바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

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

logo

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

Effects of Lay Rationalism, Attitude Dimension and Involvement Type on Intent to Purchase Hedonic Product

Effects of Lay Rationalism, Attitude Dimension and Involvement Type on Intent to Purchase Hedonic Product

The Journal of Distribution Science(JDS) / The Journal of Distribution Science, (P)1738-3110; (E)2093-7717
2019, v.17 no.8, pp.45-56
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.17.8.201908.45
CHOI, Nak-Hwan (Department of Business Administration, Chonbuk National University)
CAI, Yunwei (Chonbuk National University)
LI, Zhonghua (Chonbuk National University)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aimed at investigating the mediation roles of attitude dimensions in the effects of involvement type on hedonic product purchase intention and moderation role of lay rationalism in the effects of involvement type on attitude dimensions. Research design, data, and Methodology - "Wenjuanxing" was used online to make questionnaire, which was loaded on Wechat and QQ. 125 data were collected online in China. The Process macro model 58 including moderation of the two paths in the causal sequence was used to verify hypotheses. Results and Conclusions - First, cognitive (affective) involvement had positive effect on the utilitarian (hedonic) dimension of consumer attitude and the purchase intention. Second, hedonic dimension of attitude had positive effects on purchase intention, but utilitarian dimension of attitude had not significant positive effects on purchase intention. Third, Lay rationalism did decrease (did not increase) the positive effects of affective (cognitive) involvement on hedonic (utilitarian) dimension of attitude. Therefore Marketing managers should understand the differences between the cognitive involvement and affective involvement, and develop the ways by which they attract consumers to choose their hedonic product. And they should give affective (cognitive) information to the customers with low (high) rationalism consumers when they do marketing for their hedonic product.

keywords
Attitude Dimensions, Involvement Type, Lay Rationalism, Hedonic Product Purchase Intention

참고문헌

1.

Babin, B. J., William, R. D., & Mitch, G. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656.

2.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Robert, E. B. (1979). Attitude organization and the attitude–behavior relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 913-929.

3.

Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.

4.

Bossert, W., Kotaro, S., & Kōtarō, S. (2010). Consistency, choice, and rationality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

5.

Bruyneel, S., Dewitte, S., Vohs, K. D., & Warlop, L. (2006). Repeated choosing increases susceptibility to affective product features. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 215-225.

6.

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 464-478.

7.

Chen, M. F. (2007). Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan:Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Quality and Preference, 18(7), 1008-1021.

8.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2007). Form versus function: How the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate product preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 702-714.

9.

Choi, N.-H., Wang, l., & Chen, C. (2018). Interaction effects of lay theories and failure type on adaptive versus compensatory consumption behavior. International Journal of Industrial Distribution &Business, 9(7), 19-32.

10.

Crowley, A. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Hughes, K. R. (1992). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of attitudes toward product categories. Marketing Letters, 3(3), 239-249.

11.

Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.

12.

Diefenbach, S., & Marc, H. (2011). The dilemma of the hedonic–Appreciated, but hard to justify. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 461-472.

13.

Dillon, W. R., Madden, T. J., Kirmani, A., & Mukherjee, S. (2001). Understanding what's in a brand rating: A model for assessing brand and attribute effects and their relationship to brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 415-429.

14.

Drolet, A., & Mary, F. L. (2004). The Rationalizing Effects of Cognitive Load on Response to Emotional Trade off Difficulty. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 63-77.

15.

Eroglu, S. A., Karen, A. M., & Lenita, M. D. (2003). Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychology & Marketing, 20(2), 139-150.

16.

Fishbach, A., Friedman, R. S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Leading us not into temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 296–309.

17.

Goldsmith, R. E., Barbara, A. L., & Stephen, J. N. (2000). The influence of corporate credibility on consumer attitudes and purchase intent. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(4), 304-318.

18.

Greenwald, A. G., & Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 581-592.

19.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

20.

Herbes, C., Christoph, B., & Iris, R. (2018). Consumer attitudes towards biobased packaging–a cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 203-218.

