더하기보다 나은 빼기: 차별화 방식과 처리유창성이 프리미엄 제품 구매의도에 미치는 효과 = The Effects of added(vs. removed) attributes and processing fluency on premium product purchase intention

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Premium product represent high-quality, high-price strategies. Differentiated attribute should be emphasized for effective premium product. This can be divided into two types. The first type is to add new positive attributes(additional conditions). The second type is to remove existing negative attributes(removal conditions). According to previous studies, the added attributes are handled with other attributes(products). That is, an overall evaluation of the product is made. On the other hand, the removed attribute is evaluated separately, and information processing focusing on the attribute is performed. Also, the added attributes are important when emphasizing something new and special. However, attributes that are removed are important when emphasizing harmful and dangerous methods. Therefore, lower processing fluency(vs. higher processing fluency) may be effective in additional conditions(vs. removal conditions). Two experiments were conducted to verify the hypothesis. Experiment 1 examined the differences in purchase intentions according to 2(differentiation type: addition vs. removal)*2(processing fluency:high vs. low). However, in experiment 1, the value of the attributes differs according to the differentiation type(moisturization vs. trouble prevention). In order to compensate for this, Experiment 2 was conducted by controlling the attributes with the same value regardless of differentiation type. As a result of all the experiments, the main effect and interaction effect according to the differentiation method were significant. Therefore, it is effective to remove negative attributes rather than add positive attributes. Also, in the case of additional conditions(vs. removal conditions), it is effective to emphasize attribute and concept that consumers are unfamiliar(vs. familiar to everyone).

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구에서는 두 가지 차별화 방식의 효과를 비교하는 데 초점을 두었다. 하나는 기존제품이 가지고 있지 못한 새로운 긍정적 속성을 추가하는 방식이고, 다른 하나는 기존제품들이 모두 가지고 있는 부정적 속성을 제거하는 방식이다. 구체적으로, 제거되는 부정적 속성은 제품의 다른 긍정적 속성들과 분리 평가되어 그 속성의 가중치가 높아지지만, 더해지는 긍정적 속성은 다른 것들과 통합되어 전반적으로 평가된다. 또한, 부정적 속성이 긍정적 속성보다 더 현저하게 지각되고, 중요하게 인식되는 경향이 있다. 따라서 속성-추가 조건보다 속성-제거 조건이 더 높은 구매 의도를 보일 것으로 가정하였다(가설1). 더 나아가, 더해지는 속성은 그것이 얼마나 새롭고 특별한지가 중요하다, 반면, 제거되는 속성은 그것이 얼마나 해롭고 위험한지가 중요하다. 따라서 속성-추가 조건에서는 소비자들에게 익숙하지 않은 새로운 속성(즉, 처리유창성이 낮음)이 효과적일 것이나, 속성-제거 조건에서는 소비자들이 잘 알고 있는 속성(즉, 처리유창성이 높음)이 효과적일 것으로 가정하였다(가설2). 이를 검증하기 위해, 실험1은 차별화 방식(속성-추가 vs. 속성-제거)과 처리유창성 수준(저 vs. 고)에 따른 2×2 집단 간 요인설계 되었다. 실험결과, 차별화 방식의 주 효과와 두 변인 간 상호작용 효과가 유의하였다. 하지만 실험1은 추가된(혹은 제거된) 속성에 따라 제시되는 효용도 함께 달라진다는 한계점이 있었다(예, 추가-보습력 강화 vs. 제거-트러블 방지). 따라서 실험2에서는 모든 조건의 효용을 같게(즉, 추가와 제거 모두 자외선 차단력 강화) 통제하였고, 나머지 처치 변인은 실험1과 같았다. 그 결과, 실험1과 일관적으로, 차별화 방식의 주 효과와 상호작용 효과가 통계적으로 유의하였다. 따라서 속성을 추가하는 것보다 빼는 것이 더 효과적이며, 추가할 때에는 소비자들이 잘 모르는 속성(혹은 개념)을 활용하는 것이 바람직하다. 반면, 제거할 때에는 누구나 잘 알고 있는 속성(개념)을 강조하는 것이 효과적이다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 박지혜, "지각적 vs. 개념적 유창성이 복수 제품 선택에 미치는 영향: 고객 선택형 번들링을 중심으로" 한국마케팅학회 29 (29): 21-42, 2014
• 2 김재휘, "작은 패키지 사이즈가 자기통제 의도에 미치는 효과: 분리 효과와 조절초점을 중심으로" 한국소비자·광고심리학회 16 (16): 309-332, 2015
• 3 김재휘, "악한 제품의 건강 라벨링 유형이범주 지각 및 제품 평가에 미치는 효과" 한국소비자·광고심리학회 17 (17): 735-754, 2016
• 4 송미령, "식품 및 소비재에서의 무첨가 표기 마케팅의 후광효과(Halo Effect) 분석" 한국소비자·광고심리학회 17 (17): 199-222, 2016
• 5 김재휘, "메시지의 현출성과 수용자의 신념 및 지각된 정보가치가 구전의도에 미치는 영향" 한국사회및성격심리학회 18 (18): 91-105, 2004
• 6 남경태, "국내 소비자의 광고회의주의 수준과설득 지식과의 관계에 관한 탐색적 연구" 한국광고학회 27 (27): 7-27, 2016
• 7 Shapiro, S., "When an ad's influence is beyond our conscious control : Perceptual and conceptual fluency effects caused by incidental ad exposure" 26 (26): 16-36, 1999
• 8 Janiszewski, C., "Transfer-appropriate processing, response fluency, and the mere measurement effect" 44 (44): 309-323, 2007
• 9 Kahneman, D., "Timid choices and bold forecasts : A cognitive perspective on risk taking" 39 (39): 17-31, 1993
• 10 Fastoso, F., "The"little emperor"and the luxury brand : How overt and covert narcissism affect brand loyalty and proneness to buy counterfeits" 35 (35): 522-532, 2018
• 11 Walker, C. J., "The virulence of dread rumors: A field experiment" Language & Communication 1991
• 12 Kardes, F. R., "The role of selective information processing in price-quality inference" 31 (31): 368-374, 2004
• 13 Bertini, M., "The impact of add-on features on consumer product evaluations" 36 (36): 17-28, 2008
• 14 Hsee, C. K., "The evaluability hypothesis : An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives" 67 (67): 247-257, 1996
• 15 Lee, A. Y., "The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation" 41 (41): 151-165, 2004
• 16 Winkielman, P., "The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion" 189-217, 2003
