소비자안전규제의 소비자 수용에 대한 연구 (An Analysis on Consumer Acceptance of Consumer Safety Regulations)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국소비자학회
· 수록지 정보 : 소비자학연구 / 21권 / 1호 / 135 ~ 159페이지
· 저자명 : 임한나, 여정성

초록

본 연구는 소비자안전규제에 대한 소비자의 수용 수준과 수용 동기를 파악하여 소비자친화적인 소비자안전규제의도입, 집행, 평가를 위한 정책적인 제언을 하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 소비자가 피규제자인 운전 중 통화 금지』규제와 자동차 속도제한 규제, 그리고 사업자가 피규제자인 일반의약품 약국 외 판매 금지 규제와 무면허 의료행위 금지 규제를 선정하여 소비자 조사를 실시하였으며 다음과 같은 결과를 도출하였다.
첫째, 소비자안전규제들에 대한 소비자들의 수용 태도에 있어서 응답자 대부분이 찬성한다고 응답하였으나, 수용행동에 있어서 운전 중 통화 금지 규제와 자동차 속도제한 규제에 준수한다는 응답은 낮게 나타난 반면, 일반의약품 약국 외 판매 금지 규제와 무면허 의료행위 금지 규제에 준수한다는 응답은 높게 나타났다. 수용 태도와수용 행동으로 소비자 집단을 분류해보면, 소비자가 피규제자인 규제의 경우 수용 태도와 수용 행동이 불일치하는집단의 비율이 높게 나타난 반면, 소비자가 피규제자가 아닌 규제의 경우는 수용 태도와 수용 행동이 일치하는 집단의 비율이 높게 나타났다. 둘째, 네 가지 규제 모두 공통적으로 규제의 필요성과 위반 시 위험 비용이 높게 평가된 반면, 다른 변수들에 있어서는 소비자가 피규제자인 규제들과 사업자가 피규제자인 규제들 사이에 응답자들의평가가 상이하게 나타났다. 또한 유독 일반의약품 약국 외 판매 금지 규제에 대하여 응답자들의 평가가 다르게나타나는 변수들이 발견되었다. 셋째, 계산적 동기 중 준수 비용에 해당하는 변수들은 규제 수용에 음의 영향을 미친 반면, 계산적 동기 중 위반 비용에 해당하는 변수들과 규범적 동기와 사회적 동기에 해당하는 변수들은 규제 수용에 양의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 수용 태도에 영향을 미치는 변수들과 수용 행동에 영향을 미치는변수들이 상이하게 나타났으며, 처벌 확률 및 처벌 크기는 규제 수용 행동에 대체로 영향을 미치지 못하였다.
이를 통해 소비자안전규제의 도입, 집행, 평가에 있어 절대적인 안전성만을 추구하기 보다는 소비자들이 중요하게여기는 다른 가치들 역시 고려해야 하고, 전통적 억제 방법의 한계를 인식해야 하며, 정책에 대한 소비자의 수용 태도와 수용 행동 모두를 측정해야 함을 알 수 있었다.

