번들제품 유형이 양가적 반응에 미치는 영향: 제품특성(평가속성기준, 대안수)과 소비자특성(심적 계좌, 심적 시뮬레이션)의 조절효과를 중심으로 (The Influence of Bundling Type on Ambivalent Response: The Moderating Roles of Product and Consumer Characteristics)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국유통학회
· 수록지 정보 : 유통연구 / 27권 / 2호 / 21 ~ 46페이지
· 저자명 : 박효현, 정강옥

초록

유통업체가 촉진으로 자주 사용하는 번들에 대한 소비자반응을 실험으로 접근한 본 연구는 다음과 같은 목적으로 이루어졌다. 첫째는 번들제품 유형(실용재 vs. 쾌락재)이 긍정과 부정이 동시에 공존하는 감정인 양가적 반응에 미치는 영향에 대해 살펴보는 것이다. 둘째는 번들제품 유형이 양가적 반응에 미치는 영향에서 제품특성(평가속성기준, 대안수)이 어떤 조절적 역할을 하는지 규명해 보는 것이다. 셋째는 번들제품 유형이 양가적 반응에 미치는 영향에서 소비자특성(심적 계좌, 심적 시뮬레이션)이 어떤 조절적 역할을 하는지 분석해 보는 것이다.
연구결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째로 번들제품 유형이 양가적 반응에 다른 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 구체적으로는 실용재 번들보다 쾌락재 번들이 양가적 반응에 더 높은 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째로 번들제품 유형이 양가적 반응에 미치는 영향은 평가속성기준에 따라 다른 것으로 나타났다. 구체적으로는 실용재 번들인 경우에는 단일결과성보다 다중결과성에서 양가적 반응이 더 높게 나타났다. 반면에 쾌락재 번들인 경우에는 다중결과성보다 단일결과성에서 양가적 반응이 더 높게 나타났다. 셋째로 번들제품 유형이 양가적 반응에 미치는 영향은 대안수에 따라 다른 것으로 나타났다. 구체적으로는 실용재 번들인 경우에는 대안수가 적은 때보다는 많은 때에서 양가적 반응이 더 높게 나타났다. 반면에 쾌락재 번들인 경우에는 대안수가 많은 때보다는 적은 때에서 양가적 반응이 더 높게 나타났다. 넷째로 번들제품 유형이 양가적 반응에 미치는 영향은 심적 계좌에 따라 다르게 나타나지는 않는 것으로 밝혀졌다. 마지막으로 번들제품 유형이 양가적 반응에 미치는 영향은 심적 시뮬레이션에 따라 다른 것으로 나타났다. 구체적으로는 실용재 번들인 경우에는 결과 시뮬레이션인 때보다 과정 시뮬레이션인 때에서 양가적 반응이 더 높게 나타났다. 반면에 쾌락재 번들인 경우에는 과정 시뮬레이션인 때보다 결과 시뮬레이션인 때에서 양가적 반응이 더 높게 나타났다. 이상의 연구결과를 바탕으로 번들을 이용한 촉진에서 번들제품 유형, 제품특성, 소비자특성에 관한 이론적, 실무적 시사점에 대해 제시하였다.

영어초록

This study is to investigate the influence of bundling type on ambivalent response which is a state of having simultaneous conflicting reactions, beliefs, or feelings towards bundled packaging. It is hypothesized that hedonic bundled packaging would trigger ambivalent response more than utilitarian one. And it examines the moderating roles of product characteristic variables such as criteria of evaluation attribute and choice set size on the relationship between bundling type and ambivalent response. It also looks into the moderating effects of consumer characteristic variables such as mental account, mental simulation on the relationship between bundling type and ambivalent response. Hypotheses are set as follows.
H1: The influence of the bundling type on ambivalent response will be different. Specifically, hedonic bundled packaging will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than utilitarian one.
H2: The influence of the bundling type on ambivalent response will vary depending on the criteria of evaluation attribute.
H2-1: In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, multi-finality will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than uni-finality.
H2-2: In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, uni-finality will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than multi-finality.
H3: The influence of the bundling type on ambivalent response will vary depending on the choice set size.
H3-1: In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, large number of alternatives will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than small number of ones.
H3-2: In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, small number of alternatives will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than large number of ones.
H4: The influence of the bundling type on ambivalent response will vary depending on the mental account.
H4-1: In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, the mental account will be likely to have no interaction effect on the relationship between bundling type and ambivalent response.
H4-2: In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, the specific level of the mental account will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than the comprehensive level of the mental account.
H5: The influence of the bundling type on ambivalent response will vary depending on the mental simulation.
H5-1: In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, the process-focused simulation will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than the outcome-focused simulation.
H5-2: In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, the outcome-focused simulation will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than the process-focused simulation.
Several experiment are conducted to collect data. The subject samples are selected from college students using convenience sampling method in Daejeon Metropolitan City. Laundry detergent and ramen are selected as experimental products. The data are analyzed with IBM SPSS 24.0 statistics program. T-test (H1) and 2×2 analysis of variance (H2, H3, H4, H5) are used to test the hypotheses. In addition, frequency and reliability analysis are conducted.
The results of the study can be summarized as follows. First, it is revealed that bundling type has different influence on ambivalent response of bundled product. Specifically, hedonic bundled packaging triggers higher influence on ambivalent response than utilitarian one. Second, it shows that the criteria of evaluation attribute has a moderating role on the type of bundling type affecting ambivalent response. In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, multi-finality has higher influence on ambivalent response than uni-finality. In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, uni-finality has higher influence on ambivalent response than multi-finality. Third, it shows that the choice set size has a moderating role on the type of bundling type affecting ambivalent response. In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, large number of alternatives has higher influence on ambivalent response than small number of ones. In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, small number of alternatives has higher influence on ambivalent response than large number of ones. Fourth, the mental simulation has a moderating role on the type of bundling type affecting ambivalent response. In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, there is no difference on ambivalent response depending on the type of mental account. In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, the specific level of the mental account has higher influence on ambivalent response than the comprehensive level of the mental account. Fifth, mental simulation has a moderating role on the type of bundling type affecting ambivalent response. In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, the process-focused simulation has higher influence on ambivalent response than the outcome-focused simulation. In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, the outcome-focused simulation has higher influence on ambivalent response than the process-focused simulation. In the end, the implications, limitations and future research directions based on the study results are discussed and suggested.

참고자료

· 없음