본 연구에서는 온라인 구매 환경에서 연구되는 개인차 요인 중 하나인 접촉욕구(Need-For-Touch: NFT) 수준과 환경적 요인인 상품의 이미지 제시방식이 상품에 대한 지불의사 가격(Willingness To Pay: WTP)에 미치는 영향을 살펴보았다. 또한 이미지 제시방식과 지불의사 가격의 관계를 심상선명도(Vividness of Mental Imagery: VMI)와 선택시간이 이중 매개함을 밝힘으로써 각 이미지 제시방식에 따른 지불의사 가격이 결정되는 과정을 살펴보았다. 실험 결과, 지불의사 가격은 이미지 제시방식, 접촉욕구 수준에 따른 상효작용 효과를 보였다. 접촉욕구가 높은 집단에서는 정적 이미지를 제시하였을 때 지불의사 가격이 높아짐을 알 수 있었고, 접촉욕구가 낮은 집단에서는 이미지 제시방식에 따른 지불의사 가격의 차이가 없음이 나타났다. 심상선명도와 선택시간의 이중매개효과를 살펴본 결과, ‘이미지 제시방식 → 심상선명도 → 선택시간 → 지불의사 가격’의 경로로 이미지 제시 방식과 지불의사 가격 사이를 매개 하였다. 즉, 정적 이미지의 경우 덜 생생한 심적 이미지(심상선명도)를 형성하고, 그에 따라 심사숙고 시간(선택시간)이 길어지면서 지불의사 가격이 증가하는 것으로 보인다.
In this study, the effects of Need for Touch(NFT) level, which is one of the individual difference factors studied in the online purchasing environment, and the image presentation method which is one of environmental factors on the willingness to pay(WTP) were examined. In addition, the process of determining the willingness to pay along with each image presentation method was examined by revealing the double mediation effect of the vividness of mental imagery(VMI) and decision time(DT) between the relationship of the image presentation method and the willingness to pay. As a result of the experiment, the willingness to pay showed an interaction effect depending on need for touch level. In the group with high level of need for touch, it was found that the willingness to pay was higher when the static image was presented. And in the group with low level of need for touch, it was found that there was no difference whether the static or the rotation image was presented. As a result of examining the dual mediation effect of vividness of mental imagery and decision time, the relationship between the image presentation method and the willingness to pay was mediated by the route of ‘image presentation method → vividness of mental imagery → decision time → willingness to pay’. That is, in the case of static image, the vividness of mental imagery is low and accordingly the willingness to pay is increased as the decision time becomes longer.
성영신, 이응천, 최현덕, 김지연, 민승기 (2012). 충동구매 심리. 한국심리학회지: 소비자· 광고, 13(1), 1-23.
양 윤, 김윤정 (2011). 백촉부여일견(百觸不如一見)?백견부여일촉(百見不如一觸)?. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 12(2), 329-347.
전성희, 양윤 (2008). 소비자의 자기통제와 접촉욕구가 충동구매에 미치는 영향. 2008(사)한국심리학회 연차학술발표대회논문집.
Aaker, D. A., Bagozzi, R. P., Carman, J. M., & MacLachlan, J. M. (1980), On Using Response Latency to Measure Preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(2), 237-244.
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Betsch, C., & Kunz, J. J. (2008). Individual strategy preferences and decisional fit. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(5), 532.
Bhatnagar, A., & Ghose, S. (2004). An analysis of frequency and duration of search on the Internet. The Journal of Business, 77(2), 311- 330.
Bywaters, M., Andrade, J., & Turpin, G. (2004). Determinants of the vividness of visual imagery: The effects of delayed recall, stimulus affect and individual differences. Memory, 12(4), 479-488.
Callow, N., Roberts, R., & Fawkes, J. Z. (2006). Effects of dynamic and static imagery on vividness of imagery, skiing performance, and confidence. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity 1(1), 1-13.
Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Martin, K. M., & Wright, J. L. (1996). Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods. Land Economics, 72(1), 80-99.
Choi, Y. K., & Taylor, C. R. (2014). How do 3-dimensional images promote products on the Internet?. Journal of Business Research, 67(10), 2164-2170.
Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2012). The “visual depiction effect” in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 988-1003.
Fasolo, B., McClelland, G. H., & Todd, P. M. (2007). Escaping the tyranny of choice: When fewer attributes make choice easier. Marketing Theory, 7(1), 13-26.
Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2007). Taste perception: more than meets the tongue. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 490-498.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 84-96.
Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2003). Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 366-371.
Jai, T. M. C., O'Boyle, M. W., & Fang, D. (2014). Neural correlates of sensory‐enabling presentation: An fMRI study of image zooming and rotation video effects on online apparel shopping. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(5), 342-350.
Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2008). Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 807-818.
Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Matula, D. E. (1993). Haptic exploration in the presence of vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(4), 726.
Lessard-Bonaventure, S., & Chebat, J. C. (2015). Psychological ownership, touch, and willingness to pay for an extended warranty. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 224-234.
Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2002). Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: The mediating role of presence. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 43-57.
Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store evaluations and behavior. Journal of retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological bulletin, 113(1), 181.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003a). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The “need for touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430-442.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003b). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35-48.
Peck, J. (2010). Does touch matter? Insights from haptic research in marketing. In Krishna A (ed.). Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY US; 17-31.
Phillips, W. J., Fletcher, J. M., Marks, A. D., & Hine, D. W. (2016). Thinking styles and decision making: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 142(3), 260.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: The role of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 184-198.
Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007) Self Regulatory Resource Availability Affects Impulse Buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537-547.
Yalch, R. F., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2000). The effects of music in a retail setting on real and perceived shopping times. Journal of business Research, 49(2), 139-147.
Yazdanparast, A., & Spears, N. (2013). Can consumers forgo the need to touch products? An investigation of nonhaptic situational factors in an online context. Psychology & Marketing, 30(1), 46-61.
Yazdanparast, A., & Spears, N. (2012). Need for touch and information processing strategies: An empirical examination. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(5), 415-421.
Wickens, C. D., Lee, J. D., Lui, Y., & Gordon-Becker, S. (2004). An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering(2nd Ed.), NY: Prentice Hall.
.png){kind=logo}
