open access
메뉴.png){kind=logo}
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 1229-8778
There are two representative positioning strategies when companies communicate their products: all-in-one positioning strategy which emphasizes that products have more than two functions, specialized positioning strategy which emphasizes products have a single function. Two positioning strategies have different characteristics. Thus, It is very important for marketers to encourage consumers to focus on product's advantage according to positioning strategies. And this research suggests that how to present products will affect what consumers focus on when evaluating products and lead preference reversals. Study 1 examined that all-in-one positioning strategy preferred in joint evaluation mode than separate evaluation mode but specialized positioning strategy preferred in separate evaluation mode than joint evaluation mode. Study 2 focused on joint evaluation mode case. In detail, although joint evaluation mode encourages people to focus on product's overall value because of products comparison, when products are organized by product's benefits consumers do less comparison and focus on product function's quality. Thus Study 2 examined interaction between two positioning strategies and products assortment organization. This research can provide practical implications to marketers about effective products' present strategies according to products positioning.
김재휘, 박태희 (2013). 올인원 포지셔닝 제품에 대한 커뮤니케이션 전략: 자기조절모드와 속성제시 방식을 중심으로. 광고학연구, 24(4), 67-85.
김정애, 김재휘 (2014). 사고방식과 제품의 속성 유형이 구매의도 및 선택에 미치는 효과. 광고학연구, 25(5), 207-226.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261-295.
Chernev, A. (2007). Jack of all trades or master of one? Product differentiation and compensatory reasoning in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 430-444.
Chun, W. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., Sleeth-Keppler, D., & Friedman, R. S. (2011). Multifinality in implicit choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 1124-1137.
Evangelidis, I., & Levav, J. (2013). Prominence versus Dominance: How relationships between alternatives drive decision strategy and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(6), 753-766.
Fischer, G. W., & Hawkins, S. A. (1993). Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(3), 580-597.
Goodman, J. K., & Malkoc, S. A. (2012). Choosing here and now versus there and later: The moderating role of psychological distance on assortment size preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 751-768.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. The Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60-72.
Hernandez, J. M. D. C., Wright, S. A., & Rodrigues, F. F. (2014). Attributes Versus Benefits: The Role of Construal Levels and Appeal Type on the Persuasiveness of Marketing Messages. Journal of Advertising, (ahead-of-print), 1-11.
Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 293-344.
Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247-257.
Hsee, C. K., & Leclerc, F. (1998). Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together?. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 175-186.
Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576-590.
Hsee, C. K., Zhang, J., Wang, L., & Zhang, S. (2013). Magnitude, Time, and Risk Differ Similarly between Joint and Single Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 172-184.
Köpetz, C. E., Kruglanski, A. W., Arens, Z. G., Etkin, J., & Johnson, H. M. (2012). The dynamics of consumer behavior: A goal systemic perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 208-223.
Kruger, T., Mata. A., & Ihmels, M. (2014). The Presenter’s Paradox Revisited: An Evaluation Mode Account. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1127-1136.
Kruglanski, A. W., Köpetz, C., Bélanger, J. J., Chun, W. Y., Orehek, E., & Fishbach, A. (2013). Features of multifinality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(1), 22-39.
Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth- Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 331-378.
Lamberton, C. P., & Diehl, K. (2013). Retail choice architecture: The effects of benefit- and attribute-based assortment organization on consumer perceptions and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 393-411.
MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 473-491.
Mogilner, C., Shiv, B., & Iyengar, S. S. (2013). Eternal quest for the best: Sequential (vs. simultaneous) option presentation undermines choice commitment. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1300-1312.
Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (1997). Attribute- task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 205-218.
Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43-53.
Orehek, E., Mauro, R., Kruglanski, A. W., & Van der Bles, A. M. (2012). Prioritizing association strength versus value: The influence of self-regulatory modes on means evaluation in single goal and multigoal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 22-31.
Ratneshwar, S., Barsalou, L. W., Pechmann, C., & Moore, M. (2001). Goal-derived categories: The role of personal and situational goals in category representations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 147-157.
Thompson, D. V., & Hamilton, R. W. (2006). The effects of information processing mode on consumers’ responses to comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 530-540.
Vriens, M., & Hofstede, F. T. (2000). Linking attributes, benefits, and consumer values. Marketing Research, 12(3), 5-10.
Willemsen, M. C., & Keren, G. (2004). The role of negative features in joint and separate evaluation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4), 313-329.
Zhang, Y., Fishbach, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2007). The dilution model: how additional goals undermine the perceived instrumentality of a shared path. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 389-401.