단수가격은 소비자들에게 할인된 느낌을 제공하기에 흔히 사용되는 가격책정방식으로, 오늘날에는 단수가격만으로 이루어진 제품 선택 상황 역시 두드러지고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 단수가격들 사이에서 나타나는 할인 지각의 차이에 초점을 맞추었다. - 90, - 900과 같이 유사한 형태로 끝나는 단수가격들 사이에서 할인 지각의 차이는 앞자리 값의 차이와 관련이 있으며, 소비자가 가격 정보 처리에서 앞자리 값에 주목하는 경향은 준거점의 차이처럼 단수가격들 사이에서의 차이를 유발할 것이라 보았다. 구체적으로 소비자들은 정보처리의 효율성 탓에 가격과 같은 숫자정보를 묶음 지어 해석하며, 특히 십진법 체계에 있어서는 10의 배수나 그 절반인 5에 대한 인지적 접근성이 높기 때문에 이 숫자를 경계로 하는 내적인 범주가 형성되어 있다. 범주가 형성되면 그룹 밖 항목과의 지각된 거리가 과장되는 현상이 나타난다. 따라서 본 연구는 범주의 경계가 되는 인지적 접근성이 높은 수가 가격의 앞자리에 올 때, 낮은 수일 때보다 지각된 거리가 과장되고, 따라서 할인지각이 크게 나타날 것을 예상하였다. 이를 검증하기 위해 연구 1에서는 단수가격 앞자리 수의 인지적 접근성이 높고, 낮음에 따라 할인지각이 어떻게 달라지는 지를 확인하였다. 연구 2에서는 할인 지각의 차이가 내적 범주의 영향력이라는 것을 직접적으로 검증하기 위해 단수가격 앞자리 수의 인지적 접근성(고/저) x 범주억제여부(억제/비억제)의 설계로 할인 지각의 차이를 확인하였다. 연구의 결과는 소비자들은 단수가격의 앞자리 수의 인지적 접근성이 높을 때 더 큰 할인 지각을 가지며, 이 차이는 내적으로 형성된 범주의 영향으로, 상황적으로 두드러지는 경쟁적인 범주방식에 의해 조절될 수 있음이 확인되었다. 본 연구는 숫자정보처리방식이 소비자의 가격 지각에 미치는 영향에 대하여 연구를 확장하였으며, 실무적으로 효과적인 단수가격 책정 전략을 제안한다.
‘Odd pricing’ is a frequently utilized method for influencing consumer decision making. It makes the consumers feel that the merchandise is on sale with reduced prices. Because Odd pricing is used so much, consumers usually have to choose between several different odd prices; therefore, this study focuses on comparison of odd prices. Perception differences between odd prices that end similarly (such as with -90 or -900) can be assumed to result from the difference of the first digits. In price information processing, consumers are known to focus more on first digits rather than latter digits. We speculated that as the first digits to be processed are in effect a reference point, these first digits would lead to differences in price perception. Because of the limited human information processing ability, consumers recode numerical information (including prices) into more manageable numbers of category. Since multiples of 10 or 5 have high cognitive accessibility in the decimal system, internal categories of numbers tend to be based on multiples of 5 or 10. Once categories are formed, the perceived distance between items of different categories is exaggerated. Our hypothesis is that when the first digits of price have higher cognitive accessibility, they are located along category boundaries, therefore having increased perceived distance from other categories. This would lead to greater price discount perception. To test our hypothesis, in Study 1 we examine price discount perception differences among odd prices with either high or low cognitive accessibility of the first digits. In Study 2, to attain more direct evidence of these effects of subjective categorization, we manipulate categorization, and examine how categorization and cognitive accessibility of the first digits of odd-price affects price discount perception. The results show that when cognitive accessibility of the first digits is high, people perceive greater price discount. Moreover since this effect is based on consumers’ subjective categorization, it can be moderated by other temporarily prevalent categorization schemes. These results propose an effective odd pricing method.
머니투데이 (2012.07.20). 990원 커피와 자장면, 9900원 풀코스 런치와 서브스크립션 커머스까지 다양.
박종철, & 이은영 (2013). 단수가격의 효과에 미치는 영향요인에 대한 고찰. 소비자학연구, 24(4), 1-22.
해럴드경제 (2007.08.30.). 멀쩡한 옷․휴대폰․노트북도 “바꿔 바꿔!”.
해럴드경제 (2012.05.24.). ‘착한가격’ 열풍 ․․․ 990원에 끌리다.
Aalto-Setälä, V., & Halonen, M. (2004). Attractive prices in grocery and automobile markets-why is such pricing used?. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 11(5), 299-306.
Anderson, E. T., & Simester, D. I. (2003). Effects of $9 price endings on retail sales: Evidence from field experiments. Quantitative marketing and Economics, 1(1), 93-110.
Bader, L., & Weinland, J. D. (1932). Do odd prices earn money? Journal of Retailing, 8, 102-104.
Basu, K. (1997). Why are so many goods priced to end in nine? And why this practice hurts the producers. Economics Letters, 54(1), 41-44.
Bizer, G. Y., & Schindler, R. M. (2005). Direct evidence of ending‐digit drop‐off in price information processing. Psychology & Marketing, 22(10), 771-783.
Brenner, G. A., & Brenner, R. (1982). Memory and markets, or why are you paying $2.99 for a widget?. Journal of Business, 55(1), 147-158.