• 17 Meyers-Levy, J., "Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation" 16 (16): 39-54, 1989
• 18 Gershoff, A. D., "Safety first? The role of emotion in safety product betrayal aversion" 38 (38): 140-150, 2011
• 19 Kahneman, D., "Prospect theory : An analysis of decision under risk" 47 (47): 263-291, 1979
• 20 Wathieu, L., "Price as a stimulus to think : The case for willful overpricing" 26 (26): 118-129, 2007
• 21 Hsee, C. K., "Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options : a review and theoretical analysis" 125 (125): 576-, 1999
• 22 Novemsky, N., "Preference fluency in choice" 44 (44): 347-356, 2007
• 23 Diehl, K., "Organizing products with complements versus substitutes : Effects on store preferences as a function of effort and assortment perceptions" 91 (91): 1-18, 2015
• 24 Chandy, R. K., "Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize" 474-487, 1998
• 25 Liu, X., "Open innovation: is it a good strategy in consumers’ eyes?" 21 (21): 2017
• 26 Spiller, S. A., "On consumer beliefs about quality and taste" 43 (43): 970-991, 2016
• 27 Park, J. H., "New product pricing strategy under customer asymmetric anchoring" 28 (28): 309-318, 2011
• 28 Halkias, G., "Mental representation of brands : a schema-based approach to consumers’ organization of market knowledge" 24 (24): 438-448, 2015
• 29 Thaler, R., "Mental accounting and consumer choice" 4 (4): 199-214, 1985
• 30 Hsee, C. K., "Magnitude, time, and risk differ similarly between joint and single evaluations" 40 (40): 172-118, 2013
• 31 Silverstein, M. J., "Luxury for the masses" 81 (81): 48-57, 2003
• 32 Slovic, P., "Insights in decision making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn" 5-27, 1990
• 33 Antia, K. D., "How does enforcement deter gray market incidence?" 70 (70): 92-106, 2006
• 34 Richardson, P. S., "Household store brand proneness : a framework" 72 (72): 159-185, 1996
• 35 Wyner, G. A., "Get serious about pricing" 14 (14): 4-, 2002
• 36 Alavi, S., "Gambled price discounts : a remedy to the negative side effects of regular price discounts" 79 (79): 62-78, 2015
• 37 Herr, P. M., "Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion : An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective" 17 (17): 454-462, 1991
• 38 Reber, R., "Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth" 8 (8): 338-342, 1999
• 39 Reber, R., "Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments" 9 (9): 45-48, 1998
• 40 Lee, A. Y., "Effects of implicit memory on memory-based versus stimulus-based brand choice" 39 (39): 440-454, 2002
• 41 Haws, K. L., "Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions" 33 (33): 304-311, 2006
• 42 Kim, H. C., "Do materialists prefer the"brand-as-servant"? The interactive effect of anthropomorphized brand roles and materialism on consumer responses" 42 (42): 284-299, 2015
• 43 Hsee, C. K., "Distinction bias : Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation" 86 (86): 680-, 2004
• 44 Tang, S., "Disloyalty aversion : Greater reluctance to bet against close others than the self" 140 : 1-13, 2017
• 45 Alba, J. W., "Dimensions of consumer expertise" 13 (13): 411-454, 1987
• 46 Ma, Z., "Core versus peripheral innovations : The effect of innovation locus on consumer adoption of new products" 52 (52): 309-324, 2015
• 47 Tversky, A., "Contingent weighting in judgment and choice" 95 (95): 371-, 1988
• 48 Campbell, M. C., "Consumers' use of persuasion knowledge : The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent" 27 (27): 69-83, 2000
• 49 Ahluwalia, R., "Consumer response to negative publicity : The moderating role of commitment" 37 (37): 203-214, 2000
• 50 Zeithaml, V. A., "Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence" 2-22, 1988
• 51 Trope, Y., "Construal levels and psychological distance : Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior" 17 (17): 83-95, 2007
• 52 Denes-Raj, V., "Conflict between intuitive and rational processing : When people behave against their better judgment" 66 (66): 819-, 1994
• 53 Kuester, S., "Comparing the incomparable? How consumers judge the price fairness of new products" 32 (32): 272-283, 2015
• 54 Allard, T., "Comparative price and the design of effective product communications" 81 (81): 16-29, 2017
• 55 Shafir, E., "Choosing versus rejecting : Why some options are both better and worse than others" 21 (21): 546-556, 1993
• 56 Kahneman, D., "Choices, value and frames" 39 (39): 341-350, 1984
• 57 Labroo, A. A., "Between two brands : A goal fluency account of brand evaluation" 43 (43): 374-385, 2006
• 58 Ackerman, D. S., "Assuring me that it is as ‘Good as New’just makes me think about how someone else used it. Examining consumer reaction toward marketer provided information about secondhand goods" 16 (16): 233-241, 2017
• 59 Lee, D. H., "An alternative explanation of consumer product returns from the postpurchase dissonance and ecological marketing perspectives" 32 (32): 49-64, 2015