조절적 동기가 시간적 분리 프레이밍 효과에 미치는 영향 (The Role of Regulatory Focus on the Temporal Reframing Effect)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국경영학회
· 수록지 정보 : 경영학연구 / 35권 / 5호 / 1283 ~ 1307페이지
· 저자명 : 나준희

초록

본 연구는 조절적 동기가 시간적 분리 프레이밍 효과에 어떠한 영향을 주는 지에 대해서 살펴보았다. 기존 연구에 의하면, 시간적 분리 프레이밍으로 제시하는 경우, 동등한 가치의 금액을 통합하여 제시하는 일시불 제시 프레이밍에 비해 소비자의 구매의도가 더욱 높았다. 이에 대해서 본 연구는 시간적 분리 프레이밍 효과가 소비자의 조절적 동기(향상동기vs. 예방동기)에 의해 조절되고 있음을 2개의 실험을 통해 검증하였다.
특히 선행연구에서는 가치를 소비하는 실험상황에만 한정하여 시간적 분리 프레이밍 효과를 살펴보았으나, 본 연구에서는가치가 축적되는 상황을 추가로 설정하여 시간적 분리 프레이밍이 소비자의 구매의도에 어떠한 영향을 미치는 지에 대해서 살펴보았다. 연구결과, 소비자의 조절적 동기는 시간적 분리 프레이밍 효과를 조절하였다. 즉, 가치가 소비되는 상황에서 시간적 분리 프레이밍 효과는 예방동기를 가진 소비자에게서만 나타났으며, 향상동기를 가진 소비자에게서는 나타나지 않았다. 반면에 가치가 축적되는 상황에서 일시불 제시 프레이밍 효과는 향상동기를 가진 소비자에게서만 나타났으며, 예방동기를 가진 소비자에게서는 나타나지 않았다.

영어초록

According to prior research, it is profitable to separate gain but to integrate loss. In respect of gain domain, it is higher psychological value that one experiences separated gain over time than that one does integrated gain all at once. In loss domain, however, this direction is the reverse - psychological value in the separated loss is higher than in the integrated it. This phenomenon is overall robust, but one cannot assert it always be true.
For example, many consumers prefer payment by installments to payment in a lump sum - this means separating loss is more preferred to integrating loss.
Also, recent advertisement copy says “Only 500 won a day, No concern about germs!” or “Only 800 won a day, Everyday car-washing & everyday new car!” - it places emphasis on benefit of “penny a day” against to burden of “payment in a lump sum.” Why do more consumers prefer “penny a day” to “lump sum?” In most context, “lump sum” functions as cost burden for consumers. But “penny a day” framing lightens this burden. So many companies include temporal reframing message in their advertising as like “penny a day.” Then, does “penny a day” framing always bring fortune on company? No, it does not.
Maybe individual difference is in existence. For example, one sensitive to cost is more affected by temporal reframing. Another consumer would rather prefer payment in a lump sum.
In this viewpoint, this study explores moderator of consumer preference for whether “penny a day” or “a lump sum.” I suggest regulatory focus as one of these moderating factors.
Higgins(1997) says promotional person focuses on gain-nongain frame, but preventional person focuses on loss-nonloss frame.
So it makes sense that promotional consumer is more interested in value-accumulating, whereas preventional consumer is more concerned with cost for consuming.
This research is composed of two experiments.
Ex. 1 explores context of “value-consuming.” That is, it equals cost-focusing context. This situation is expected to fit with prevention focus. Results confirm this expectation - preventional consumers are affected by temporal reframing, whereas promotional consumers are not. That is, preventional consumers prefer “penny a day” to “a lump sum,” whereas promotional consumers appears no difference.
Additional context of “value-accumulating” is explored through Ex. 2. This gain-focusing situation (e.g. psychological gain after donation) is expected to fit with promotional focus.
As if hypothesis, only promotional consumers responded to temporal reframing differentially.
That is, they prefer “a lump sum” to “penny a day.” But preventional consumers do not respond differentially.
Implications of this study can be summarized like followings.
First, in addition of prior research that only focus on value-consuming context, this research also focus on value-accumulating context.
Second, it is explored that the effect of regulatory focus with temporal reframing on consumer purchase intention - this is creative approach.
Finally, managerial implications also can be applied through this research’s results. For example, periodical installment savings vs. periodical savings, accumulative vs. mutual funds, and periodical little amount donation vs. aggregate donation etc.

참고자료

· 없음