카테고리 효과 대 랭킹 효과: 타인 선물과 본인 사용 간의사결정 차이에 대한 해석수준의 영향을 중심으로 = Category- vs. Ranking-Effect: Influence of Construal Level on the Decision-Making Differences between Gift Giving and Self Use

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Consumers are often faced with the decision-making dilemma of a trade-off between a low-ranking model of a high-status brand (e.g., an Audi’s lowest quality model) and a high-ranking model of a low-status brand (e.g., a Volkswagen’s highest quality model), when their prices are approximately the same. Leclerc, Hsee, and Nunes (2005) conceptualized the relative preference between the two products in such a dilemma. The category effect refers to when consumers favor a low-ranking member of a high-status category over a high-ranking member of a low-status category because they evaluate the items based on the categories to which they belong. In the meantime, the ranking effect means that a high-ranking member of a low-status category is evaluated more favorably, since they are assessed based on their rank within their categories. In addition, it has been argued that since these effects are moderated by an evaluation mode, the category effect appears in the joint evaluation mode whereas the ranking effect is seen in the separate evaluation mode. The current study suggests that another factor influences the ranking and category effects, in addition to the evaluation mode. We propose construal level as a determining factor, and attempt to demonstrate this empirically. At a high level of construal, people tend to focus on abstract benefits and make the mental representation at superordinate levels, so they are likely to refer to broad referents at higher levels. Therefore, it was expected that the category effect, which means that objects are evaluated based on the status or desirability of the categories to which they belong, was more likely to prevail at the high construal level. On the other hand, at the low construal level, people tend to focus on the concrete “how” aspects of the object and make mental representations at subordinate levels, so they are likely to focus on immediate narrow referents at lower levels. Thus, it was predicted that the construing of objects in a low level would allow the ranking effect to appear, under which objects are evaluated based on their position or rank within the category. To test these research hypotheses, a total of 4 experiments with various products were conducted, where psychological distance between the decision maker and the target user was manipulated by associating the purchase situation with use for self versus a gift for others. Since the products presented as gifts are often limited by beneficiaries’ gender and age, experiments 1A through 1C were performed by adopting the same experimental design and procedure in the context of various products including pizza, cosmetic cream and a beauty salon. In three experiments, participants were randomly assigned to one condition in a 2 (target user: self vs. gift for others) × 2 (mind-set: how vs. why) between-subject design. They were then instructed to imagine that they were considering purchasing the product for themselves or as a gift for others. After the “how” or the “why” mind-set was primed in correspondence to the experimental condition, participants were offered two options: a low-ranking model of a high-status brand, and a high-ranking model of a low-status brand. The prices of the two options were set to be equivalent. In turn, they were asked to indicate their relative preference and choice between these two conflicting options. Finally, the manipulation check for brand status, model ranking, and mind-set were conducted. All manipulations turned out to be successful. The converging results from this set of experiments were revealed as follows. First, the category effect was found when people decided to purchase a gift for others, whereas the ranking effect was observed when people decided to purchase for their own use (Hypothesis 1). Second, while the category effect prevailed in a “why” mind-set, the ranking effect was more likely in a “how” mind-set (Hypothesis 2). Lastly, priming the mind-set to be mismatched with the psychological distance between the decision maker and the product diminished these effects. Specifically, priming the “how” mind-set seemed to attenuate the category effect in the condition of purchasing a gift for others, whereas the “why” mind-set prime appeared to diminish the ranking effect in the condition of purchasing for self (Hypothesis 3). Ultimately, experiment 2 was conducted to verify the mediating effect of construal level (Hypothesis 4). A 2 (target user: self vs. gift for others) between-subject design was employed. Experiment procedures and dependent variables were almost the same as those used in the previous experiments; however, experiment 2 measured the construal level to examine the mediating effect, whereas experiments 1A through 1C manipulated the ‘why’ or ‘how’ mind-set. Wine, which adult males often drink or give as a gift, was employed for experiment 2, considering that the participants in experiments 1B through 1C were limited to adult females. As a result, hypothesis 1 was affirmed. More importantly, the findings supported hypothesis 4, revealing that construal level mediated the effect of the psychological distance between the decision maker and the target user on the preference discrepancy. Overall, our findings contributed to the construal level approach to the dilemma of the trade-off between high-status brand and high-ranking model, suggesting construal level as a new factor that influences both the category effect and the ranking effect. This study also provided managerial implications in targeting and marketing communication strategies based on product status.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 윤나라, "제품 타입에 따른 기부연계 촉진 효과에 대한 해석수준의 조절적 역할" 한국마케팅학회 27 (27): 1-26, 2012
