바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

The Influence of frame and self trading status on Product Evaluation of Tensile Price Claims

Abstract

Past researches focused the effects of tensile price claims(ex, Maximum discounting, Range discounting, Minimum discounting). This research not only to show effects of tensile price claims in gain frame and loss frame but also to show effect of self trading status as moderating factor. Through the comparison of presentation as an average and range in commission rate of online-stock company, study 1 provided presentation as range has more negative than average rate on product evaluation and joint intention. Study 2 provided the opposite effect of study 1, participants of VIP status having many purchase experience with online-stock company showed more positive product evaluation if presentation as range.

keywords
gain frame, loss frame, range discounting, maximum discounting, minimum discount, self status

Reference

1.

김경미, 류강석 (2008). 소비자의 조절초점과 팽창가격할인광고의 효과. 마케팅연구, 23 (4), 197-217.

2.

유창조, 현소은 (2010). 제품계열에 대한 팽창가격할인 효과에 대한 실증분석. 마케팅연구, 25(4), 145-162.

3.

조남기 (1997). 소비자의 팽창가격할인광고에 대한 반응에 있어서 준거가격 및 준거 프레임의 영향, 마케팅연구, 12(2), 123-144.

4.

Bagchi, R. & Li, X. (2011). Illusionary Progress in Loyalty Programs: Magnitudes, Reward Distances, and Step-Size Ambiguity. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 888-901.

5.

Biswas, A. & Burton, S. (1993). Consumer Perceptions of Tensile Price Claims in Advertisements: An Assessment of Claim Types across Different Discount Levels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 217 -229.

6.

Biswas, A. & Burton, S. (1994). An Experimental Assessment of Effects of Associated with Alternative Tensile Price Claims. Journal of Business Research, 29, 65-73.

7.

Camerer, C. F., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 325-370.

8.

Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F., and Abrams, R. A. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 230-256.

9.

Dhar, S. K., Claudia G. V., & Soman, D. (1999). Modeling the Effects of Advertised Price Claims: Tensile versus Precise Claims?. Marketing Science, 18, 154-77.

10.

Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643-699.

11.

Frisch, D., & Baron, J. (1988). Ambiguity and rationality. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 149-157.

12.

Fox, C. R., & Weber, M. (2002). Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance, and decision context. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 476-498.

13.

Hoch, S. J. & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing What Consumers Learn from Experience. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1-20.

14.

Hoch, S. J. & Ha, Y. W. (1986). Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 221-33.

15.

Keren, G., & Gerritsen, L. E. M. (1999). On the robustness and possible accounts for ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychologica, 103, 149-172.

16.

Kuhn, K. M. (1997). Communicating uncertainty: framing effects on responses to vague probability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 55-83.

17.

Mackenzie, S. B. (1986). The Role of Attention in Mediating the Effect of Advertising on attribute Importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 174-195.

18.

Mobley, M. F., Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J. E. (1988). An Investigation of Individual Responses to Tensile Price Claims. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 273-279.

19.

Muthukrishnan, A. V. (1995). Decision Ambiguity and Incumbent Brand Advantage. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 98-109.

20.

Van Dijk, E. & Zeelenberg, M. (2003. The Discounting of Ambiguous Information in Economic Decision Making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 34-52.

logo