경쟁하는 두 개의 대안 사이에 미끼 대안이 추가되었을 때, 표적 대안에 대한 선호가 증가하는 유인 효과는 일상적으로 쉽게 찾아볼 수 있다. 그러나 때때로 소비자는 자신의 내적 기준을 가지고 대안을 평가하기도 하며, 선택에 앞서 마주하는 정보가 선택의 기준을 바꾸기도 한다는 점에서, 대안이 제시되는 맥락뿐만 아니라 소비자가 주어진 맥락을 어떻게 해석 하는지 역시 중요하게 고려되어야 한다. 이에 본 연구는 단계적 의사결정 방식을 통해 특정한 속성을 먼저 처리하였을 때, 다른 속성으로 주의가 이동하여 유인 효과가 감소 혹은 증가하는 현상을 검증하고자 하였다. 이를 바탕으로 연구 1에서는 표적 대안의 우월 속성을 먼저 정보 처리하였을 때는 표적 대안의 열등 속성으로 주의가 이동하여 표적 대안의 선택은 감소하고, 경쟁 대안의 선택은 증가하는 것을 밝혔다. 또한, 반대로 표적 대안의 열등 속성을 먼저 처리하였을 때는 표적 대안의 우월 속성으로 주의가 이동하여 표적 대안의 선택은 증가하고, 경쟁 대안의 선택은 감소하는 것을 밝혔다. 연구 2에서는 가격-품질의 트레이드 오프 상황으로 확장하였을 때도 동일한 결과가 발생하는지 확인했다. 구체적으로, 선택에 앞서 예산을 설정하는 것은 품질에 대한 주의를 증가시켜, 고가격-고품질의 경쟁 대안으로 선호가 이행하는 것을 검증하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 기존 유인 효과의 연구를 단계적 정보처리의 관점으로 확장하고, 속성 프라이밍에 관한 선행 연구와는 달리 표적 대안의 열등 속성에 대한 정보처리를 이끄는 것이 실제 표적 대안의 선택 증가를 가져올 수 있다는 점에서 시사점을 지닌다.
Attraction effect that increased preference for target alternative when decoy alternative is added between two competitive alternatives can be easily found. However, not only the presented context but also consumer’s processing about the provided context have to be considered carefully because consumers sometimes evaluate alternatives with their own standards and it is possible that standard of selection is changed through additional information prior to purchasing. Therefore, this study will examine strengthened or mitigated attraction effect when attributes are processed through multistage decision making. Result of study 1 demonstrates that the selection of target alternative has declined, and selection of competitive alternative has increased when superior attribute information of target alternative is processed first. This is because shifting of focus to inferior attribute of target alternative after first stage of processing. On the contrary, when inferior attribute information of target is processed before superior attribute, selection of target alternative has increase and selection of competitive alternative has decrease as the result of shifting of focus to superior attribute of target. The Study 2 aims to examine whether it has the same results in price-quality trade-off situation. Result of study 2 shows that budgeting before choice diverts attention to quality, makes people have greater preference for high-quality and high-price alternative.
김재휘, 김수정 (2014). 구매 의사결정에서의 디노미네이션 효과: 해석수준이론을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 소비자 및 광고, 15(3), 483-500.
손용석, 권한나 (2010). 소비자사전지식과 유인대안의 위치가 유인 효과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구. 마케팅 연구, 25(3), 17-34.
이진용, 김서아 (2014). 돈에 대한 생각과 정당화 요구가 소비자선택에 미치는 영향-타협효과와 유인 효과를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 소비자 및 광고, 15(1), 171-198.
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self‐control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 670-676.
Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of consumer research, 25(3), 187-217.
Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 234-248.
Bhargave, R., Chakravarti, A., & Guha, A. (2015). Two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 130, 123-135.
Boland, W. A., Brucks, M., & Nielsen, J. H. (2012). The attribute carryover effect: What the “runner-up” option tells us about consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 872-885.