• 2 박종철, "시간해석과 자아해석이 소비자의 고려상표군 형성에 미치는 영향" 한국소비자학회 23 (23): 29-53, 2012
• 3 김경호, "시간적 거리가 소비자의 타협대안 선택에 미치는 영향:제품 속성의 특성과 마음가짐(mind-set)을 중심으로" 한국마케팅학회 28 (28): 161-180, 2013
• 4 이학식, "가격-품질 관계에 대한 심리적 거리와 제품지식의 조절적 영향" 한국마케팅학회 29 (29): 197-224, 2014
• 5 Baskin, E., "Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers than to givers : A construallevel approach to gift giving" 41 (41): 169-182, 2014
• 6 Khan, U., "When trade-offs matter : The effect of choice construal on context effects" 48 (48): 62-71, 2011
• 7 Lee, A. Y., "Value from regulatory construal fit : The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness" 36 (36): 735-747, 2010
• 8 Henderson, M. D., "Transcending the"here" : the effect of spatial distance on social judgment" 91 (91): 845-, 2006
• 9 Lu, J., "To change or not to change : A matter of decision maker’s role" 124 (124): 47-55, 2014
• 10 Liberman, N., "The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions : A test of temporal construal theory" 75 (75): 5-, 1998
• 11 Eyal, T., "The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action" 86 (86): 781-, 2004
• 12 Freitas, A. L., "The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others'self-regulatory efforts" 40 (40): 739-752, 2004
• 13 Liberman, N., "The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal" 38 (38): 523-534, 2002
• 14 Simonson, I., "The effect of local consideration sets on global choice between lower price and higher quality" 12 (12): 357-377, 1993
• 15 Förster, J., "The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment" 94 (94): 579-, 2008
• 16 Lermer, E., "The effect of construal level on risk‐taking" 45 (45): 99-109, 2015
• 17 Williams, L. E., "The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level" 40 (40): 1123-1138, 2014
• 18 Yogeeswaran, K., "The devil is in the details : Abstract versus concrete construals of multiculturalism differentially impact intergroup relations" 106 (106): 772-, 2014
• 19 Leclerc, F., "The best of the worst or the worst of the best" Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago 2003
• 20 Trope, Y., "Temporal construal" 110 (110): 403-, 2003
• 21 Tversky, B., "Structures Of mental spaces how people think about space" 35 (35): 66-80, 2003
• 22 Irmak, C., "Selling the forest, buying the trees : the effect of construal level on seller-buyer price discrepancy" 40 (40): 284-297, 2013
• 23 Polman, E., "Self–other decision making and loss aversion" 119 (119): 141-150, 2012
• 24 Agrawal, N., "Regulating risk or risking regulation? Construal levels and depletion effects in the processing of health messages" 36 (36): 448-462, 2009
• 25 Sanna, L. J., "RETRACTED : Think and act globally, think and act locally : Cooperation depends on matching construal to action levels in social dilemmas" 46 (46): 1126-1129, 2010
• 26 Todorov, A., "Probability as a psychological distance : Construal and preferences" 43 (43): 473-482, 2007
• 27 Leclerc, F., "Narrow focusing : Why the relative position of a good in its category matters more than it should" 24 (24): 194-205, 2005
• 28 Xu, J., "Mental representation and perceived similarity : How abstract mindset aids choice from large assortments" 50 (50): 548-559, 2013
• 29 Hsee, C. K., "Medium maximization" 30 (30): 1-14, 2003
• 30 Hsee, C. K., "Less is better : When lowvalue options are valued more highly than high-value options" 11 (11): 107-121, 1998
• 31 Ward, M. K., "It’s not me, it’s you : How gift giving creates giver identity threat as a function of social closeness" 38 (38): 164-181, 2011
• 32 Fujita, K., "Influencing attitudes toward near and distant objects" 44 (44): 562-572, 2008
• 33 Danziger, S., "Idealistic advice and pragmatic choice : A psychological distance account" 102 (102): 1105-, 2012
• 34 Stone, E. R., "I can take the risk, but you should be safe : Self-other differences in situations involving physical safety" 8 (8): 250-267, 2013
• 35 Yan, D., "Effects of construal level on the price-quality relationship" 38 (38): 376-389, 2011
• 36 Atanasov, P. D., "Double risk aversion"
• 37 Read, D., "Diversification bias : Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices" 1 (1): 34-, 1995
• 38 Liberman, N., "Distancing from experienced self : How global-versuslocal perception affects estimation of psychological distance" 97 (97): 203-, 2009
• 39 Lu, J., "Desirability or Feasibility : Self–Other Decision-Making Differences" 39 (39): 144-155, 2013
• 40 Kray, L. J., "Contingent weighting in selfother decision making" 83 (83): 82-106, 2000
• 41 Trope, Y., "Construallevel theory of psychological distance" 117 (117): 440-, 2010
• 42 Kahneman, D., "Choices, Values and Frames" Cambridge University Press 2000
• 43 Randall, T., "Brand equity and vertical product line extent" 17 (17): 356-379, 1998
• 44 Nisbett, R. E., "Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer" 27 (27): 154-, 1973
• 45 Preacher, K. J., "Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models" 40 (40): 879-891, 2008
• 46 Stone, E. R., "A social values analysis of self-other differences in decision making involving risk" 30 : 114-129, 2008