본 연구는 할인표현 방식인 ‘%’와 ‘원’의 차이에 따른 가용성과 가치지각의 차이를 검증하고, 소비자들이 실제로 어떠한 표현 방식을 선호하는지를 알아보았다. 연구 1에서는 피험자 47명을 대상으로 ‘%’와 ‘원’의 할인표현 방식 차이에 따른 효용에 대한 가용성 차이와 가치지각의 차이를 검증하였다. 실험 결과, 할인표현 방식에 따른 가용성의 차이는 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보였으며, 할인금액을 가지고 할 수 있는 효용에 대하여 가용성이 높을수록 가치지각이 높게 나타났다. 특히 할인표현 방식 중 ‘원’으로 제시했을 때 할인된 금액을 가지고 할 수 있는 것들에 대한 가용성이 더 높게 지각되었기 때문에 ‘원’ 할인의 가치지각이 더 높은 것으로 볼 수 있다. 연구 2에서는 할인표현 방식의 효과는 할인의 크기와 관련이 있음을 확인하고자 하였다. 연구 2는 피험자 97명을 대상으로 ‘원’과 ‘%’의 할인 표현 방식을 무엇을 더 선택하는지, 또한 선택은 할인 크기에 따라 달라지는지 확인하였다. 사전조사를 통해 구성된 6가지의 제품을 할인 크기가 큰 것과 작은 것으로 제시하였다. 실험 결과, ‘원’으로 제시된 조건은 58.1%, ‘%’로 제시된 조건은 41.9%의 선택비율을 보였으며, 이러한 차이는 Chi-Square 검증결과 유의한 차이가 있었다. 그러나 할인 크기에 따라서 할인표현 방식을 선택하는 비율은 다르게 나타났다. 따라서 본 연구는 할인표현 방식(‘원’, ‘%’)이 가용성의 활성화 정도와 가치지각에 영향을 미친다는 사실을 밝혔으며, 전반적으로 ‘원’의 표현을 더 선택하지만 할인표현 방식의 효과는 할인의 크기에 따라 달라질 수 있음을 밝힘으로써 효과적인 가격 커뮤니케이션 전략을 제시할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.
This study verifies the effects of availability of utility and perceived value by discount expression frames (‘won’/ ‘percent’) and actual choice behavior between discount expression frames. Study 1 hypothesized availability of utility and perceived value are different by discount expression frames (‘won’/ ‘percent’). This study found out availability was affected by discount expression frame, although perceived value did not statistical significant. That is, the more abundant availability of utility is, the higher perceived value is. Therefore, ‘won’ frame might have higher perceived value because when discount presents ‘won’ frame makes more abundant availability of expected utility from discount money than ‘percent’ condition. Study 2 examined both which discount frames between ‘won’ and ‘percent’ is choose actually and choice difference by discount size. This study used 6 different stimulus made of products and discount size by pretest results. As results, ‘won’ frame was choosing by 58.1% and ‘percent’ frame was 41.9 %. Theses results are significant by chi-square analysis. Therefore, this study found out ‘won’ frame prefer more than ‘percent’ frame in actual choice situation. In addition, When discount size is smaller, 'won' frame was more choose than '%' and when discount size is lager, result was reversed. As additional analysis, choice was different by sex. This is, Women was more choose 'won' and Men reversed. Hence, this study found out discount expression frames (‘won’, ‘percent’) and discount size influence degree of availability of expected utility in discount money, perceived value, and choice. These results can be used for effective price communication strategies.
강영수, 강태우 (2003). 할인규모와 할인가치 표현법이 소비자의 구매의도 형성에 미치는 영향, 커뮤니케이션과학, 20, 21-54.
곽준식, 신병철 (2007). 제품 지식이 판촉효과에 미치는 영향: 가치인하적 판촉(discount)와 부가가치적 판촉(free)을 중심으로, 한국경영학회통합학술대회, 2007, 1-13.
김동훈, 이흔후 (2007). 준거할인(Reference Discount)의 개념을 도입한 가격할인 효과의 분석, 소비자학연구, 18, 2, 23-40.
김선희 (2001). 가격할인 제시유형이 소비자 태도에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구, 세종대학교 대학원 석사학위 논문.
김시월, 박배진 (2003). 인터넷 쇼핑몰에서 가격민감도와 구매 후 만족도에 관한 연구, 대한가정학회지, 41, 9, 69-83.