영어초록

This study aimed to provide some political suggestions for the formation, implementation,and evaluation of consumer safety regulations by analyzing consumer acceptance level of four consumer safety regulations and the factors affecting on consumer acceptance of the regulations. The consumer acceptance was analyzed into the acceptance attitude and the acceptance behavior and four consumer safety regulations were selected for this study: 1)speed limit; 2) restriction on using cellular phone while driving; 3) restriction on OTC drug sales; and 4) prohibition of unlicensed person from practicing nursing. The factors affecting on consumer acceptance of the regulations were composed of “Calculated motivation,”“Normative motivation,” “Social motivation,” and “Ability to accept,” and some demographic variables were added. “Calculated motivation” is divided into ‘Cost of observance’ and ‘Cost of violation’; ‘Economic cost,’ ‘Convenience cost,’ and ‘Quality cost’ belong to ‘Cost of observance’while ‘Safety cost,’ ‘Possibility of penalty,’ and ‘Degree of penalty’ belong to ‘Cost of violation.’“Normative motivation” includes ‘Necessity of the regulation’ and ‘Sense of guilty.’ and “Social motivation” includes ‘Agreement of others,’ ‘Observance of others,’ ‘Observance of providers,’and ‘Surveillance of the government.’ “Ability to accept” is measured by ‘Awareness of the regulations.’ An online survey on those regulations was conducted in September 2008 and the survey data collected from 500 adult consumers was used for this study. The results of this research are as follows.
First, in terms of the acceptance attitude, a majority of respondents were found to agree with the four consumer safety regulations. In terms of the acceptance behavior, however,less than 20% of respondents answered that they obeyed the speed limit and the restriction on using cellular phone while driving, whereas about 80% responded that they obeyed the other two regulations. When classifying consumers by the acceptance attitude and the acceptance behavior, most respondents belonged to “attitude-behavior inconsistency” groups regarding to the speed limit and the restriction on using cellular phone while driving.
However, most respondents belonged to “attitude-behavior consistency” groups regarding to the restriction on OTC drug sales and the prohibition of unlicensed person from practicing nursing.
Second, when evaluating each variables in motivation factors, the respondents recognized ‘Necessity of the regulation’ and ‘Safety cost’ highly. Also, they evaluated ‘Agreement of others’ higher than ‘Observance of others’ in common. However, between the two drivingrelated regulations and the other two regulations, there was a big difference in several variables. Furthermore, the evaluation toward the restriction on OTC drug sales was quite different from the evaluation of the other three regulations in most variables.
Third, this study found consistent directions among the motivation factors affecting consumer acceptance to the four consumer safety regulations. Also, it was found that there was a discrepancy between the variables affecting the acceptance attitude and the variables affecting the acceptance behavior. Lastly, certain variables such as ‘Possibility of penalty’and ‘Degree of penalty’, which were commonly expected to have important influences on observing regulations, had no influence on accepting any regulations.
Based on the research results, this study came to the following conclusions and presented implications for consumer safety regulations according to the policy process: 1) policy formation; 2) policy implementation; and 3) policy evaluation.
Regarding policy formation, it was found that ‘Safety cost’ when violating the regulations didn’t affect consumer’s acceptance behavior toward the three consumer safety regulations.
Therefore, not only safety but also other values should be considered when introducing consumer safety regulations.
In regard to policy implementation, the affecting variables on the acceptance attitude and those on the acceptance behavior were quite different. Therefore, the regulatory authorities should clarify their purpose of policy implementation, whether to improve the level of agreement or the level of observance. Also, ‘Possibility of penalty’ and ‘Degree of penalty’didn’t have significant influences on the acceptance attitude or the acceptance behavior.
Thus, the regulatory authorities should recognize the limitations of traditional deterrence approach. Third, it was found that consumers didn’t evaluate that the government made enough effort to supervise provider but ‘Observance of providers’ and ‘Surveillance of the government’ affected on the acceptance behavior toward the restriction on OTC drug sales.
Consequently, to increase the level of observance, the regulatory authorities should make enough effort to supervise providers. Fourth, this study found that the acceptance attitude and the acceptance behavior toward consumer safety regulations appeared differently according to some demographic variables. Regulatory authorities should devise managerial tools which fit to diverse consumer characteristics rather than “one size fits all” regulations.
Lastly, with regard to policy evaluation, this study found that consumer’s acceptance attitude and acceptance behavior didn’t coincide. Therefore, to understand consumer acceptance of consumer safety regulations accurately, the integrative analysis is required, which contains both the acceptance attitude and the acceptance behavior. This study also examined four consumer safety regulations and each regulation had its own results. Therefore, it is required that each regulation should be studied and evaluated individually.

참고자료

· 없음