open access
메뉴.png){kind=logo}
open access
메뉴
본 연구에서는 광고메시지에 등장하는 추천인에 대한 광고수용자의 사회적 거리감에 따라 광고메시지 유형별 효과가 달라지는지를 조사하였다. 이론적 논의를 토대로, 사회적 거리감과 광고메시지 유형이 광고태도와 구매의도에 미치는 상호작용 효과에 관한 가설들을 세웠다. 가설 검증을 위해 실험참가자들을 사회적 거리감(가까움/멂)과 광고메시지 유형(구체적/추상적)의 4개 집단으로 할당하였고, 총 4개의 실험광고물이 제작되어 4개 집단별로 각각 다른 광고물에 노출되도록 하였다. 이원분산분석(2-way ANOVA) 결과, 첫째, 사회적 거리감과 광고메시지 유형 간에 광고태도에 대해 통계적으로 유의미한 상호작용 효과가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이는, 광고메시지에 등장하는 추천인에 대한 광고수용자의 사회적 거리감이 가까운 광고의 경우에는 하위해석수준의 구체적 메시지가, 사회적 거리감이 먼 광고의 경우에는 상위해석수준의 추상적 메시지가 광고태도에 더 효과적인 것을 시사한다. 둘째, 구매의도에 대해서도 사회적 거리감과 광고메시지 유형 간에 통계적으로 유의미한 상호작용 효과가 있는 것으로 나타났는데, T검증 결과, 추천인에 대한 사회적 거리감이 먼 경우에만 메시지유형별 구매의도 차이가 유의미한 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 해석수준이론을 토대로 광고메시지에 등장하는 추천인과 광고수용자와의 관계에 주목하여 양자의 관계에 ‘사회적 거리’라는 개념을 도입함으로써 다양한 관련 후속 연구를 위한 기반을 마련하였다. 또한, 실무적 차원에서도 광고메시지 속 추천인의 효과를 높이기 위해서는 광고수용자가 추천인에 대해 주관적으로 지각하게 될 사회적 거리감을 측정하고 그에 따라 메시지유형을 달리 해야 한다는 전략적 시사점을 제공하고 있다.
This study is performed to examine the effects of social distance between recommender and consumer and two different types of advertising messages on ad attitudes and purchase intention. Possible hypotheses were social distance will interact with two different types of advertising messages in ad attitudes and purchase intention. This study divided participants into 4 experimental groups with social distance(close vs. far) and two different types of advertising messages(concrete vs. abstract message). A total of 4 experimental ads were used in this experiments, one for each experimental group. A total of 180 participants were allocated to a 4 experimental groups, participated in the experiment. Two-way ANOVA showed that there was significant interacting effects in ad attitudes and purchase intention between social distance and two different types of advertising messages. That is, the concrete message is considered more effective in building ad attitudes and purchase intention to the experimental group with close social distance to recommender while the abstract message is more effective in building ad attitudes and purchasing intention to the group with far social distance to recommender. However, T-test analysis showed that there was no significant difference in purchase intention between abstract message and concrete message on the experimental group with close social distance to recommender. Based on the results, theoretical and practical implications as well as limitations and further research directions were presented and discussed.
권익현, 김도연(1994), 유명인 광고모델의 효과에 대한 연구, 광고학연구, 5, 35-46.
김민철, 이경렬 (2015). 시간적 거리와 행동 정체성 수준에 따른 광고메시지 유형별 효과에 관한 연구: 공인영어시험 광고를 중심으로, 광고학연구, 26(8), 119-144.
김은주, 김정일, 남승규(2009). 광고모델효과의 출처 및 원인분석. 광고학연구, 20(4), 75-87.
신미해, 오상헌, 황대용, 서수석, 김영철(2012). SNS 특성이 농식품 콘텐츠의 소비자만족과 구매의도에 미치는 영향, 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 12(11), 358-367
양윤, 김민혜 (2012), 해석수준, 메시지유형, 시간적 거리가 메시지 태도와 구매의도에 미치는 영향, 광고학연구, 23(2), 151-172.
우석봉, 이성수 (2013). 시간적 거리에 따른 광고소구유형과 제품유형이 광고효과에 미치는 영향, 광고학연구, 24(5), 117-136.
이시훈, 진석(2015). 정보원 유형과 제품 관여도에 따른 광고효과에 관한 연구. 스피치와 커뮤니케이션, 27, 97-124.
Kim, K., Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2008). Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 706-713.
Baker, M., & Erdogan, B.(2000). Who We Are and What We Do, Journal of Marketing Management, 16(7), 679-696.
Chandran, S., & Menon, G (2004). When a Day Means More than a Year: Effects of Temporal Framing on Judgments of Health Risk, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(September), 375-389.
Charbonneau, J., & Garland, R. (2005). Celebrity or athlete? New Zealand advertising practitioners’ views on their use as endorsers, International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 7(1), 35-41.
Donthu, N. (1992). Comparative advertising intensity, Journal of Advertising Research, 32, 53-58.
Engel, J., Blackwell, R., & Miniard, p. (1995). Consumer Behavior, NY: The Dryden Press, 364-365.
Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2009). Psychological distance and consumer behavior: A construal level theory perspective, in Michela Wanke(ed.), Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior, NY; Psychology Press, 65-87.
Fiedler, K. (2007). Construal level theory as an integrative framework for behavioral decision-making research and consumer psychology, Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 101-106.
Förster, J., Friedman, R., & Liberman, N.(2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 177-189.
Fujita, K., Henderson, M., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events, Psychological Science, 17(4), 278-282.
Goodman, J., & Malkoc, S. (2012). Choosing here and now versus there and later: The moderating role of phychological distance on assortment size preference, Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 751-768.
Hamilton, R., & Thompson, D. (2007). Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumer’s preferences after direct and indirect product experiences, Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 546-555.
Kadushin, C. (1962). Social Distance Between Client and Professional, American Journal of Sociology, 67(5), 517-531.
Laumann, E. O. (1965). Subjective Social Distance and Urban Occupational Stratification, American Journal of Sociology, 71(1), 26-36.
Lee, A., Keller, P., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from Regulatory Construal Fit: The Persuasive Impact of Fit between Consumer Goals and Message Concreteness, Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735–747,
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18.
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.
Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2008). Psychological distance: Handbook of basic principles(Second edition), NY: The Guilford Press, 353-381.
Mackenzie, S., Lutz, R., & Belch, E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ads as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations, Journal of Marketing Research, 23(May), 130-143.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change: Handbook of social psychology, NY: Random House, 233-346.
Mitchell, A., & Olson, J. (1981). Are Product Attribute Beliefs only Mediators of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, August, 318-332
Petty, E., & Cacioppo, T. (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal, Psychological Review, 110(3), 403.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance, Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C.(2007). Construal level theory and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 113-117.
Tsai, C., & McGill, A. (2011). No pain no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence, Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 807-821.
Zhao, M., & Xie, J. (2011). Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers’ responses to peer recommendations, Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 486-496.
