보상물의 속성정보 제시와 평가방식이 보상물의 선호 역전에 미치는 영향 (Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Rewards:The Role of the Manner of Attribute Information Presentation)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국마케팅학회
· 수록지 정보 : 마케팅연구 / 22권 / 4호 / 197 ~ 215페이지
· 저자명 : 박세훈, 김문용

초록

본 연구는 고객 보상프로그램으로 널리 이용되고 있는‘포인트 제도’를 시행함에 있어서, 소비자에게 제공하는 보상
물을 보다 효과적으로 설계하기 위하여 보상물의 속성 정보 특성(비교 용이성, 질적으로 풍부한 특성, 평가용이성)을
고려하여 이를 어떻게 구성하여 제시하느냐가 보상물의 평가방식(단독평가; SE vs. 공동평가; JE)에 따른 소비자의
보상물에 대한 선호 역전에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가를 살펴보았다. 본 연구는 실험을 통해 다음과 같은 결과를 도출
하였다. 품질은 비슷하지만 수령 가능한 포인트에서 차이가 나는 보상물 간의 선호(선택) 행동에서 보상물 간 포인트
차이가 적은 경우에는 낮은 포인트를 요구하는 보상물 대비 높은 포인트를 요구하는 보상물의 선호도가 단독평가와
공동평가에서 모두 차이가 없었지만(가설 1-1), 보상물 간 포인트 차이가 많은 경우에는 낮은 포인트를 요구하는 보
상물 대비 높은 포인트를 요구하는 보상물의 선호도가 단독평가에서는 여전히 차이가 없는데 반해 공동평가에서는
감소함을 보였다(가설 1-2). 또한, 품질은 비슷하지만 수령 가능한 포인트에서 적은 차이가 나는 보상물 간의 선호
(선택) 행동에서 낮은 포인트와 높은 포인트를 정당화하는 비교가 용이하면서 평가용이성이 높은 속성이 추가되면 낮
은 포인트를 요구하는 보상물 대비 높은 포인트를 요구하는 보상물의 선호도는 단독평가와 공동평가에서 모두 추가
속성이 제시되기 전보다 제시된 후에 증가함을 보였다(가설 2). 한편, 품질은 비슷하지만 수령 가능한 포인트에서 많
은 차이가 나는 보상물 간의 선호(선택) 행동에서 낮은 포인트와 높은 포인트를 정당화하는 비교가 용이하면서 평가
용이성이 높은 속성이 추가되면 평가방식(SE vs. JE)과 추가속성의 제시여부에 따라서 낮은 포인트를 요구하는 보상
물과 높은 포인트를 요구하는 보상물 간에 선호역전이 발생함을 확인하였다(가설 3). 즉, 단독평가에서는 낮은 포인
트와 높은 포인트를 정당화하는 추가속성이 제시되기 전보다 제시된 후에 낮은 포인트를 요구하는 보상물보다 높은
포인트를 요구하는 보상물을 선호하는데 반해서(가설 3-1), 공동평가에서는 추가속성이 제시된 후보다 제시되기 전
에 높은 포인트를 요구하는 보상물보다 낮은 포인트를 요구하는 보상물을 선호함을 확인하였다(가설 3-2). 이러한
연구결과가 제시하는 이론적·실무적 시사점들을 제안하였고, 마지막으로 본 연구의 한계점과 미래 연구방향에 대해
서도 논의하였다.