김재영 (2006). 가격할인광고, 브랜드 및 소비자관여도가 소비자의 지각가치에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구: 획득가치와 거래가치의 관계규명을 중심으로, 서울시립대학교대학원 박사학위 논문.
김재휘, 박유진 (2000). 공익광고 메시지의 프레이밍과 결과 지각이 환경 행동에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 소비자광고, 5, 2, 65-86.
김재휘, 부수현(2007). 희소성 메시지와 프레이밍 방식이 구매의도에 미치는 효과. 한국심리학회지: 소비자광고, 8, 2, 183-203.
김태원, 김충현 (2003). 소비자 브랜드선택의 휴리스틱적 접근에 대한 이해: 사회심리학적 및 상황변수를 중심으로, 광고연구, 58, 29-59.
남승규 (1999). 소비자심리학: 학지사.
마테오 모테르리니(Matteo Motterlini) (2008). 이코노믹마인드: 99%의 경제를 움직이는 1% 심리의 힘, 이현경 역, 웅진지식하우스(웅진닷컴).
박광배, 김상준, 한미영 (2005). 가상적인 재판 쟁점에서의 현역판사의 판단과 모의배심의 집단판단에 대한 인지적 방략의 효과, 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 11, 1, 59-84.
이승재 (2005). 원산지 이미지와 브랜드 인지도가 제품품질지각에 미치는 영향: 제품 관여도 및 부품 중요도의 조절효과를 중심으로, 계명대학교대학원 경영학과 석사학위 논문.
이형직, 성영신 (1992). 준거가격의 심리적 접근, 한국심리학회학술발표논문집, 343-353.
전영미, 정명선 (2002). 의류제품 가격할인 광고시 할인유형의 어의적 단서가 소비자의 지각과 구매의도에 미치는 조절효과. 한국의류학회지, 26, 9/10, 1342-1353.
최현경, 이명천, 김정현 (2008). 메시지 프레이밍과 지향성이 공익광고 효과에 미치는 영향: 교통안전 공익광고를 중심으로. 한국광고홍보학보(구 한국광고학보), 10, 2, 34-65.
한규석 (2003). 사회심리학의 이해: 학지사.
홍명표 (1998). 가격할인이 구매의도에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구, 서울대학교대학원 석사학위 논문.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51. 6, 1173 -1182.
Berkowitz, E. n. & Walton, J. R. (1980). Contextual influences on consumer price responses: An experimental analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 349-358.
Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1990). A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 1, 111-139.
Bitta, J., Monroe, K., & McGinnis, J. (1981). Consumer perceptions of comparative price advertisements, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 418-427.
Bonner, C. & Newell, B. R. (2008). How to make a risk seem riskier: The ratio bias versus construal level theory, Judgement and Decision Making, 3, 5, 411-416.
Carlson, J. P., Bearden, W. O., & Hardesty, D. M. (2007). Influences on what consumers know and what they think they know regarding marketer pricing tactics, Psychology and Marketing, 24, 2, 117-142.
Chandron, S. & Menon, G. (2004). When a day means more than a year: Effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 375-389.
Chatterjee, S., Heath, T., Milberg, S. J., & France, K. R. (2000). The differential processing of price in gains and losses: The effects of frame and need for cognition, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 61-75.
Chen, H. A. & Rao, A. R. (2007). When two plus two is not equal to four: Errors in processing multiple percentage changes, Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 3, 327-340.
Chen, S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou. Y. C. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers' perceptions and purchase intentions, Journal of Retailing, 74, 3, 353-372.
Cosmides, L. & Toody, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty, Cognition, 58, 1, 1-73.
Darke, R. & Freedman, J. (1993). Deciding whether to seek a bargain effects of both amount and percentage off, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 6, 960-965.
Darke, R., Freedman, J., & Chaiken, S. (1995). Percentage discounts, initial price, and bargain hunting: A heuristic-systematic approach to price search behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 5, 580-586.
Della Bita, Albert J., Monroe, K. B., & McGinnis, John M. (1981). Consumer perceptions of comparative price advertisements, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 416-427.
Delvecchio, D., Krishnan, H. S., & Smith, D. C. (2004). Cents or percent? Promotion framing and consumer price expectations, Working paper, University of Kentucky.
Diehl, K., Kornish, L. J., & Lynch, J. G. (2003). Smart agents: When lower search costs for quality information increase price sensitivity, Journal of Consumer Research, 301, 56-71.
Eisner, R., & Strotz, R. H. (1961). Flight insurance and the theory of choice, Journal of Political Economy, 69, 355-368.
