open access
메뉴.png){kind=logo}
open access
메뉴
소비자가 구매 결정을 함에 있어 중요한 가격 정보는 지불 과정에서 발생하는 '비용' 혹은 지불의 결과인 '품질'의 단서라는 두 가지 역할을 가진다. 일반적으로 소비자가 비용으로서의 가격의 역할에 얼마나 초점을 두는지에 따라 금전적 손실에 영향을 미쳐 최종적인 구매 의사결정을 바꾸어 놓을 수 있다. 가격의 역할에 대한 소비자의 관점을 이해하기 위하여, 본 연구는 지불과 밀접하게 관련 있는 소비자가 소유한 돈에 초점을 맞추엇다. 특히 본 연구는 범주화와 해석수준 이론에 대한 선행 연구들을 토대로, 소비자가 가진 돈의 단위(디노미네이션)가 지각된 금전적 손실뿐만 아니라, 제품에 대한 태도에 영향을 미칠 수 있을 것이라 가정하였다. 즉, 큰 단위는 넓은 범주와 유사하게 상대적으로 추상적인 표상을 촉발하며, 이는 소비자들이 비용으로서의 가격의 역할보다 품질의 신호로서 가격의 역할에 초점을 두게 할 수 있다. 다른 한편으로, 작은 단위는 좁은 범주와 유사하게 상대적으로 구체적인 표상을 촉발하며, 이는 소비자들이 비용으로서 가격의 역할에 초점을 두게 한다. 이를 검증하기 위하여, 본 연구는 2개의 연구를 수행하였는데, 연구 1은 사람들이 동일한 액수의 돈을 가지고 있는 상황에서 작은 단위보다 큰 단위 조건에서 금전적 손실을 덜 지각할 것임을 검증했다. 또한 연구 2에서는 제품에 대한 태도에 있어 이러한 단위 효과를 확인하였으며, 연구 결과, 큰 단위의 화폐를 가지고 있는 조건이 작은 단위의 화폐를 가진 사람들에 비해 제시된 제품에 대하여 더 긍정적인 태도를 갖게 됨을 알 수 있었다. 더 나아가, 연구 2에서는 이러한 단위의 효과가 표상에 의해 매개됨을 밝혔다. 본 연구는 구매 의사결정, 특히 지불 순간에 소비자가 어떤 단위의 화폐를 가지고 있는지가 중요할 수 있음을 시사한다. 결론적으로 본 연구의 결과는 소비자 구매 의사결정에 대한 이해를 넓히고, 금전적인 단위에 관한 선행 연구들을 확장했다는 점에서 의의가 있다고 여겨진다.
Price information is important for consumers when they make a purchase decision and it has twofold roles. One role is ‘cost’ in the process of payment and the other is ‘quality signal’ as a result of a payment. Depending on how much consumers focus on the price role of ‘cost’ their perception on monetary sacrifice as well as purchase decision making will change. To understand consumer’s point of view to the role of price, we focused on the money consumers’ hand which is closely related to payment. Especially we suggest that the denominations of money one possesses can influence perceived monetary sacrifice and attitude toward a product, based on previous research on a category and construal level. To be specific, a large denomination triggers relatively abstract representation similar to a function of broad category, which makes consumers focus more on the role of price as a quality signal rather than the other role of price as a cost. On the other hand a small denomination triggers relatively concrete representation similar to a function of narrow category, which makes consumers focus more on the role of price as cost. To test our assumption we conducted 2 main studies. In study 1 we demonstrated that participants perceived less monetary sacrifice when they owned the same amount of money in a large denomination(￦10,000 bill) than in a small denomination(10 of ￦1,000 bills). In addition, we examined this denomination effect on participants’ attitude toward product in study 2. The result reveals that participants who owned money in a large denomination(￦10,000 bill) showed more positive attitude toward a target product than who owned money in a small denomination(10 of ￦1,000 bills). Furthermore, we certified that this phenomenon is mediated by a representation which is induced by a denomination (study 2). Our research shows the importance of considering the factor related to consumers’ monetary possession, especially the denomination of money consumers are having at the moment of payment to understand the consumer's purchase decision making.
Ahn, S. W., Kim, B. J., & Park, S. A. (2008). A study on the use of bill with a large denomination: Ten ￦10,000 bills ￦100,000 bill? Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 22(2), 35-43.
Ahn, S. W., Kim, B. J., & Park, S. A. (2012). A psychological mechanism of matching response in using bills. Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 13(1), 25-40.
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.
Bornemann, T., & Homburg, C. (2011). Psychological distance and the dual role of price. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(3), 490-504.
Cronley, M. L., Posavac, S. S., Meyer, T., Kardes, F. R., & Kellaris, J. J. (2005). A selective hypothesis testing perspective on price-quality inference and inference-based choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 159-169.
Deval, H., Mantel, S. P., Kardes, F. R., & Posavac, S. S. (2013). How naive theories drive opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1185-1201.
Erickson, G. M., & Johansson, J. K. (1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 195-199.
Gourville, J. T. (1998). Pennies-a-day: The effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 395-403.
Heath, C., & Soll, J. B. (1996). Mental budgeting and consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(1). 40-52.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 263-291.
Kardes, F. R., Posavac, S. S., & Cronley, M. L. (2004). Consumer inference: A review of processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 230-256.
Kimchi, R. (1992). Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: a critical review. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 24.
Lembregts, C., & Pandelaere, M. (2013). Are all units created equal? The effect of default units on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1275-1289.
Linville, P. W. (1982). The complexity–extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. Journal of personality and social psychology, 42(2), 193-211.
Mishra, H., Mishra, A., & Nayakankuppam, D. (2006). Money: A bias for the whole. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 541-549.
Monroe, K. B. (1973). Buyers' Subjective Perceptions of Price. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 70-80.
Park, H. S., & Gwack, W. S. (2003). A Study on consumers’ perception of relationship between price and quality. Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 4(2), 1-21.
Raghubir, P., & Srivastava, J. (2009). The denomination effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 701-713.
Shafir, E., Diamond, P., & Tversky, A. (1997). Money illusion. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 341-374.
Sharma, E., & Alter, A. L. (2012). Financial deprivation prompts consumers to seek scarce goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 545-560.
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677-680.
Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral decision making, 12(3), 183-206.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83-95.
Ülkümen, G., Chakravarti, A., & Morwitz, V. G. (2010). Categories create mind-sets: The effect of exposure to broad versus narrow categorizations on subsequent, unrelated decisions. Journal of marketing research, 47(4), 659-671.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660-671.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. science, 314(5802), 1154-1156.
Wiese, H. (2003). Numbers, language, and the human mind. Cambridge University Press.
Yan, D., & Sengupta, J. (2011). Effects of construal level on the price-quality relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 376-389.
