns of prior experiments, that is, the preventional consumers showed the familiarity effect, and the promotional consumers showed the backfire effect of familiarity under condition of proper cognitive resource and high need for uniqueness. Generally, our three experiments converged to one point that the interaction of prevention focus and vigilance might cause the backfire effect of familiarity. Vigilance may be caused by deliberation(=exp.1), or by need for cognition(=exp.2). Also, this study suggested that the interactive effect of promotion focus and need for uniqueness might take the backfire effect (=exp.3). Concludingly, various contexts can induce the dark side of familiarity, and so marketers must not to have a viewpoint of blind faith for familiarity effect.

참고문헌 (33)

  1. Ahluwalia, R., "Answering Questions about Questions: A Persuasion Knowledge Perspective for Understanding the Effects of Rhetorical Questions", Journal of Consumer Research, 31(June), pp.26~42 (2004)
  2. Bornstein, F. Robert., "Stimulus Recognition and the Mere Exposure Effect", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(October), pp.545~552 (1992)
  3. Bornstein, F. Robert., "The Attribution and Discounting of Perceptual Fluency: Preliminary Tests of a Perceptual Fluency", Attributional Model of the Mere Exposure Effect, 1994, pp.12(Summe), 103~128
  4. Chernev, A., "Goal Orientation and Consumer Preference for the Status Quo", Journal of Consumer Research, 31, pp.557~565 (2005)
  5. Crowe, E., "Inclinations : Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making", Organizational Behavioral and Human Decision Processes, 69, pp.117~132 (1997)
  6. Fang, Xiang., "An Examination of Different Explanations for the Mere Exposure Effect", Journal of Consumer Research, 34(June), pp.97~103 (2007)
  7. Higgins, E. T., "Beyond Pleasure and Pain", American Psychologist, 52(12), pp.1280~1300 (1998)
  8. Higgins, E. Troy., "Transfer of Value FromFit", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), pp.1140~1153 (2003)
  9. Janiszewski, Chris., "Transfer-Appropriate Processing, Response Fluency, and the Mere Measurement Effect", Journal of Marketing Research, 44(May), pp.309~323 (2007)
  10. Janiszewski, Chris., "Effects of Brand Logo Complexity, Repetition, and Spacing on Processing Fluency and Judgment", Journal of Consumer Research, 28(June), pp.18~32 (2001)
  11. Kahneman, Daniel., "Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases" (1982), Cambridge University Press
  12. Lanska, M., "Fluency Effects in Recognition Memory:Are Perceptual Fluency and Conceptual Fluency Interchangeable?", Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, 40(1), pp.1~11 (2013)
  13. Lee, Angela Y., "The Mere Exposure Effect : An Uncertainty Reduction Explanation Revisited", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), pp.1255~1266 (2001)
  14. Lee, Angela Y., "The Prevalence of Meta0cognitive Routes to Judgment", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), pp.349~355 (2004)
  15. Lee, Leonard., "In Search of Homo Economicus : Cognitive Noise and the Role of Emotion in Preference Consistency", Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), pp.173~187 (2009)
  16. Luce, Mary Frances, "Choosing to Avoid:Coping with Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions", Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), pp.409~433 (1998)
  17. Novemsky, Nathan., "Preference Fluency in Choice", Journal of Marketing Research, 44(August), pp.347~356 (2007)
  18. Pennington, G. L., "Self-regulatory focus and counterfactual though" (2000), Northwestern University
  19. Reber, Rolf., "Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Judgments of Truth", Consciousness and Cognition, 8(September), pp.338~342 (1999)
  20. Roese, N., "Counterfactual Thinking and Regulatory Focus : Implication for Action versus Inaction and Sufficiency versus Necessity", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, pp.1109~1120 (1999)
  21. Schwarz, Norbert, "Accessible Content and Accessibility Experiences : The Interplay of Declarative and Experiential Information in Judgment", Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(2), pp.87~99 (1998)
  22. Schwarz, Norbert., "Mood, Misattribution, and Judgments of Well-Being : Informative and Directive Functions of Affective States", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), pp.513~523 (1983)
  23. Schwarz, Norbert., "Ease of Retrieval as Information: Another Look at the Availability Heuristic", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(August), pp.195~202 (1991)
  24. Sengupta, Jaideep., "Disruption vs. Reinforcement: The Effects of Analyzing Reasons for Brand Preferences", Journal of Marketing Research, 37(August), pp.318~330 (2000)
  25. Simon, Herbert A., "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice", Quartely Journal of Economics, 69(1), pp.99~118 (1955)
  26. Simonson, Itamar., "The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making : Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons", Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), pp.49~68 (2000)
  27. Tversky, Amos., "Judgment Under Uncertainty : Heuristics and Biases", Science, 185(4157), pp.1124~1131 (1974)
  28. Wathieu, Luc., "The Asymmetric Effect of Discount Retraction on Subsequent Choice", Journal of Consumer Research, 31(December), pp.652~657 (2004)
  29. Wegener, D. T., "Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment : The Role of Naive Theories in Corrections for Perceived Bias", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), pp.36~50 (1995)
  30. Wilson, Timothy D., "Effects of Analyzing Reasons on Attitude-Behavior Consistency", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(July), pp.5~16 (1984)
  31. Winkielman, Piotr., "Mind at Ease Puts a Smile on the Face : Psychophysiological Evidence That Processing Facilitation Increases Positive Affect", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), pp.989~1000 (2001)
  32. Zajonc, Robert, "Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9(2), pp.1~27 (1968)
  33. Zhou, Rongrong., "Promotion and Prevention Across Mental Accounts:When Financial Products Dictate Consumers'Investment Goals", Journal of Consumer Research, 31(June), pp.125~135 (2004)

