본 연구는 서비스 구매 상황에서 사용량 제시 방식과 통제감 수준에 따른 종량제 선택 차이를 검증하고자 하였다. 소비자들은 구매 상황에서 정액제를 선호하는 현상을 보이면서, 보다 이득이 될 수 있는 종량제의 선택을 꺼린다. 서비스는 지불 시점과 사용 시점이 다르기 때문에 소비자는 미래의 사용량을 추론하고 이를 기반으로 지불 대비 최대의 이득을 얻을 수 있는 요금제를 선택한다. 이때, 서비스를 처음 구매하는 소비자는 소비량을 추론하는 것을 어려워하기 때문에 마케터의 입장에서 종량제를 더욱 매력적으로 제시하여 서비스를 처음 구매하는 소비자들의 구매를 유도할 필요가 있다. 본 연구에서는 제공되는 숫자 정보에 의한 앵커링 효과가 사용량 예측과 더불어 종량제 선택률에 영향을 미칠 것임을 예상하였다. 동시에 사용량을 얼마나 잘 통제할 수 있는가에 관한 지각은 앵커링 이후의 조정 과정과 구매 자체에 관여하기 때문에 사용량 제시 방식과 통제감에 의한 종량제 선택률 차이가 존재할 것임을 예상하였다. 연구 1에서는 사용량 제시 방식에 따라 계산 용이성이 달라졌을 때 종량제 선택률이 달라짐을 확인하였다. 사용량을 Multiple unit으로 제시할 때보다 Single unit으로 제시할 때, 더 작은 수에 앵커링 되어 종량제 선택률이 높았고, Multiple unit으로 제시될 때는 계산 용이성 수준이 낮을 때보다 높을 때, 통제감을 높게 지각하여 자신의 행동을 더 잘 통제할 것이라고 예측하기 때문에 종량제 선택률이 높음을 확인하였다. 또한, 연구 2에서는 사용량 제시 방식과 모니터링 수준 차이가 종량제 선택에 미치는 효과를 검증하였다. 모니터링 수준이 높을 때는 통제감을 높게 지각하고, 모니터링 수준이 낮을 때는 통제감을 낮게 지각하였으며, 이에 따른 종량제 선택 차이를 분석한 결과가 연구 1과 동일함을 확인하였다. 또한, 종량제에 대한 구매의도에 있어서 사용량 제시 방식과 모니터링 수준의 상호작용이 유의함을 검증하였다. 이러한 연구 결과는 사용량 제시 방식에 의한 앵커링 효과와 계산 용이성, 모니터링에 의한 통제감 수준이 종량제 선택에 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 시사하며, 적합한 제시 방식과 통제감을 조절하여 종량제 선택을 증가시킬 수 있는 방안을 제시한다.
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.
.png){kind=logo}
