본 연구는 광고물에 원재료와 완제품 이미지가 같이 사용될 때 두 이미지 간의 거리가 멀거나 가까움에 따라 완제품에 포함되어 있는 원재료의 양이 다르게 평가되는 지를 연구하였다. 문헌 연구를 통해 두 개의 경쟁가설(competing hypotheses)이 도출되었다. 거리가 인과관계의 강도를 상징한다는 기존 연구에 근거할 경우 원재료와 완제품 이미지 간의 거리가 가까울수록 최종 제품에 원재료가 많이 들어있다는 판단을 내릴 수 있다. 하지만 거리, 함량은 크기를 상징하는 개념이며 이러한 개념들은 서로에게 정(+)의 방향으로 영향을 미친다는 기존 연구에 근거할 경우, 원재료와 완제품 이미지 간의 거리가 길수록 원재료 함량에 대한 평가 역시 높아질 수 있다. 두 개의 실증연구를 진행한 결과 두 번째 가설이 지지되었다. 첫 번째 실증연구는 국내 대학생 80명을 대상으로 토마토 소스, 호두가 들어간 두유, 올리브 비누를 자극물로 사용하였으며 참여자들은 세 제품 모두에 대해 원재료(토마토, 호두, 올리브)와 완제품(파스타 소스, 두유, 비누) 이미지 간의 거리가 멀수록 원재료가 풍부하게 들어있다고 응답하였다. 두 번째 실증연구는 미국에 거주하고 있는 일반인 97명을 대상으로 토마토 소스와 올리브 비누 제품에 대하여 실험을 진행하였고, 원재료와 완제품 이미지 간의 거리가 멀수록 구매의도 역시 높아지는 것으로 나타났다.
This research investigates whether the spatial distance between the images of raw material(e.g., strawberry) and a final product(e.g., strawberry juice) affects the perceived amount of the raw material in the final product. Based on the literature review, two competing hypotheses are developed. According to the prior research showing that spatial distance is a cue for inferring the strength of causality, it is predicted that the closer distance between the two images results in the greater perceived amount of the raw material. In contrast, according to a theory of magnitude(ATOM), the variables representing magnitude interact with each other in a positive way such that the increase in one domain causes the increase in another domain. Since both distance and quantity are the representations of magnitude, it is predicted that the greater distance between the two images results in the greater perceived amount of the raw material. Two empirical tests show that the latter hypothesis is correct. In the first experiment, participants were presented with three products with their raw materials. The result showed that every product was judged to contain more raw material when the images of the raw materials and the final products were located distant. In the second experiment, participants were presented with two products with their raw materials. They reported higher willingness to purchase the two products when the images were placed distant.
장정민, 윤성아 (2015). 정보(원재료 vs. 완제품)의 제시 위치가 소비자의 제품 평가에 미치는 영향. 광고학연구, 26(6), 305-320.
Andres, M., Davare, M., Pesenti, M., Olivier, E., & Seron, X. (2004). Number magnitude and grip aperture interaction. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, 15(18), 2773-2777.
Atalay, A. S., Bodur, H. O., & Rasolofoarison D. (2012). Shining in the center: Central gaze cascade effect of product choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 848-866.
Bueti, D., & Walsh, V. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1525), 1831-1840.
Chae, B., & Hoegg, J. (2013). The future looks “right”: Effects of the horizontal location of advertising images on product attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 223-238.
Chae. B., Li, X., & Zhu, R. (2013). Judging product effectiveness from perceived spatial proximity. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 317-335.
Cian, L., Krishna, A., & Schwarz, N. (2015). Positioning rationality and emotion: Rationality is up and emotion is down. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 632-651.
De Hevia, M. D., Girelli, L., Bricolo, E., & Vallar, G. (2008). The representational space of numerical magnitude: Illusions of length. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(10), 1496-1514.
Deng, X., & Kahn, B. E. (2009). Is your product on the right side? The “location effect” on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 725-738.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 3-19.
Halligan, P. W., Fink, G. R., Marshall, J. C., & Vallar, G. (2003). Spatial cognition: Evidence from visual neglect. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 125-133.
Hubbard, E. M., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Dehaene, S. (2005). Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 6, 435-448.
Kim, B. K., Zauberman, G., & Bettman J. R. (2012). Space, time, and intertemporal preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 867-880.
Levin, I. (1977). The development of time concepts in young children: Reasoning about duration. Child Development, 48(2), 435-444.
Michotte, A. (1963). The Perception of Causality, trans. Miles, T. R. and Miles, E., NewYork: Basic Books.
Morales, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2007). Product contagion: Changing consumer evaluations through physical contact with “disgusting” products. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 272-283.
Oliveri, M., Vicario, C. M., Salerno, S., Koch, G., Turriziani, P., Mangano, R., Chillemi, G., & Caltagirone, C. (2008). Perceiving numbers alters time perception. Neuroscience Letters, 438(3), 308-311.
Schlottmann, A., & Anderson, N. H. (1993). An information integration approach to phenomenal causality. Memory & Cognition, 21(6), 785-801.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How Students (Mis-)Understand Science, Mathematics: Intuitive Rules, New York, London, UK: Teachers College Press, Columbia Univerisy.
Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2014). Place the logo high or low? Using conceptual netaphors of power in packaging design. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 138-151.
Valenzuela, A., & Raghubir, P. (2009). Position- based beliefs: The center-stage effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 185-196.
Valenzuela, A., & Raghubir, P. (2015). Are consumers aware of top-bottom but not of left-right inferences? Implications for shelf space positions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(3), 224-241.
Van Rompay, T. J. L., Fransen, M. L., & Borgelink, B. G. D. (2014). Light as a feather: Effects of packaging imagery on sensory product impressions and brand evaluation. Marketing Letters, 25(4), 397-407.
Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483-488.
Yela, M. (1952). Phenomenal causation at a distance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(4), 139-154.
.png){kind=logo}