관련 논문AI추천

주목 유창성이 브랜드 연상과 평가에 미치는 영향: 소비자 지식의 조절효과류강석, 박기경, 풍부현한국소비문화학회 · 소비문화연구2024 · 제27권 제3호광고모델 친숙도의 효과에 관한 고찰: 중복 출연 친숙도와 일상 친숙도를 중심으로김문용, 황인석한국소비자학회 · 소비자학연구2011 · 제22권 제3호구성적 처리와 인지욕구가 반응양식에 따른 상표의 선호반전에 미치는 영향양윤, 유승희한국소비자·광고심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고2007 · 제8권 제2호브랜드 친숙도와 경험유무가 브랜드 평가에 미치는 영향력박성용, 현소은한국상품학회 · 상품학연구2014 · 제32권 제6호암묵적 기억성과에 따른 상표 친숙도, 상표 태도 및 상표 신뢰도의 변화에 대한 분석: 노출횟수와 정보처리유형을 중심으로김희영, 유창조, 현소은한국소비자학회 · 소비자학연구2008 · 제19권 제4호제품관련 인물의 긍정성이 제품태도에 미치는 영향: 인지적 자원의 조절효과나준희, 방장규, 이영일, 이인구한국상품학회 · 상품학연구2012 · 제30권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)

공유가치창출을 위한 기업의 역할 변화와 소비자 참여이지현, 이동일, 천혜정, 김시월pp. 1-20MMORPG 게임 내 캐릭터 커스터마이징과 게임 스토리 제공이 게임태도 및 각성(SCR)에 미치는 영향김지호, 권승원pp. 21-44보상 진행률, 보상프로그램 크기, 포인트 적립크기 정보가 소비자의 보상물 선택 행동에 미치는 영향박세훈, 김문용pp. 45-68Do Consumers Feel More Secure When They Consume Risky Products Under Stronger Regulation배용균pp. 69-94Analysis of consumer needs by converging verbal and non-verbal methods: Dimensions of consumer needs and differences among tools김기옥pp. 95-116
원문 보기