21.

Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113(3), 439-460.

22.

Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.

23.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140.

24.

Holbrook, M. B. (2006). Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal introspection:An illustrative photographic essay. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 714-725.

25.

Hooda, A., & Ankur (2018). Acceptance of social media as a marketing tool: A quantitative study. East Asian Journal of Business Management, 8(3), 5-12.

26.

Hoyer, W. D., Macinnis, D. J., & Pieters, R. (2013). Consumer Behavior (6th ed.). Nashville, TN:South-Western Cengage Learning.

27.

Hsee, C. K., Zhang, J., Yu, F., & Xi, Y. (2003). Lay rationalism and inconsistency between predicted experience and decision. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(4), 257-272.

28.

Hsee, C. K., Yang, Y., Li, N., & Shen, L. (2009). Wealth, warmth, and well-being: Whether happiness is relative or absolute depends on whether it is about money, acquisition, or consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 396-409.

29.

Hsee, C. K., Yang, Y., Zheng, X., & Wang, H. (2015). Lay rationalism: Individual differences in using reason versus feelings to guide decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 134-146.

30.

Hwang, S., & Jung, H. (2018). The interaction effects of motivation and contingent rewards on employee creativity. International Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, 9(7), 71-82.

31.

Izard, C. E., & Sandra, B. (1980). Aspects of Conscious ness and Personality in Terms of Differential Emotions Theory. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman(Eds.), Emotion:Theory, Research and Experience(pp. 165-187). New York, NY: Academic Press

32.

Jiang, Z., Chan, J., Tan, B. C., & Chua, W. S. (2010). Effects of interactivity on website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 34-59.

33.

Kim, J., & Yongjun, S. (2009). Dimensions of purchasedecision involvement: Affective and cognitive involvement in product and brand. Journal of Brand Management, 16(8), 504-519.

34.

Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002), Self-control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 199–217.

35.

Kramer, T., Maimaran, M., & Simonson, I. (2012). Asymmetric option effects on ease of choice criticism and defense. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 179-191.

36.

Loewenstein, G. (1987). Anticipation and the valuation of delayed consumption. The Economic Journal, 97(387), 666-684.

37.

Mathwick, C., Naresh, M., & Edward, R. (2001). Experiential value: conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 39-56.

38.

O'curry, S., & Strahilevitz, M. (2001). Probability and mode of acquisition effects on choices between hedonic and utilitarian options. Marketing Letters, 12(1), 37-49.

39.

Park, C. W., & Young, S. M. (1986). Consumer response to television commercials: The impact of involvement and background music on brand attitude formation. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(1), 11-24.

40.

Park, C. W., & Mittal, B. (1985). A Theory of Involvement in Consumer Behavior: Problems and Issues. In Research in Consumer Behavior (pp.201-231). Greenwich, UK: Jai press.

41.

Park, J., Lennon, S. J., & Stoel, L. (2005). On-line product presentation: Effects on mood, perceived risk, and purchase intention. Psychology & Marketing, 22(9), 695-719.

42.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.

43.

Spangenberg, E. R., Voss, K. E., & Crowley, A. E. (1997). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of attitude: a generally applicable scale. Advances in Consumer Research, 24(1), 235-241.

44.

Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66.

45.

Solomon, M. R., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., & Hogg, M. K., (2010), Consumer behaviour: A European perspective. Chicago, IL: Prentice Hall.

46.

Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434-446.

47.

Teo, T. S. H. (2001). Demographic and motivation variables associated with Internet usage activities. Internet Research, 11(2), 125-137.

48.

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that blinds: Measuring the strength of consumers’emotional attachment to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77-91.

49.

Vakratsas, D., & Ambler, T. (1999). How Advertising Works: What Do We Really Know? Journal of 55Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 26-43.

50.

Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310-320.

51.

Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and vice. Marketing Science, 17(4), 317-337.

52.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-352.

53.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59-70.

The Journal of Distribution Science(JDS)