본 연구에서는 도구(포크)를 제시하는 조건에 따라 심적 시뮬레이션이 제품(케이크)의 구매의도에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 알아보았다. 실험결과, 도구가 주사용 손의 방향에 놓인 것을 보았을 때, 도구가 없거나 도구가 반대방향에 놓인 경우보다 구매의도가 높았다. 또한 도구를 보는 조건과 마찬가지로 도구를 쥐는 조건에서도 주로 사용하는 방향의 손에 도구를 쥔 경우에 도구가 없는 경우보다 구매의도가 증가했다. 하지만 도구를 쥐는 조건과 도구를 보는 조건간의 구매의도에서 유의한 차이는 없었다. 한편 구매의도는 도구가 제품이용에 도움이 되는 경우에만 증가했다. 반대로 도구가 제품이용에 도움이 안 되는 경우에는 구매의도가 감소했다. 또한 본 연구에서는 주로 사용하는 손의 유연성을 추가하여 오른손잡이를 완고한 오른손잡이와 유연한 오른손잡이로 나누고, 두 조건 간 구매의도에 미치는 심적 시뮬레이션 효과가 다르게 나타나는지도 알아보았다. 실험결과, 두 조건간의 유의한 차이는 없었다. 이는 심적 시뮬레이션은 자동적으로 일어난다는 주장을 지지하는 결과이다.
This study examines whether and how embodied mental simulation influences product purchase intention. We manipulate how the handle of a tool is presented. There are 5 conditions; holding a fork with right hand/left hand, seeing a fork’s handle located on the right/left side and no tool(control condition). The result shows that there is no significant difference between holding a fork with right(left) hand and seeing a fork’s handle located on the right(left) side. Both conditions facilitate mental simulation and it increases purchase intention of products. However, It’s only when the tool(e.g. a fork) is relevant to the product(e.g. cake). When the tool has no relevance to the product(e.g. coffee), facilitation of mental simulation decreases purchase intention of products. These findings support mental simulation account(vs. motor fluency account). Also, we examine whether flexibility of handedness(rigid right-hander vs. flexible right-hander) which influences facilitation of mental simulation. The result shows that there is no significant difference between rigid right-hander and flexible right-hander. The finding highlights that mental simulation is automatically activated, not through the process of monitoring situational constraints.
김성만 (2005). 휴대 전화 디자인을 위한 왼손과 오른손 사용의 편향성 연구. 석사학위 청구논문, 국민대학교 테크노디자인전문대학원
김수일, 김원식, 조근자 (2008). 한국 대학생들의 손잡이 (Handedness) 형태 유형과 손잡이 평가항목 상관성 분석. 대한체질인류학회지, 21(3), 245-253.
한승희, 차운아 (2014). 손을 움켜쥐면 경제적 선택에 대한 인내심이 높아질까?: 체화된 자기 조절이 지연 보상 선택에 미치는 효과. 한국심리학회지: 소비자⋅광고, 15(1), 199-215.
Ackerman, J. M., Nocera, C. C., & Bargh, J. A. (2010). Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science (New York, N.Y.), 328(5986), 1712-1715.
Anderson, C. A. (1983). Imagination and expectation: Th effect of imagining behavioral scripts on personal intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 293-305.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
Beilock, S. L., & Holt, L. E. (2007). Embodied preference judgments can likeability be driven by the motor System?. Psychological Science, 18(1), 51-57.
Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2014). Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: How varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 226.
Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage, 12(4), 478-484.
Davis, J. I., Senghas, A., Brandt, F., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). The effects of BOTOX injections on emotional experience. Emotion, 10(3), 433.
Eelen, J., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. (2013). Situated embodied cognition: Monitoring orientation cues affects product evaluation and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 424-433.
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.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Hilldale, USA.
Huang, X., Zhang, M., Hui, M. K., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2014). Warmth and conformity: The effects of ambient temperature on product preferences and financial decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 241-250.
Krishna, A., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Sensory marketing, embodiment, and grounded cognition: A review and introduction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 159-168.
Larsen, R. J., Kasimatis, M., & Frey, K. (1992). Facilitating the furrowed brow: An unobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis applied to unpleasant affect. Cognition & Emotion, 6(5), 321-338.
Lee, S. W., & Schwarz, N. (2011). Wiping the slate clean psychological consequences of physical cleansing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 307-311.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97-113.
Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2008). Evoking the imagination as a strategy of influence. Handbook of consumer psychology, 505-525.
Ping, R. M., Dhillon, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2009). Reach for what you like: The body's role in shaping preferences. Emotion Review, 1(2), 140-150.
Shen, H., & Sengupta, J. (2012). If you can't grab it, it won't grab you: The effect of restricting the dominant hand on target evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 525-529.
Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: a nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(5), 768.
Symes, E., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2007). Visual object affordances: Object orientation. Acta Psychologica, 124(2), 238-255.
Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., & Hayes, A. E. (2006). Vision-for-action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 13(3), 493-498.
Tom, G., Ramil, E., Zapanta, I., Demir, K., & Lopez, S. (2006). The role of overt head movement and attention in persuasion. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 140(3), 247-253.
Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science (New York, N.Y.), 322(5901), 606-607.
.png){kind=logo}
