Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

The Society of Digital Policy and Management (한국디지털정책학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Bundle Framing on Purchase Intention

묶음제품 프레이밍이 구매의사 결정에 미치는 영향

  • Lee, So-Young (Dept. of Information Management, Hoseo Graduate School of Venture) ;
  • Kim, Hyang-Mi (kt Economics & Management Research Institute)
  • 이소영 (호서대학교 벤처대학원 정보경영학과) ;
  • 김향미 (kt경제경영연구소)
  • Received : 2014.10.20
  • Accepted : 2014.12.20
  • Published : 2014.12.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explore how framing affects the consumer's attitude toward the bundle products. On the basis of the framing theory, response compatibility hypothesis and regulatory focus theory, this study examine the impact of framing on the consumer's choice in multi-alternative set and analyzes the manner in which he/she selects or rejects an alternative. The data obtained from experiment shows that : 1. Consumers focus on the positive attributes of in selection task, however, in rejection task he/she will focus on negative attributes. 2. Consumers are not influenced by prevention framing when he/she selects an alternative however, he/she is not influenced by promotion framing when reject an alternative. Understanding the underlying cognitive process of choosing abd rejecting in multiple alernatives can help marketers to create effective framing strategies for the bundle product.

본 연구는 소비자들이 묶음제품의 가치를 평가하는 메카니즘을 이해하여 향후 보다 성공적인 묶음제품 전략 방안을 제시하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 반응 조화설 및 프레이밍 이론, 조절 초점이론에 근거하여 같은 묶음 제품이라도 번들 구성 요소나 혜택을 어떤 방식으로 제시하느냐에 따라 고객의 태도에 영향을 미칠 것이라 보았으며, 특히 마음에 드는 옵션을 선택하는 상황과 마음에 들지 않는 옵션들을 제거해 나가는 각기 다른 상황에 따라 각각 그와 적합성이 맞는 프레이밍 방법을 사용하면 고객의 긍정적인 반응을 유도할 수 있을 것이라는 연구 가설을 검증하기 위하여 실험을 실시하였다. 이를 통해 묶음 제품 옵션의 선택/제거 상황에 따라 향상적 프레이밍 혹은 방어적 프레이밍이 각각 다른 효과를 미친다는 점을 발견할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Chakravarti, D., Rajan K, Pallab P, Joydeep Srivastava, Partitioned Presentation of Multicomponent Bundle Prices: Evaluation, Cjoice and Underlying Processing Effects, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.12, No.3, pp.215-229, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1203_04
  2. Drumwright, M. E., A Demonstration of Anomalies in Evaluations of Bundling, Marketing Letters, Vol.3, No.4, pp.311-321, 1992.
  3. Johnson, M. D., Andreas H. and Hans H., Bauer, The Effects of Price Bundling on Consumer Evaluations of Product Offerings," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.16, June, pp.129-142, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(99)00004-X
  4. Yadav, M. S., How buyers evaluate product bundles: A model of anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, pp.342-353. 1994 https://doi.org/10.1086/209402
  5. William Baumol and E. A. Ide, Variety in Retailing, Vol.3, No.1, pp.93-101, Marketing Science, 1986.
  6. Langer, E J, & Rodin, J. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged; A field experiment in an institutional setting, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.34, pp.191-198. 1976. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.2.191
  7. Jonah Berger, Michaela Draganska and Itamar Simonson, The Influence of Product Variety on on Brand Perception and Choice, Marketing Science, Vol.26, No.4, pp.260-472, 2007.
  8. Lavengar, Sheena S and M. R. Lepper, When Choice is Demotivating; Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.79, December, pp.995-1006, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995
  9. Dhar Ravi, Consumer Preference for a no Chioce Option, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23, September, pp.215-231. 1997.
  10. Grreenleaf, E. A., R. Lehmann, Reasons for Substential daley in Consumer Decision Making, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, September, pp.196-199, 1995.
  11. Schalensee, Richard, Gaussian Demand and Commodity Bundling, Journal of Business, Vol. 57, January, pp.211-230, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1086/296250
  12. Venkatesh, R. and Vijay Mahajan, A Probanilist Approach to Pricing a Bundle of Products and Services, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.30, November, pp.494-508, 1993. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172693
  13. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky, Prospect Theory; An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrics, Vol.47, No.2, pp.263-291, 1984.
  14. Kahnemen, D., Jack L. K., Richard H. and Thaler, Freeman, R., E., Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking; Entitlements in the Market, American Economic Review, Vol.78, pp.728-741, 1986.
  15. Paul Slovic, The Construction of Preference, American Psychologist, Vol.50, No.5, pp.364-371, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.364
  16. Sarah Lichtenstein and Paul Slovic, Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol.89, pp.46-55, 1971. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031207
  17. Hansen Ward and R. K. Martin, Optimal Bundle Pricing, Management Science, Vol.36, February, pp.155-174, 1987.
