.png){kind=logo}
ISSN : 1229-8778
This research focused on the common attribute of two products. Common attribute is a word for attribute that belongs to both products which also are identical in their level. Traditional view of common attribute was that it cannot influence choice. However, recent studies have proved that common attribute could, in fact, influence consumer’s choice through expectation disconfirmation. Current research attempts to broaden this result and find robustness. For this, current research has examined the effect of common attribute according to the direction of expectation-disconfirmation. Particularly, each product contains a determinant attribute which plays the biggest role on consumer’s purchase. If an attribute that is covariant with the determinant attribute appears to be the same, because consumers expect the alternative with higher determinant attribute to be better on covariant attribute, this will bring negative expectation-disconfirmation. On the other hand, if an attribute that is complementary to the determinant attribute appears to be common, this will deliver positive expectation-disconfirmation. This direction of expectation disconfirmation can predict the change of preferences. To testify this effect, we presented different types of common attribute to participants and examined their choice among two products. The result of chi-square test indicated there are significant difference according to the type of common attribute. Also, it was able to observe decrease in the effect of common attribute when expectations consumers held were aggregated through messages. Result of this paper can be useful for marketers who tries to establish strategies to promote their products. This result indicates that not only unique attributes, but also common attributes can play a role of increasing choice share. Additionally, this result shows that which kind of attributes should be used as common attribute. This result also has theoretical implications in that it showed context effect and expectation-disconfirmation played a role in attribute domain.
하영원, 안희경 (2003). 비핵심적 공통 속성이 소비자의 선호에 미치는 영향. 마케팅연구, 18(4), 23-45.
Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 21-28.
Bettman, J. R., Capon, N., & Lutz, R. J. (1975a). Cognitive algebra in multi-attribute attitude models. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(2), 151-164.
Bettman, J. R., Capon, N., & Lutz, R. J. (1975b). Multiattribute measurement models and multiattribute attitude theory: A test of construct validity. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(4), 1-15.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers' assessments of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375-384.
Chernev, A. (1997). The effect of common features on brand choice: Moderating role of attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 304-311.
Chernev, A. (2001). The impact of common features on consumer preferences: A case of confirmatory reasoning. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 475-488.
Chernev, A., & Carpenter, G. S. (2001). The role of market efficiency intuitions in consumer choice: A case of compensatory inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 349-361.
Chernev, A. (2007). Jack of all trades or master of one? Product differentiation and compensatory reasoning in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 430-444.
Chernev, A., & Hamilton, R. (2008). Compensatory reasoning in choice. The Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior, Frontiers of Social Psychology, 131-47.
Dick, A., Chakravarti, D., & Biehal, G. (1990). Memory-based inferences during consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 82-93.
Du, P., & MacDonald, E. F. (2015). Products' Shared Visual Features Do Not Cancel in Consumer Decisions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 137(7), 071409.
Evangelidis, I., & Van Osselaer, S. M. (2018). Points of (Dis) parity: Expectation Disconfirmation from Common Attributes in Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(1), 1-13.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Ford, G. T., & Smith, R. A. (1987). Inferential beliefs in consumer evaluations: An assessment of alternative processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 363-371.
Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., & Lauga, D. O. (2014). A reference-dependent model of the price-quality heuristic. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(2), 153-164.
Gunasti, K., & Ross Jr, W. T. (2010). How and when alphanumeric brand names affect consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1177-1192.
Gupta, R., & Sen, S. (2013). The effect of evolving resource synergy beliefs on the intentions-behavior discrepancy in ethical consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 114-121.
Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1989). The influence of unique features and direction of comparison of preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 121-141.
Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process: Predecision conflict and postdecision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(5), 411-430.
Janiszewski, C., & Van Osselaer, S. M. (2000). A connectionist model of brand-quality associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 331-350.
Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B. H., & Dubé, L. (1994). Foreign branding and its effects on product perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 263-270.
Lin, L., Hoegg, J., & Aquino, K. (2018). When Beauty Backfires: The Effects of Server Attractiveness on Consumer Taste Perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 94(3), 296-311.
Malaviya, P., & Sternthal, B. (2008). Parity product features can enhance or dilute brand evaluation: The influence of goal orientation and presentation format. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 112-121.
Mittal, V., Kumar, P., & Tsiros, M. (1999). Attribute-level performance, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions over time: a consumption-system approach. The Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 88-101.
Nagpal, A., Khare, A., Chowdhury, T., Labrecque, L. I., & Pandit, A. (2011). The impact of the amount of available information on decision delay: The role of common features. Marketing Letters, 22(4), 405-421.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.
Park, J., & Kim, K. (2010). The Effect of Common Features on Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option: The Moderating Role of Regulatory Focus. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing, 20(1), 89-97.
Porter, M. (2011). M. kramer (2011) Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Raghubir, P. (1998). Coupon value: a signal for price?. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), 316-324.
Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers' perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of marketing Research, 26(3), 351-357.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281.
Su, Y., Rao, L. L., Li, X., Wang, Y., & Li, S. (2012). From quality to quantity: The role of common features in consumer preference. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(6), 1043- 1058.
Troutman, C. M., & Shanteau, J. (1976). Do consumers evaluate products by adding or averaging attribute information?. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(2), 101-106.
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327.
Van Osselaer, S. M., & Janiszewski, C. (2011). A goal-based model of product evaluation and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 260-292.
Zhang, S., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 13-27.