Folkes, V. S. (1988). The availability heuristic and perceived risk, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 13-22.
Grewal, D., Marmorstein, H., & Sharma, A. (1996). Communicating price information through semantic cues: The moderating effects of situation and discount size, Journal of Consumer Research, 232,1 48-155.
Grewal. D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions, Journal of Marketing, 63, 46-59.
Ha, H. H., Hyun, J. S., & Pae, J. H. (2006). Consumers' “mental accounting” in response to unexpected price savings at the point of sale, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24, 4, 406- 416.
Hardesty, D. M. & Bearden, W. O. (2003). Consumer evaluations of different promotion types and price presentations: The moderating role promotional benefit level, Journal of Retailing, 79, 17-25.
Heath, T. B., Chatterjee, S., & France, K. R. (1995). Mental accounting and changes in price: The frame dependence of reference dependence, Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 90-97.
Heath, T. B., Milberg, S. J., & France, K. R.(2000). The differential processing of price in gains and losses: The effects of frame and need for cognition, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 61-75.
Heilman, C. M., Nakamoto, K., & Rao, A. G. (1995). Pleasant surprises: Consumer response to unexpected in-store coupons, Journal of Marketing Research, 39, May, 242-252.
Henderson, C. M. (1994). Promotion heterogeneity and consumer learning: Refining the deal- proneness construct, Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 86-94.
Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation of preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 247-257.
Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low-value options are judged more highly than high-value options, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 107-121.
Inman, J., McAlister, L., & Hoyer, W. (1990). Promotional signal: Proxy for price cut?, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 74-81.
Johnson, E. J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., & Kunreuther, H. (1992). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decision, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35-51.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction, Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979a). Intuitive predictions: Biases and corrective procedures, ManagementSci, 12, 313-327.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979b). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. E. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases. Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, L. & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive experimental self-theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 534-544.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Burton, S., & Karson, E. J.(1991). The effect of semantic cues on consumer perceptions of reference price ads, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, December, 380-391.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: An acquisition- transaction utility theory perspective, Journal of Marketing, 54, 54-67.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 234- 245.
Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1973). Responses- induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 16-20.
Maheswaran, D. & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement, Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361-367.
Monroe, K. (1990). Pricing making profitable decision, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1984). Causal versus diagnostic contingencies: On self- deception and on the voter's illusion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 2, 237- 248.
Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice, APSR,, 82, 719-736.
Raghubir, P. (2006). An information processing review of the subjective value of money and price, Journal of Business Research, 59, 1053- 1062.
Robberson, M. R. & Rogers, R. (1988). Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 227-287.
Rothman, A. J., & Hardin, C. D. (1997). Differential use of the availability heuristic in social judgement, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 123-138.
Shankar, V., Rangawamy, A., & Pusateri, M. (1999). The online medium and customer price sensitivity, eBusiness Research center.
Shiv, B., Edell, J. A., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Factors affecting the impact negatively versus positively framed ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 285-294.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment, Psychological Review, 63, 99-118.
Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought, American Economic Review, 68, 1-16.
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversals: A broader perspective, American Economic Review, 73, 596-605.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools? Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31, 329-342.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic, European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1333-1352.
Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instructions, and employing probability vs. frequency formats, Law and Human Behavior, 24, 3, 271-296.
Smith, G. E. (1996). Framing in advertising and the moderating impact of consumer education, Journal of Advertising Research, Sep./Oct, 49-64.
Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice, Marketing Science, 4, Summer, 199-214.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability, Cognitive Psychology, 5, 2, 207-232.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science, 185, 4481, 1124-1131.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). “Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability” in judgment under Uncertainty: Heurisitics and biases, ed. Daniel Kahneman et al., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 163- 178.
Wanke, M., Bohner, G., & Jurkowitsch, A. (1997). There are many reasons to drive a BMW: Does imagined ease of argument generation influence attitudes?, Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 170-177.
Wanke, M., Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1995). The availability heuristic revisited: Experienced ease of retrieval in mundane frequency estimates, Acta Psychologica, 89, 83-90.
Webster, F. E. (1965). The ‘deal prone’ consumer, Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 186-189.
Wertenbroch, K., Soman, D., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2007). On the perceived value of money: The reference dependence of currency numerosity effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 34, June, 1-10.
Yamigishi, K. (1997). When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 495-506.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 3, 341-351.
.png){kind=logo}
