open access
메뉴.png){kind=logo}
open access
메뉴
본 연구는 장기적인 목표가 설정된 상황에서, 사람들이 목표가 수행되는 시간 간격을 어떠한 방식으로 제시하는지에 따라서 목표를 해석하는 수준을 다르게 할 수 있다는 점에 주목하였다. 구체적으로, 목표 행동이 지속되는 시간 간격을 날짜로 제시한 경우에, 목표 행동이 완료되는 시점이 구체적으로 인지가 되며 결과에 주의를 더 기울이게 되기 때문에 높은 해석 수준을 유발하게 된다. 반면에, 시간 간격을 기간으로 제시한 경우에는 행동이 이행되는 시간 간격에 보다 더 초점화가 발생하게 되며 이는 낮은 해석 수준을 유발하게 된다. 이를 검증하기 위해서 연구 1을 시행하였으며, 시간 간격의 제시 방식에 따라 두 속성(실행가능성 vs. 바람직성)이 서로 상쇄 되는 수단에 대한 상대적인 선호도에 차이가 발생함을 검증함으로써 본 연구의 가정이 지지됨을 확인하였다. 또한, 목표를 해석하는 수준에 따라서 적합하게 지각되는 수단이 달라질 수 있으며, 이것이 서로 상응될 때 목표에 대한 행동 의도가 높게 형성된다. 구체적으로 목표를 높은 수준으로 해석하는 경우에는 수단 간 유사성 수준이 높을 때 목표 행동 의도가 높게 나타나는 반면에, 목표를 낮은 수준으로 해석하는 경우에는 수단 간 유사성이 낮을 때 목표 행동 의도가 높게 형성된다. 따라서 시간 간격을 날짜로 제시한 경우에는 수단 간 유사성 수준이 높게 제시되었을 때 목표 행동 의도가 높게 나타날 것인 반면 기간으로 제시한 경우에는 수단 간 유사성 수준이 낮을 때 목표의 행동 의도가 높게 나타날 것이라고 예측해 볼 수 있다. 이를 검증하기 위해 연구 2를 시행하였으며, 연구 결과 시간 간격을 날짜로 제시한 경우에 수단 간 유사성 수준이 높은 경우가 낮은 경우보다 목표 행동 의도가 더 높게 나타났음이 검증되었다.
This study noted that, in a situation where a long-term goal is set, people can construe their goals differently depending on how the time interval in which the goal is performed is presented. Specifically, when the time interval in which the target action is continued is presented as a date, the point at which the target action is completed becomes more specific, and the attention is further paid to the outcomes, thereby activating high construal. On the other hand, if the time interval is presented as a period, more focus is given to the time interval at which the action is performed, which activates low construal. In order to verify this, Study 1 was conducted and it was verified that there was a difference in the relative preference for the means by which the two attributes(feasibility vs. desirability)are trade-off depending on the time interval description. Also, the perceived means may vary depending on the goal construal, and when these are corresponding to each other, the motivation for goal pursuit is high. Specifically, when the goal is construed at a high level, the motivation for goal pursuit is high when the similarity of the means is high, whereas when the goal is construed at the low level, the motivation for goal pursuit is high when the similarity of the means is low. Thus, if the time interval is presented as a date, the motivation for goal pursuit will be high when the similarity of the means is high, whereas if the time interval is presented as the duration, the motivation for goal pursuit will be high when the similarity of the means is low. In order to verify this, Study 2 was conducted and it was verified that the motivation for goal pursuit was higher than the case in which the similarity of the means was low when the time interval was presented as the date.
김정애, 김재휘 (2014). 미래 사건의 제시방식과 사건들의 특성이 자기개발 목표행동에 미치는 효과. 한국광고홍보학보, 16(3), 64-94.
김정애 (2017). 미래예측을 통한 시간 지각이 개인연금 가입의도에 미치는 효과. 중앙대학교 박사학위논문.
권나진 (2013). The effect of Means Substitutability and Self–Regulatory Mode on Behavioral Intention of Long-Term Goal Pursuit. 중앙대학교 석사학위논문.
Baskin, E., Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., & Novemsky, N. (2014). Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers than to givers: A construal-level approach to gift giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 169-182.
Day, S. B., & Bartels, D. M. (2008). Representation over time: The effects of temporal distance on similarity. Cognition, 106(3), 1504-1513.
Etkin, J., & Ratner, R. K. (2011). The dynamic impact of variety among means on motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1076-1092.
Etkin, J., & Ratner, R. K. (2012). Goal pursuit, now and later: Temporal compatibility of different versus similar means. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1085-1099.
Fishbach, A., Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). Emotional transfer in goal systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 723-738.
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the" goal looms larger" effect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(5), 1115.
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(3), 351.
Goodman, J. K., & Malkoc, S. A. (2012). Choosing here and now versus there and later: The moderating role of psychological distance on assortment size preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 751-768.
Han, D., Duhachek, A., & Agrawal, N. (2014). Emotions shape decisions through construal level: The case of guilt and shame. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1047-1064.
Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Wu, G. (1999). Goals as reference points. Cognitive psychology, 38(1), 79-109.
Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current directions in psychological science, 14(4), 209-213.
Higgins, E. T., Cesario, J., Hagiwara, N., Spiegel, S., & Pittman, T. (2010). Increasing or decreasing interest in activities: The role of regulatory fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 559-572.
Janssen, S. M., Chessa, A. G., & Murre, J. M. (2006). Memory for time: How people date events. Memory & cognition, 34(1), 138-147.
Kruglanski, A. (1996). Goals as knowledge structures. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 599-618). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., &Sheveland, A. (2011). How many roads lead to Rome? Equifinality set‐size and commitment to goals and means. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 344-352.
Labroo, A. A., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). Psychological distancing: Why happiness helps you see the big picture. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 800-809.
LeBoeuf, R. A. (2006). Discount rates for time versus dates: The sensitivity of discounting to time-interval description. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 59-72.
LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2009). Anchoring on the" here" and" now" in time and distance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(1), 81.
Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of experimental social psychology, 44(5), 1256-1269.
Malkoc, S. A., Zauberman, G., & Bettman, J. R. (2010). Unstuck from the concrete: Carryover effects of abstract mindsets in intertemporal preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 112-126.
Monga, A., & Bagchi, R. (2011). Years, months, and days versus 1, 12, and 365: the influence of units versus numbers. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 185-198.
Munichor, N., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2017). The Influence of Time- Interval Descriptions on Goal-Pursuit Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(2), 291-303
Park, J., & Hedgcock, W. M. (2016). Thinking concretely or abstractly: The influence of fit between goal progress and goal construal on subsequent self‐regulation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 395-409.
Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2011). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 397-402.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of consumer psychology, 17(2), 83-95.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 440.
Ülkümen, G., & Cheema, A. (2011). Framing goals to influence personal savings: The role of specificity and construal level. Journal of marketing research, 48(6), 958-969.
Ülkümen, G., & Thomas, M. (2013). Personal relevance and mental simulation amplify the duration framing effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 194-206.
Wallace, S. G., & Etkin, J. (2017). How Goal Specificity Shapes Motivation: A Reference Points Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 1033-1051.
Wan, E. W., & Agrawal, N. (2011). Carryover effects of self-control on decision making: A construal-level perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 199-214.
