open access
메뉴.png){kind=logo}
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 1229-8778
This study was aimed at verifying the pay-per-use choice difference following the usage suggestion manner and the control level in the service purchase situation. Consumers are unwilling to choose the pay-per-use that can be more lucrative while preferring the flat-rate in the purchase situation. Since the service has the difference in the payment time and use time, consumers infer the future usage and choose a rate system to obtain the maximum profit compared to the payment on the basis of it. At this time, consumers who purchase the service for the first time, could not choice the tariff because it is hard to infer the amount of consumption. Therefore, marketers need to suggest the pay-per-use more attractively to induce the consumers' purchase who buy the service for the first time. Particularly the service applies to the inter-temporal choice that the purchase and use are not done at the same time, and it is difficult to know the value of alternatives due to the intangibility so it is very difficult to predict the future usage. Therefore, consumers predict the future usage based on the information about the alternative suggested in the purchase context. At this time, it was anticipated that the anchoring effect by the provided number information would influence the pay-per-use choice rate with the usage prediction. The perception on how well to control the usage simultaneously was involved in the adjustment after anchoring and the purchase itself so the researcher attempted to verify the pay-per-use selection rate difference by the usage suggestion manner and the control level. In the study 1, it was confirmed that the pay-per-use selection rate changed when the countable level changed according to how to suggest the usage. The pay-per-use selection rate was high because the usage was anchored to the smaller number when suggesting by single unit rather than suggesting by multiple unit. In the study 2, the category was fixed as one and the monitoring level was adjusted to verify the effect of the usage suggesting manner and the monitoring level difference on the pay-per-use selection. When the monitoring level was high, one perceived the control level highly and when the monitoring level was low, the sense of control was perceived lowly. The result that analyzed the pay-per-use selection difference following this was the same as the study 1. Also, the purchase intention on the pay-per-use was measured in the study 2.
김재휘, 이가연 (2015). 의료 광고 상황에서 관계적 규범에 따른 효과적인 가격 프로모선 전략. 광고학연구, 26(2), 189-214.
이유재 (2009). 서비스마케팅. 학현사.
최인수, 윤덕환, 채선애, 송으뜸 (2015). (2016) 대한민국 트렌드: 마크로밀엠브레인 트렌드모니터. 서울: 한국경제신문.
뉴스웨이 (2015. 09. 16). ‘KT뮤직 “한 곡당 10원, 알뜰 요금제로 신시장 창출”’.
YTN (2013. 02. 19). ‘“이동전화 정액제” 쓰지도 않는 요금 납부’.
Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec. D. (2003). Coherent Arbitrariness: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73-105.
Bagchi, R., & Davis, D. F. (2012). $29 for 70 items or 70 items for $29? How presentation order affects package perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 62-73.
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self‐control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of consumer Research, 28(4), 670-676.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. Academic press.
Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115-153.
Della Vigna, S., & Malmendier, U. (2006), Paying not to go to the gym, The American Economic Review, 96(3), 694-719.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2010). Anchoring unbound. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 20-24.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
Gourville, J. T. (1998). Pennies‐a‐day: the effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 395-403.
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. (1998). Less is better: When low- value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(2), 107-121
Hsee, C. K. (1999). Value seeking and prediction- decision inconsistency: Why don’t people take what they predict they’ll like the most?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 555-561.
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., Yang, Y., Li, N., & Shen, L. (2009). Wealth, warmth, and well-being: Whether happiness is relative or absolute depends on whether it is about money, acquisition, or consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 396-409.
Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.
Kazdin, A. E. (1974). Reactive self-monitoring: the effects of response desirability, goal setting, and feedback. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(5), 704-716.
Korotitsch, W. J., & Nelson-Gray, R. O. (1999). An overview of self-monitoring research in assessment and treatment. Psychological Assessment, 11(4), 415-425.
Lambrecht, A., & Skiera, B. (2006). Paying too much and being happy about it: Existence, causes, and consequences of tariff-choice biases. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 212-223.
Lipinski, D. P., Black, J. L., Nelson, R. O., & Ciminero, A. R. (1975). Influence of motivational variables on the reactivity and reliability of self-recording. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(5), 637-646.
Ma, J., & Roese, N. J. (2013). The countability effect: Comparative versus experiential reactions to reward distributions. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1219-1233.
Matthews, W. J., & Stewart, N. (2009). Psychophysics and the judgment of price: Judging complex objects on a non-physical dimension elicits sequential effects like those in perceptual tasks. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(1), 64-81.
Miller, S. M. (1979). Controllability and human stress: Method, evidence and theory. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17(4), 287-304.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis- consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136-164.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(5), 495-518.
Nelson, R. O., Lipinski, D. P., & Black, J. L. (1976). The relative reactivity of external observations and self-monitoring. Behavior Therapy, 7(3), 314-321.
Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84-97.
Nunes, J. C. (2000). A cognitive model of people’s usage estimations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 397-409.
Nunes, J. C., & Boatwright, P. (2004). Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 457-466.
Richards, C. S., McReynolds, W. T., Holt, S., & Sexton, T. (1976). Effects of information feedback and self-administered consequences on self-monitoring study behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23(4), 316-321.
Romal, J. B., & Kaplan, B. J. (1995). Difference in self-control among spenders and savers. Psychology: A journal of Human Behavior. 33(2), 8-17.
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1989). Explaining the social patterns of depression: control and problem solving or support and talking?, Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 30(2), 206-219.
Simonson, I. (1990). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 150-162.
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 6(6), 649-744.
Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437-446.
Sundararajan, A. (2004). Nonlinear pricing of information goods. Management Science, 50(12), 1660-1673.
Train, K. E., McFadden, D. L., & Ben-Akiva, M. (1987), The demand for local telephone service: a fully discrete model of residential calling patterns and service choices, Rand Journal of Economics, 18(1), 109-123.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Wansink, B., Kent, R. J., & Hoch, S. (1998). An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 71-81.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 5-16.
Wu, C. S., & Cheng, F. F. (2011). The joint effect of framing and anchoring on internet buyers’ decision-making. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10(3), 358-368.