영어초록

Consumer reward programs offer a reward for a repeatedly purchasing from the same marketer. The
increasing popularity of reward programs has given rise to a new currencies such as points that people
accrue, save and spend much like traditional paper money. In a typical reward program, consumers earn
a number of points for every purchase they make, and then they can exchange a specified number of
points for a reward based on reward information in terms of points and other features. In this article, thus,
we examined which attribute information (i.e., comparable attribute, enriched attribute, high- or lowevaluability
attribute) to provide or not to provide as well as how to design and present attribute
information would influence consumer preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of
rewards when each reward is presented singly(i.e., separate evaluation; SE) or when the two rewards are
presented jointly(i.e., joint evaluation; JE).
Our research proposes that (a) in both separate evaluation(i.e., SE) and joint evaluation(i.e., JE)
conditions, there is no difference in preference for a reward requiring higher points over a reward
requiring lower points as the difference in the specified points between the two rewards gets
smaller(hypothesis 1-1); (b) when the difference in the specified points between the two rewards gets
larger, there is no difference in preference for a reward requiring higher points over a reward requiring
lower points in the SE condition, whereas in the JE condition, a preference for a reward requiring higher
points over a reward requiring lower points decreases(hypothesis 1-2); (c) in both SE and JE conditions,
as the difference in the specified points between the two rewards gets smaller, a relative preference for a
reward requiring higher points over a reward requiring lower points increases when a high-evaluability
and comparable feature, which justifies a reward requiring higher points or lower points respectively, is
added to the reward information than when it is not(hypothesis 2); (d) as the difference in the specified
points between the two rewards gets larger, preference reversals between separate and joint evaluations
of rewards requiring higher or lower points are observed depending on whether a feature justifying a
reward requiring higher points or lower points respectively is added to the reward
information(hypothesis 3). More specifically, in the SE condition, a reward requiring higher points is
preferred over a reward requiring lower points when a high-evaluability and comparable feature, which
justifies a reward requiring higher points or lower points respectively, is added to the reward information
than when it is not(hypothesis 3-1), whereas in the JE condition, a reward requiring lower points is
preferred over a reward requiring higher points when a high-evaluability and comparable feature, which
justifies a reward requiring higher points or lower points respectively, is not added to the reward
information than when it is(hypothesis 3-2).
To test all the hypotheses, 347 respondents were randomly assigned to one of 12 conditions in a 2(the
difference in the specified points between the two rewards requiring higher or lower points: small vs.
large) 2(the presence or absence of the added feature-hotel classification: no added feature vs. added
feature) 3(evaluation mode: SE1-France tour package reward vs. SE2-Italy tour package reward vs.
JE-France tour package reward/Italy tour package reward) mixed factorial design: The effects of the
difference in the specified points between the two rewards requiring higher or lower points and the
presence or absence of the added feature on reward preference/choice were examined between subjects,
while the effect of evaluation mode on reward preference/choice was examined within subjects. As a
reward requiring higher points, Italy tour package (small difference:16,000 points, large
difference:20,000 points) was chosen, whereas France tour package(small difference:14,000 points, large
difference:10,000 points) was selected as a reward requiring lower points.
The results from our experiment indicate that (a) in both SE and JE conditions, there is no difference
in preference for a reward requiring higher points over a reward requiring lower points as the difference
in the specified points between the two rewards gets smaller; (b) when the difference in the specified
points between the two rewards gets larger, there is no difference in preference for a reward requiring higher points over a reward requiring lower points in the SE condition, whereas in the JE condition, a
preference for a reward requiring higher points over a reward requiring lower points decreases; (c) in
both SE and JE conditions, as the difference in the specified points between the two rewards gets smaller,
a relative preference for a reward requiring higher points over a reward requiring lower points increases
when a high-evaluability and comparable feature, which justifies a reward requiring higher points or
lower points respectively, is added to the reward information than when it is not; (d) as the difference in
the specified points between the two rewards gets larger, preference reversals between separate and joint
evaluations of rewards requiring higher or lower points are observed depending on whether a feature
justifying a reward requiring higher points or lower points respectively is added to the reward
information. More specifically, in the SE condition, a reward requiring higher points is preferred over a
reward requiring lower points when a high-evaluability and comparable feature, which justifies a reward
requiring higher points or lower points respectively, is added to the reward information than when it is
not, whereas in the JE condition, a reward requiring lower points is preferred over a reward requiring
higher points when a high-evaluability and comparable feature, which justifies a reward requiring higher
points or lower points respectively, is not added to the reward information than when it is. On the basis of
the results, theoretical and managerial implications, limitations, and directions for further research are
discussed.

참고자료

· 없음