바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.28 No.3

Citation Share

상품기획의 역설-소비자가 외면하는 혁신적 상품기획: 정렬가능 특성과 비정렬 특성에 따른 의사결정

Paradox of Product Planning: Consumers’ Use of Alignable and Nonalignable Attributes in Decision Making

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2016, v.28 no.3, pp.431-443
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.3.003
한지훈 (연세대학교 인지과학협동과정)
조광수 (연세대학교)
한지훈, & 조광수. (2016). 상품기획의 역설-소비자가 외면하는 혁신적 상품기획: 정렬가능 특성과 비정렬 특성에 따른 의사결정. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 28(3), 431-443, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.3.003

초록

신상품을 기획할 때, 상품기획자는 혁신적인 기능이나 특성을 부여하여 차별화하려고 한다. 그런데 아이러니 하게도 소비자가 제품의 구매의사결정을 할 때는 혁신적인 제품특성을 선택하지 않는 경향이 나타나곤 한다. 본 연구에서는 상품기획의 의도와는 다른 역설적 선택 현상, 즉 상품기획의 역설 현상을 설명하기 위해서 인지심리학의 구조 정렬 모형(structure alignment model)을 기반으로 두 개의 실험을 수행하였다. 실험을 위해 두 가지 스마트 TV 상품을 기획하였고, 두 제품은 각각 동일한 공통특성(commonality) 4개, 같은 기준으로 비교가 가능한 정렬가능 특성(alignable property) 4개, 한 제품만 가지고 있는 비정렬 특성(nonalignable property) 4개, 총 12개의 특성을 가지도록 조작하였다. 두 가지의 연구를 통해 실험 참가자들이 가상의 구매의사결정을 하도록 하면서 상품특성에 따라서 의사결정이 어떻게 달라지는지를 확인하였다. 첫 번째 연구에서 20가지의 TV 특성에 대한 중요도를 평정하여 통합된 중요도에 차이가 없지만 정렬가능한 특성에서 더 높게 평정된 스마트 TV와 비정렬 특성에서 더 높게 평정된 스마트 TV를 구성하였다. 두 번째 연구에서는 통합적으로는 중요도에 차이가 없는 두 제품에 대해 소비자는 정렬가능한 특성에서 높게 평정된 제품을 더 선호하는 경향이 있음을 보였다.

keywords
product planning, alignable property, nonalginable property, decision making, 상품기획, 정렬가능 특성, 비정렬 특성, 의사결정

Abstract

When planning a new product, product planner tries to differentiate the product from old ones by adding new features or innovative properties. Ironically, when consumers are making decisions about purchasing the product, they do not always consider newly added nonalignable property, which can be referred to as paradox of product planning. To explain this phenomenon, this study conducted two studies based on structure alignment model from cognitive psychology. To conduct the study, we organized two imaginary smart televisions with 12 properties, which consist of commonalities, alignable properties, and nonalignable properties. In the study, participants were asked to make an imaginary purchasing decision between two made-up smart televisions. In the first study, survey questions were given to the participants to rate the importance of 20 television related properties, so that we could manipulate and organize two different televisions, one with better alignable property score and the other with better nonalignable property score. The overall scores of both televisions were not significantly different. In the second study, participants showed a tendency of having more preference towards the product with better alignable properties.

keywords
product planning, alignable property, nonalginable property, decision making, 상품기획, 정렬가능 특성, 비정렬 특성, 의사결정

참고문헌

1.

3D Touch. The Next Generation of Multi Touch. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/iphone-6s/3d-touch/

2.

Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454.

3.

Barnett, B. D., & Clark, K. B. (1996). Technological newness: an empirical study in the process industries. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13(3), 263-282.

4.

Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

5.

Clarke, K., & Belk, R. W. (1979). The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 313-318.

6.

Clement, C. A., & Gentner, D. (1991). Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 15(1), 89-132.

7.

Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). New products: what separates winners from losers?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(3), 169-184.

8.

Davidson, J. H. (1976). Why most new consumer brands fail. Harvard Business Review, 54(2), 117-122.

9.

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Journal of Accounting Research, 19(1), 1-31.

10.

FeldmanHall, O., Raio, C. M., Kubota, J. T., Seiler, M. G., & Phelps, E. A. (2015). The effects of social context and acute stress on decision making under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1918-1926.

11.

Fletcher, D. (2010, May 27). The 50 Worst Inventions. Time,. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1991915_1991909_1991900,00.html

12.

Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849-867.

13.

Gentner, D. (1983). The mechanisms of analogical transfer in similarity and analogical reasoning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Ed.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (pp. 99-124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45.

15.

Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer:Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 524-575.

16.

Gregan-Paxton, J., & John, D. R. (1997). Consumer learning by analogy: A model of internal knowledge transfer. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 266-284.

17.

Herrmann, A., Heitmann, M., Morgan, R., Henneberg, S. C., & Landwehr, J. (2009). Consumer decision making and variety of offerings: The effect of attribute alignability. Psychology & Marketing, 26(4), 333-358.

18.

Holak, S. L. (1988). Determinants of innovative durables adoption an empirical study with implications for early product screening. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5(1), 50-69.

19.

Holyoak, K., & Thagard, P. (1983). A computational model of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Ed.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (pp. 242-266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1989). The influence of unique features and direction of comparison of preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 121-141.

21.

Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process:Predecision conflict and postdecision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(5), 411-430.

22.

Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis:An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247-257.

23.

Johnson, W., & Kieras, D. (1983). Representationsaving effects of prior knowledge in memory for simple technical prose. Memory & Cognition, 11(5), 456-466.

24.

Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Choice processing in emotionally difficult decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(2), 384-405.

25.

Markman, A. B., & Medin, D. L. (1995). Similarity and alignment in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 117-130.

26.

McKeithen, K. B., Reitman, J. S., Rueter, H. H., & Hirtle, S. C. (1981). Knowledge organization and skill differences in computer programmers. Cognitive Psychology, 13(3), 307-325.

27.

Michon, R., Chebat, J. C., & Turley, L. W. (2005). Mall atmospherics: the interaction effects of the mall environment on shopping behavior. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 576-583.

28.

Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Calantone, R. (1994). Determinants of new product performance: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(5), 397-417.

29.

Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 14-29.

30.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2009). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

31.

Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, 1, 1-55.

32.

Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 510-520.

33.

Ordonez, L., & Benson, L. (1997). Decisions under time pressure: How time constraint affects risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(2), 121-140.

34.

Ostlund, L. E. (1973). Factor analysis applied to predictors of innovative behavior. Decision Sciences, 4(1), 92-108.

35.

Page, A. L. (1993). Assessing new product development practices and performance:establishing crucial norms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(4), 273-290.

36.

Porcelli, A. J., & Delgado, M. R. (2009). Acute stress modulates risk taking in financial decision making. Psychological Science, 20(3), 278-283.

37.

Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(3), 60-78.

38.

Ram, S., & Sheth, J. N. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 5-14.

39.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.

40.

Sheth, J. N. (1981). Psychology of innovation resistance: The less developed concept in diffusion research. Research in Marketing, 4, 273-282.

41.

Slovic, P., & MacPhillamy, D. (1974). Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11(2), 172-194.

42.

Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352.

43.

Zhang, S., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (1999). Choiceprocess satisfaction: The influence of attribute alignability and option limitation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(3), 192-214.

44.

Zhang, S., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 13-27.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책