Coulter, K. S. (2001). Odd-ending price underestimation: an experimental examination of left-to-right processing effects. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(5), 276-292.
Coulter, K. S., Choi, P., & Monroe, K. B. (2012). Comma N'cents in pricing: The effects of auditory representation encoding on price magnitude perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 395-407.
Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2010). Small sounds, big deals: phonetic symbolism effects in pricing. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 315-328.
Coulter, K. S., & Norberg, P. A. (2009). The effects of physical distance between regular and sale prices on numerical difference perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 144-157.
Coulter, K. S., & Roggeveen, A. L. (2014). Price Number Relationships and Deal Processing Fluency: The Effects of Approximation Sequences and Number Multiples. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 69-82.
Coupland, N. (2011). How frequent are numbers?. Language & Communication, 31(1), 27-37.
Dehaene, S., & Mehler, J. (1992). Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition, 43(1), 1-29.
DelVecchio, D., Krishnan, H. S., & Smith, D. C. (2007). Cents or percent? The effects of promotion framing on price expectations and choice. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 158-170.
Folkertsma, C. K. (2002). The euro and psychological prices: simulations of the worst-case scenario. De economist, 150(1), 19- 40.
Gaston-Breton, C. (2011). Consumer Preferences for 99-ending prices: the mediating role of price consciousness. http://hdl.handle.net/10016/10707.
Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of consumer research, 16(1), 67-75.
Hornik, J., Cherian, J., & Zakay, D. (1994). The influence of prototypic values on the validity of studies using time estimates. Journal of the Market Research Society. Vol 36(2), 145-147
Isaac, M. S., & Schindler, R. M. (2014). The Top-Ten Effect: Consumers’ Subjective Categorization of Ranked Lists. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1181-1202.
Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 47(6), 1206.
Laski, E. V., & Siegler, R. S. (2007). Is 27 a big number? Correlational and causal connections among numerical categorization, number line estimation, and numerical magnitude comparison. Child Development, 78(6), 1723- 1743.
Liang, J., & Kanetkar, V. (2006). Price endings: magic and math. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(6), 377-385.
Loken, B., Barsalou, L. W., & Joiner, C. (2008). Categorization theory and research in consumer psychology(pp.133-163). Handbook of consumer psychology, Curtis PH, Paul MH, Frank RK (eds). Taylor & Francis: New York, NY.
Lynn, M., Flynn, S. M., & Helion, C. (2013). Do consumers prefer round prices? Evidence from pay-what-you-want decisions and self-pumped gasoline purchases. Journal of Economic Psychology, 36, 96-102.
Maki, R. H. (1982). Why do categorization effects occur in comparative judgment tasks?. Memory & Cognition, 10(3), 252-264.
McKenzie, R. D. (2008). Why So Many Prices End with “9”(pp.177-193). Why Popcorn Costs So Much at the Movies: And Other Pricing Puzzles, Springer New York.
Monroe, K. B. (1979), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Monroe, K. B., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). Remembering versus knowing: Issues in buyers’ processing of price information. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 207-225.
Moreau, C. P., Markman, A. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). “What is it?” Categorization flexibility and consumers' responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 489-498.
Ng, S., & Houston, M. J. (2006). Exemplars or Beliefs? The Impact of Self‐View on the Nature and Relative Influence of Brand Associations. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 519-529.
Noseworthy, T. J., & Goode, M. R. (2011). Contrasting rule-based and similarity-based category learning: The effects of mood and prior knowledge on ambiguous categorization. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 362-371.
Poltrock, S. E., & Schwartz, D. R. (1984). Comparative judgments of multidigit numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(1), 32.
Pope, D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). Round Numbers as Goals Evidence From Baseball, SAT Takers, and the Lab. Psychological science, 22(1), 71-79.
Rajagopal, P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (2009). Consumer evaluations of hybrid products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 232-241.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Personality and social psychology review, 8(4), 364-382.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532-547.
Schindler, R. M. (1991). Symbolic meanings of a price ending. Advances in Consumer Research, 18(1), 794-801.
Schindler, R. M., & Kirby, P. N. (1997). Patterns of rightmost digits used in advertised prices: implications for nine-ending effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 192-201.
Schindler, R. M., & Wiman, A. R. (1989). Effects of Odd Pricing on Price Recall. Journal of Business Research, 19(3), 165-177.
Sinha, I., & Smith, M. F. (2000). Consumers' perceptions of promotional framing of price. Psychology & Marketing, 17(3), 257-275.
Smith, E. R., & Branscombe, N. R. (1987). Procedurally mediated social inferences: The case of category accessibility effects. Journal of experimental social psychology, 23(5), 361-382.
Stiving, M., & Winer, R. S. (1997). An empirical analysis of price endings with scanner data. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 57-67.
Suri, R., Anderson, R. E., & Kotlov, V. (2004). The use of 9-ending prices: contrasting the USA with Poland. European Journal of Marketing, 38(1/2), 56-72.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
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.
Verguts, T., & De Moor, W. (2005). Two-digit comparison: Decomposed, holistic, or hybrid?. Experimental Psychology, 52(3), 195.
Wan, E. W., & Rucker, D. D. (2013). Confidence and construal framing: when confidence increases versus decreases information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 977-992.
Whalen, B. F. (1980). Strategic mix of odd, even prices can lead to increased retail profits. Marketing News, 13, 24.
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current directions in psychological science, 10(6), 224-228.
.png){kind=logo}
