소비자 만족/불만족 판단과정에서 인지적 반응과 감성적 반응의 효과:제품성과에 대한 기능적 편익과 심리적 편익의 구분에 따른 연구 (The Effects of Cognitive and Emotional Responses on Consumer Satisfaction Judgment:Distinguishing Perceived Performance into Functional and Psychological Benefits)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국마케팅학회
· 수록지 정보 : 마케팅연구 / 22권 / 2호 / 1 ~ 20페이지
· 저자명 : 이학식, 최영진, 전선규

초록

소비자 만족과정에 대한 기대-불일치이론은 소비자 만족/불만족 판단이 소비자가 지각한 제품성과와 사전 기대수
준 간의 차이에 영향을 받는다고 주장한다. 제품성과에 대한 소비자의 평가는 실용적 동기(utilitarian motive) 뿐
아니라 쾌락적 동기(hedonic motive)에 의해서 결정되는 것임에도 불구하고, 기존 연구들은 소비자가 지각한 제품
성과의 대상으로서 제품의 심리적 결과(psychological consequences)는 고려하지 않고 기능적 결과(functional
consequences)에만 그 범위를 한정하고 있다.
본 연구는 제품성과를 기능적 편익(functional benefits)과 심리적 편익(psychological benefits)으로 구분하고
있다. 본 연구는 소비자 만족/불만족 판단이 불일치 평가와 감정경험에 의해 결정된다는 것을 주장하고, 이 중 불일
치 평가는 기능적 편익과 사전 기대수준 간 인지적 비교과정의 산물인 반면 감정경험은 심리적 편익에 대한 평가와
불일치 평가에 의해 유발된다는 것을 주장하고 있다. 실증분석 결과 제품성과가 만족/불만족 판단에 미치는 효과는
불일치 평가 및 감정경험에 의해 모두 매개되는 것으로 나타났다.

영어초록

Expectancy-discrepancy model, which postulates that (dis)satisfaction judgment is influenced by the discrepancy
between prior expectancy and perceived performance, has been extended to the comparison standard paradigm by
incorporating alternative comparison standards such as predictive expectations, desires, equity expectations, and
experience-based norms (Cadott, Woodruff, and Jenkins 1987; Churchill and Surprenant 1982; Spreng,
MacKenzie, and Olshavsky 1996; Oliver 1977; 1993; Oliver and Swan 1989 etc.). According to the comparison
standard paradigm, the perception of discrepancy between perceived performance and comparison standards is
presumed to be a cognitive term, since the discrepancy evaluation refers to the cognitive evaluation of the
confirmation or disconfirmation of comparison standards.
Current research that has been conducted from the comparison-standard perspective appears to assume that the
discrepancy of comparison standard is evaluated against the perceived performance in terms of functional
benefits, which refer to the utility generated as a consequence of product attributes. As a result, researchers have
paid less attention on the role of psychological benefits, which are related to the emotional experience in the
product usage as well as the social meanings attached to the product usage, in the process of satisfaction judgment.
Psychological benefits are more abstract and subjective consequences of product usage and are more related to
the self than functional benefits (Claeys, Swinnen, and Abeele 1995). It has been well documented that
consumers’ choices are guided by psychological benefits as well as functional benefits in a sense that consumers
tend to imbue a product with subjective meanings to supplement the concrete attributes it possesses and that
consumers’ desires to experience emotional arousal often dominate utilitarian motives in the consumption process
(Batra and Ahtola 1990; Gutman 1982; Hirschman and Holbrook 1982). In the context of consumer satisfaction
process, researchers suggest that post-purchase evaluation includes both the evaluation for functional
consequences and the evaluation for hedonic or social consequences (Fournier and Mick 1999; Mano and Oliver
1993). It is proposed that, in the process of satisfaction judgment, the evaluation of psychological benefits needs to
be distinguished from the evaluation of functional benefits.
The present study argues that the evaluation of functional benefits and the evaluation of psychological benefits
play different roles in the process of satisfaction judgment: functional benefits are rendered to the evaluation of
discrepancy, which influences the overall satisfaction directly and indirectly through affective experiences,
whereas psychological benefits influence the overall satisfaction indirectly only through affective experiences.
Hypotheses were developed with respect to the relationship between functional benefits and positive discrepancy
(H1), the relationship between psychological benefits and positivity of affective experience (H2-1), the
relationship between positive discrepancy and positivity of affective experience (H3-1), the relationship between
positive discrepancy and overall satisfaction (H4-1), and the relationship between positivity of affective
experience and overall satisfaction (H4-3).
Hypotheses were tested through a field study conducted for one hundred and sixty-four Korean college
students, who were asked to evaluate their experiences of sneakers. In-depth interviews were conducted with
fifteen college students, who were not included in the main study, in order to examine functional and psychological benefits as well as affect that college students experience in their usage of sneakers. Seven items of
functional benefits and four items of psychological benefits, which were most frequently mentioned in those
interviews, were selected. For the affective experience, six positive affect items were selected since negative affect
was rarely mentioned with respect to the usage of sneakers. Discrepancy evaluation was measured with two items
for the discrepancy of expectation and the discrepancy of desires. Satisfaction was measured with four items
modified from those used in Oliver’s (1980) study. For the purpose of maintaining reliability, one item measuring
psychological benefits and another item measuring affective experience were not included in the further analysis.
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for a measurement model that includes the five constructs such
as functional benefits, psychological benefits, evaluation of discrepancy, affective experience, and overall
satisfaction. It appears that the goodness-of-fit indices reached an acceptable level in general such as
χ2=117.01(d.f.=69, p=.00), CFI=.97, RMSEA=.07. It was found that the measures have convergent validity and
discriminant validity.
A structural equation model was specified to test the hypotheses and was analyzed through AMOS 6.0 (Figure
2). The model’s goodness-of-fit was acceptable in general with χ2=125.67(d.f.=73, p<.01), CFI=.96, and
RMSEA=.07. The relationships predicted by the previous five hypotheses were statistically significant with the
same direction predicted by the hypotheses. We also specified an alternative model that includes the path from
functional benefits to overall satisfaction, the path from functional benefits to positivity of affective experience,
the path from psychological benefits to overall satisfaction, and the path from the psychological benefits to
discrepancy evaluation. The model’s goodness-of-fit was similar with the previous one such as
χ2=117.01(d.f.=69, p<.01), CFI=.97, and RMSEA=.07, without a significant change in χ2 of 8.66(d.f.=4, ns).
These results indicate that the previous model is more acceptable than the alternative one in the sense of
parsimonious value. The analysis of the alternative model showed that the relationship between functional
benefits and overall satisfaction was not significant in a statistical sense and that the relationship between
psychological benefits and overall satisfaction was not significant either. These results combined with the
previous ones together imply that the effect of functional benefits on overall satisfaction was mediated by
discrepancy evaluation and that the effect of psychological benefits was mediated by affective experience.
The theoretical implication of the present study was discussed with respect to the differing roles of functional
benefits and psychological benefits in the process of satisfaction judgment. As the direct effect of functional
benefits on the overall satisfaction was not significant, the authors discussed the present findings with respect to
past studies that showed an independent effect of perceived performance on the overall satisfaction. Limitations as
well as directions for future research were also discussed.

참고자료

· 없음