Chakravarti, A., Janiszewski, C., & Ülkümen, G. (2006). The neglect of prescreening information. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 642-653.
Chernev, A. (1997). The effect of common features on brand choice: Moderating role of attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 304-311.
Dhar, R., & Gorlin, M. (2013). A dual-system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 528-542.
Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146-160.
Diehl, K., Kornish, L. J., & Lynch, J. G. (2003). Smart agents: When lower search costs for quality information increase price sensitivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 56-71.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2010). Anchoring unbound. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 20-24.
Frederick, S., Lee, L., & Baskin, E. (2014). The limits of attraction. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 487-507.
Ge, X., Häubl, G., & Elrod, T. (2012). What to say when: influencing consumer choice by delaying the presentation of favorable information. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1004-1021.
Gilbride, T. J., & Allenby, G. M. (2006). Estimating heterogeneous EBA and economic screening rule choice models. Marketing Science, 25(5), 494-509.
Goldstone, R. L., Lippa, Y., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2001). Altering object representations through category learning. Cognition, 78(1), 27-43.
Hamilton, R., Hong, J., & Chernev, A. (2007). Perceptual focus effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 187-199.
Heath, C., & Soll, J. B. (1996). Mental budgeting and consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(1), 40-52.
Hedgcock, W., & Rao, A. R. (2009). Trade-off aversion as an explanation for the attraction effect: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 1-13.
Heller, D., Levin, I. P., & Goransson, M. (2002). Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2), 1194-1213.
Hsee, C. K. (1996). Elastic justification: How unjustifiable factors influence judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1), 122-129.
Hsee, C. K., & Leclerc, F. (1998). Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together?. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 175-186.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98.
Huber, J., & Puto, C. (1983). Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 31-44.
Khan, U., Zhu, M., & Kalra, A. (2011). When trade-offs matter: The effect of choice construal on context effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 62-71.
Krishnamurthy, P., & Prokopec, S. (2010). Resisting that triple-chocolate cake: Mental budgets and self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(1), 68-79.
Larson, J. S., & Hamilton, R. (2012). When budgeting backfires: how self-imposed price restraints can increase spending. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 218-230.
Levin, I. P., Prosansky, C. M., Heller, D., & Brunick, B. M. (2001). Prescreening of choice options in ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ decision making tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(4), 279-293.
Luce, R. D. (1959). On the possible psychophysical laws. Psychological review, 66(2), 81-95.
Malkoc, S. A., Hedgcock, W., & Hoeffler, S. (2013). Between a rock and a hard place: The failure of the attraction effect among unattractive alternatives. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 317-329.
Mishra, S., Umesh, U. N., & Stem Jr, D. E. (1993). Antecedents of the attraction effect: An information-processing approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), 331-349.
Moran, S., & Meyer, J. (2006). Using context effects to increase a leader's advantage: What set of alternatives should be included in the comparison set?. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 141-154.
Ordóñez, L. D., Benson, L., & Beach, L. R. (1999). Testing the compatibility test: How instructions, accountability, and anticipated regret affect prechoice screening of options. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 78(1), 63-80.
Parducci, A., & Wedell, D. H. (1986). The category effect with rating scales: number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: human perception and performance, 12(4), 496- 516.
Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Deciding without resources: Resource depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 344-355.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281-295.
Slaughter, J. E., Bagger, J., & Li, A. (2006). Context effects on group-based employee selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 47-59.
Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American psychologist, 50(5), 364-371.
Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2014). Choice architecture. The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy.
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological review, 79(4), 281-299.
Wright, P., & Barbour, F. (1977). Phased decision strategies: Sequels to an initial screening. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
Yan, D., & Sengupta, J. (2011). Effects of construal level on the price-quality relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 376-389.
Yang, S., & Lynn, M. (2014). More evidence challenging the robustness and usefulness of the attraction effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 508-513.
.png){kind=logo}
