- Apply for Authority
- P-ISSN1738-3110
- E-ISSN2093-7717
- SCOPUS
ISSN : 1738-3110
Effect of Product Involvement and Brand Preference on Consumers' Evaluation Effort for Multi-Dimensional Prices
- Downloaded
- Viewed
Abstract
Purpose - Multi-dimensional prices comprise multiple components such as monthly payments and a number of payments rather than a single lump-sum amount. According to previous studies, an increase in the number of price dimensions leads to a massive amount of cognitive stress resulting in incorrect calculation, and deterioration in the consistency of the price judgment. However, an increase only in the level of complexity of calculating multi-dimensional prices does not always result in a corresponding decrease in the accuracy of price evaluation. Since diverse variables could affect consumers' purchase-decision-making process, the results of price evaluation would be different. In this study, an empirical analysis was performed to determine how the accuracy of price evaluation varies depending on the extent of the complexity of price dimensions using product involvement and brand preference as moderating variables. Research design, data, and methodology - A survey was conducted on 260 students, and 252 effective responses were used for analysis. The data was analyzed using t-test, one-way ANOVA, and two-way ANOVA. In this study, six hypotheses were developed to examine the effect of product involvement and brand preference on consumers' evaluation effort of multi-dimensional prices. Results - As the number of price dimensions increased, accuracy of price evaluation appeared to be low in high involvement, as expected. However, it showed no differences in price evaluation effort when the level of complexity of calculating multi-dimensional prices is low. When a small number of price dimensions are presented in both cases of high and low involvement, accuracy of price evaluation is much higher in a weak brand preference. On the contrary, a strong brand preference enhances an accuracy of price evaluation only in case of low involvement when the number of price dimensions is increased. An interaction effect of product involvement and brand preference on consumers' evaluation of multi-dimensional prices did not exist irrespective of the level of complexity of calculating prices being high or low. Conclusions - When the number of price dimensions is small, consumers' effort for price evaluation shows almost no difference without the moderating effect of involvement, and a weak brand preference leads to a higher accuracy of price evaluation in an effort to make the best selection. No interaction effect of product involvement and brand preference was found except for a main effect of brand preference. When a price is composed of multiple dimensions rendering it more difficult to calculate the final price, the effort for price evaluation was expected to decrease only slightly in case of combination of high involvement and strong brand preference. This is because people have a higher purchase intentions and trust for that particular brand. However, the accuracy of price evaluation was much lower in cases of high involvement, and there was no interaction effect between product involvement and brand preference except for a main effect of involvement and brand preference, respectively.
- keywords
- Multi-Dimensional Prices, Product Involvement, Brand Preference
Reference
Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1999). Strategies for Building Consumer Brand Preference. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(2), 130-144.
Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (1982). Can Consumers Calculate Best Buys?. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(4), 449-453.
Chen, You, & Hwang, Choon-Sup (2014). Consumption Values, Preference, and Purchase Intention for Luxury Fashion Brands: Post-teen Korean and Chinese Women. Journal of Distribution Science, 12(12), 107-118.
Cho, Joon-Sang (2013). A Study on the Effects of the Consumer Attitude toward Visual Merchandising on Brand Equity and Brand Attitude: Focused on Bakery Shops. Journal of Distribution Science, 11(6), 67-80.
Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of Numerical Abilities. Cognition, 44(1-2), 1-42.
Della Bitta, A. J., Monroe, K. B., & McGinnis, J. M. (1981). Consumer Perceptions of Comparative Price Advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(November), 416-427.
Estelami, H. (1997). Consumer Perceptions of Multi-Dimensional Prices. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 392-399.
Estelami, H. (1999). The Computational Effect of Price Endings in Multi-dimensional Price Advertising. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(3), 244-256.
Estelami, H. (2003). Effect of Price Presentation Tactics on Consumer Evaluation Effort of Multi-Dimensional Prices. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 11(2), 1-15.
Estelami, H. (2003). Strategic Implications of a Multi-dimensional Pricing Environment. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12(5), 322-334.
Gourville, J. (1998). Pennies-a-Day: The Effect of Temporal Reframing on Transaction Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 395-408.
Greenwald, A. G., & Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 581-592.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Herrmann, A., & Wricke, M. (1998). Evaluating Multidimensional Prices. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(2), 161-169.
Hitch, G. (1978). The Role of Short-term Memory in Mental Arithmetic. Cognitive Psychology, 10(3), 302-23.
Hwang, Hee-Joong (2013). A Study on the Global Management Strategy for Product Quality Assurance Based on Brand Power and Country of Origin Effect. Journal of Distribution Science, 11(2), 23-33.
Jacoby, J. (1971). A Model of Multi-Brand Loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research. 11(3), 25-31.
Jacoby, J., Szybillo, G. J., & Busato-Schach, J. (1977). Information Acquisition Behavior in Brand Choice Situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(March), 209-216.
Kim, Moon-Jung, & Cho, Yun-Gi (2008). A Study on Consumer Behavior Characteristic of Low Involvement Goods Purchasing. Journal of Distribution Science, 6(2), 81-93.
Kotler, P. (1985). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Krishnamurthi, L., & Raj, S. P. (1991). An Empirical Analysis of the relationship between Brand Loyalty and Consumer Price Elasticity. Marketing Science, 10(Spring), 172-183.
Krugman, Herbert E. (1965). The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(Fall), 349-356.
Lee, Hak-Sik (1990). Moderating Roles of Consumer Involvement and Ad Types in Consumer Information Processing. Korean Management Review, 19(2), 87-115.
Ogba, I. E., & Tan, Z. (2009). Exploring the Impact of Brand Image on Customer Loyalty and Commitment in China. Journal of Technology Management in China. 4(2), 132-144.
Peter, J. Paul, & Jerry, C. Olson (1993). Consumer Behavior (3rd ed.). Homewood, IL. IRWIN.
Petty, Richard E., & John T. Cacioppo (1981). Issue Involvement as a Moderator of the Effects on Attitude of Advertising Content and Context. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 20-24.
Petty, Richard E., & John T. Cacioppo (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 123-205), Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Yi, Weon-Ho, Kim, Su-Ok, Lee, Sang-Youn, & Youn, Myoung-Kil (2012). Study on the Effects of Shop Choice Properties on Brand Attitudes: Focus on Six Major Coffee Shop Brands. Journal of Distribution Science, 10(3), 51-61.
Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(December), 341-352.
- Downloaded
- Viewed
- 0KCI Citations
- 0WOS Citations