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

  • P-ISSN1738-3110
  • E-ISSN2093-7717
  • SCOPUS, ESCI

ISSN : 1738-3110

논문 상세

이전 다음
선공개 논문 논문 투고

Vol.15 No.7

Citation Share

The Effect of Advertisement Vividness and Regulatory Focus on Consumer Choice

The Effect of Advertisement Vividness and Regulatory Focus on Consumer Choice

The Journal of Distribution Science(JDS) / The Journal of Distribution Science, (P)1738-3110; (E)2093-7717
2017, v.15 no.7, pp.25-33
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.15.7.201707.25
Park, Kikyoung (Division of Business Administration, Chosun University)
Park, Kikyoung. (2017). The Effect of Advertisement Vividness and Regulatory Focus on Consumer Choice. The Journal of Distribution Science(JDS), 15(7), 25-33, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.15.7.201707.25

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to explore how a combination of the advertisement presentation vividness and consumers' regulatory focus affects choice. In addition, it seeks to the understanding for the psychological process by using consumers' response with experimental designs. Research design, data, and methodology - This research conducted two experiments based on the scenario. Specifically, Experiment 1 used a 2 (vividness of advertisement presentation: picture vs. word) × 2 (regulatory focus: prevention focus vs. promotion focus) between-subjects design. Experiment 2 used a 2 (vividness of advertisement presentation: detailed description vs. less detailed description) × 2 (regulatory focus: prevention focus vs. promotion focus) between-subjects design. Results - Two studies showed that prevention-focused individuals, when presented with a vivid presentation, were more likely to choose the advertised option compared with advertisements presented less vividly appearance. In contrast, promotion-focused individuals showed no difference in choice shares regardless of advertisement presentation vividness. In addition, these effects were mediated by the imagery toward the advertised information. Conclusions - The current research found how consumers' inherent motivation affects the extent of imagery in a purchase decision and a new perspective to previous studies with regards to regulatory focus. Further, this research suggested new advertisement strategies to corporations.

keywords
Imagery, Vividness, Advertisement Presentation, Regulatory Focus, Processing Style, Advertisement Strategy

참고문헌

1.

Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 1-10.

2.

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93.

3.

Chernev, A. (2004). Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 557-565.

4.

Childers, T. L., & Houston, M. J. (1984). Conditions for a picture-superiority effect on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(2), 643-654.

5.

Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 125-134.

6.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117-132.

7.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522-527.

8.

Florack, A., Friese, M., & Scarabis, M. (2010). Regulatory focus and reliance on implicit preferences in consumption contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 193-204.

9.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013.

10.

Greifeneder, R., & Keller, J. (2012). Habitual self-regulatory orientation and ease-of-retrieval:Regulatory focus qualifies the impact of subjective experiences in judgment. Motivation and Emotion, 36(3), 338-348.

11.

Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 967-982.

12.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.

13.

Holmes, E. A., Mathews, A., Mackintosh, B., & Dalgleish, T. (2008). The causal effect of mental imagery on emotion assessed using picture-word cues. Emotion, 8(3), 395-409.

14.

Keller, P. A., & Block, L. G. (1997). Vividness effects: A resource-matching perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 295-304.

15.

Lee, Y. H., & Qiu, C. (2009). When uncertainty brings pleasure: The role of prospect imageability and mental imagery. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 624-633.

16.

Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1135-1145.

17.

Lutz, K. A., & Lutz, R. J. (1977). Effects of interactive imagery on learning: Application to advertising. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 493-498.

18.

Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge. MA:MIT Press.

19.

MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473-491.

20.

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference:Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

21.

Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1969). Concrete image and verbal memory codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80(2p1), 279-85.

22.

Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1p2), 1.

23.

Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Fluency of consumption imagery and the backfire effects of imagery appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 442-452.

24.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.

25.

Roskes, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2012). Necessity is the mother of invention: Avoidance motivation stimulates creativity through cognitive effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 242-256.

26.

Seiler, B. D., Newman-Norlund, R. D., & Monsma, E. V. (2017). Inter-individual neural differences in movement imagery abilities. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 30, 153-163.

27.

Unnava, H. R., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1991). An imagery-processing view of the role of pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2), 226-231.

28.

Yeo, J., & Park, J. (2006). Effects of parent-extension similarity and self regulatory focus on evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 272-282.

29.

Zhu, R., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2007). Exploring the cognitive mechanism that underlies regulatory focus effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 89-96.

The Journal of Distribution Science(JDS)

선공개 논문 논문 투고 OA 정책