조절초점(regulatory focus)이 선택대안의 구성에 미치는 영향: 만족/불만족 경험의 조절효과 (Effect of Regulatory Focus on The Composition of Consideration Set: The Moderating Effect of (dis)Satisfactory Experience)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국소비자학회
· 수록지 정보 : 소비자학연구 / 24권 / 3호 / 99 ~ 122페이지
· 저자명 : 정유정, 성정연, 전선규

초록

본 연구에서는 소비자의 조절초점이 선택대안을 구성하는 과정에 미치는 영향은 해당 제품 혹은 관련 제품에 대한 선행 구매의 결과 즉, 만족/불만족 경험에 따라 달라질 수 있다는 점을 주장하고 있다. 기존 연구에서는 일반적으로 열망, 성취의 동기 측면에서 향상초점(promotion focus)을 갖는 소비자가 안전 지향의 동기 측면에서 방어초점(prevention focus)을 갖는 소비자에 비해 고려 상표군(consideration set)의 형성에 있어 더 많은 개수의 대안을 포함할 뿐 아니라 상호 이질적인 대안을 포함한다고 주장하고 있다. 그러나 실제 소비상황에서 벌어지는 소비자의 구매 결정은 선행 구매경험의 결과에 영향을 받는다는 점을 고려해보면, 동일 제품의 재구매 및 관련 제품의 대체구매에 있어서 고려 상표군의 구성은 선행 구매결과의 만족/불만족 경험에 영향을 받을 수 있다. 본 연구에서는 조절초점이 고려 상표군의 구성에 미치는 영향은 선행 구매경험의 만족/불만족에 의해 조절될 수 있다는 점을 제안하며 특히, 불만족 경험을 한 경우에는 방어초점을 갖는 소비자도 풍부하고 이질적인 고려 상표군을 구성하게 된다는 점을 주장한다.
연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 선행 구매결과에 대해 만족 경험을 하는 경우, 향상초점의 소비자는 방어초점의 소비자에 비해 더 많은 개수의 대안 및 범주(category)의 개수를 고려대안에 포함하였다. 둘째, 선행 구매결과에 대해 불만족 경험을 한 경우, 고려대안의 구성에 있어서 향상초점을 갖는 소비자와 방어초점을 갖는 소비자 간의 대안의 개수 및 범주의 개수는 차이를 보이지 않았다. 셋째, 불만족 경험 후에 향상초점과 방어초점 간의 대안의 개수 및 범주의 차이가 나타나지 않는 것은 방어초점의 개수 증가에 의한 것으로 나타났다.

영어초록

The past studies that employed experiment to investigate the effect of regulatory focus on consumer decision making were mostly conducted under the assumption that participants did not have pre-purchase experiences for the same or similar ones with the focal product that was used in the experiment. However, we suggest that pre-purchase experience in terms of satisfaction and dissatisfaction is likely to moderate the effect of regulatory focus on the decision making process in the subsequent purchase. Positive and negative post-purchase attitudes are likely to have varying influences on consumers' information processing, particularly in terms of the construction of consideration set, in the sense that product experience is incorporated into the existing knowledge and in turn influences the subsequent information process for the next purchase(Hoch and Deighton 1989). Furthermore, literature suggests asymmetrical effects of positive versus negative events on cognition such that, compared to positive experiences, negative experiences increase cognitive motivation to learn in order to avoid negative outcomes and lead to narrowing down and focusing attention to features that elicited the negative events(Taylor 1991; Hutchison 2002). This implies that, following dissatisfactory experiences(vs. satisfactory experiences), consumers are more likely to elaborate on searching and evaluating alternatives for the subsequence purchase.
Based on the theory of negativity asymmetry, the present study argues that the regulatory focus effect on the construction of consideration set is moderated by the pre-purchase experience of (dis)satisfaction. Specifically, it is suggested that consumers with prevention focus(vs. promotion focus) are more likely to have a large consideration set in terms of number of alternatives and number of product categories when their pre-purchase experiences were dissatisfactory(vs. satisfactory). In line with this reasoning, we develop the following hypotheses.


H1a:For satisfactory(vs. dissatisfactory) pre-purchase experience, those with promotion focus(vs. prevention focus) will produce larger numbers of alternatives that are included in the consideration set.
H1b:For dissatisfactory (vs. satisfactory) pre-purchase experience, number of alternatives will not different whether between promotion focus and prevention focus.
H2a:For satisfactory(vs. dissatisfactory) pre-purchase experience, those with promotion focus(vs. prevention focus) will produce larger numbers of categories that are included in the consideration set.
H2b:For dissatisfactory (vs. satisfactory) pre-purchase experience, number of categories will not different whether between promotion focus and prevention focus.


The hypotheses were tested through an experiment for 148 college students. We employed 2*2 between-subject factorial design(regulatory focus: promotion(n=72) vs. prevention(n=76), satisfaction(n=74) vs. dissatisfaction(n=74)). For testing H1a and H1b, number of alternatives was subjected to a general linear model that included regulatory focus, (dis)satisfaction, and their interaction as independent variables. The main effect of regulatory focus(F(1, 147)=1.80, ns) and that of (dis)satisfaction(F(1, 147)=0.02, ns) were not significant. However, the interaction effect between regulatory focus and (dis)satisfaction was statistically significant(F(1, 147)= 6.57, p<0.05). For satisfactory pre-purchase experience, those with promotion focus produced larger numbers of alternatives that are included in the consideration set(13.39 vs. 10.26, t= 2.4, p<0.05). H1a was supported. On the other hand, for dissatisfactory pre-purchase experience, number of alternatives was not statistically different whether between promotion focus and prevention focus(11.44 vs. 12.42, t=1.03, ns), supporting H1b.
For testing H2a and H2b, number of categories was subjected to a general linear model that included regulatory focus, (dis)satisfaction, and their interaction as independent variables. The main effect of regulatory focus(F(1, 147)=1.14, ns) and that of (dis)satisfaction(F(1, 147)= 1.61, ns) were not significant. However, the interaction effect between the two was marginally significant(F(1, 147)=3.28, p<0.10). For satisfactory(vs. dissatisfactory) pre-purchase experience, those with promotion focus(vs. prevention focus) produced larger numbers of categories that are included in the consideration set(6.81 vs. 5.92, t=1.86, p<0.10). H2a was supported. On the other hand, for dissatisfactory(vs. satisfactory) pre-purchase experience, number of categories was not statistically different whether between promotion focus and prevention focus(6.64 vs. 6.87, t=0.59, ns), supporting H2b.

참고자료

· 없음