  18. William Boumol and E. A. Ide, Variety in Retailing, Vol.3, No.1, pp.93-101, Marketing Science, 1986.
  19. Langer, E J, & Rodin, J. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged; A field experiment in an institutional setting, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.34, pp.191-198, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.2.191
  20. Gourville, J. T. Pennies‐a‐Day: The Effects of Temporal Reframing on Transaction Evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.24, No.4, pp.395-403, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1086/209517
  21. Yadav, M. S., Bundle evaluation in different market segments: The effects of discount framing and buyers' preference heterogeneity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.23, No.3, pp.206-215, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070395233005
  22. Y. W. Ha, H. J. Han, The Influence of Framing of Price Information on the Purchase Intension of a consumer, Korean Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.213, No.2, pp.145-163, 2002.
  23. S. J. Park, The Effect of Pricing Framing of Bundle Product on Attention to a Sunken Cost, Korean Marketing Research, Vol.24, No.3, pp.95-118, 2009
  24. I. P. Levin and G. J. Gaeth, How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.15, No.3, pp.374-378. 1988. https://doi.org/10.1086/209174
  25. Mogilner, C., T. Rudnick, and S. S. Iyenga, The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers' Perceptions of Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.35, No.2, pp.202-215. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1086/588698
  26. Broniarczyk, S. M., W. D. Hoyer, and L. McAlister, Consumers' Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category: The Impact of Item Reduction, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.35, No.2, pp.166-176, 1998. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151845
  27. Hoch, S., E. Bradlow, and B. Wansink, The Variety of an Assortment, Marketing Science, Vol.18, No.4, pp.527-546, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.18.4.527
  28. Kahn, B. E. and B. Wansink. The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.30, No.4, pp.519-533, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1086/380286
  29. Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. Theory of games and economic behavior (2d rev. ed.). Princeton, NJ, US: Princeton University Press, xviii pp.641. 1947.
  30. Bettman, J. R., M. F. Luce, and J. W. Payne, Constructive Consumer Choice Processes, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.25, No.3, pp.187-217. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1086/209535
  31. Dhar, R., Context and Task Effects on Choice Deferral, Marketing letters, Vol.8, No.1, pp.119-130, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007997613607
  32. Luce, M. F., J. R. Bettman, and J. W. Payne, Choice Processing in Emotionally Difficult Decisions, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, Vol.23, March, pp.384-405, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.2.384
  33. Tversky, A. and E. Shafir. Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision, Psychological Science, Vol.3, No.6, pp.358-361, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00047.x
  34. Shafir, E., Choosing versus Rejecting: Why Some Options are both Better and Worse than Others, Memory & Cognition, Vol. 21, pp.546-556, 1993. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197186
  35. Slovic, P., D. Griffin, and A. Tversky, Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (pp.5-27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1990.
  36. Wedell, D. H., Another Look at Reasons for Choosing and Rejecting, Memory & Cognition, Vol.25, pp.873-887, 1997. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211332
  37. Neale, V. L., M. A. Huber, and G. B. Nrothcraft, The Framing of Negotiations: Contextual versus Task Frames, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.39, No.2, pp.228-241, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90039-2
  38. Liberman, N., L. C. Idson, C. J. Camacho, and E. T. Higgins, Promotion and Prevention Choices Between Stability and Change," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.77, No.6, pp.1135-1145, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1135
  39. Higgins, E. T., Beyond Pleasure and Pain, American Psychologist, Vol.52, pp.1280-1300, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
  40. Higgins, E. T., From Expectancies to World-view: Regulatory Focus in Socialization and Cognition, in J. M. Darley and J. Cooper(Eds.). Attribution and Social Interaction: The Legacy of Edward E. Jones. (pp. 243-309), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 1998.
  41. Aaker, J. L. and A. Y. Lee, "I" Seek Pleasures and "We" Avoid Pains: The Role of Self‐Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.28, No.1, pp.33-49, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1086/321946
  42. Higgins, E. T., How Self-Regulation Creates Distinct Values: The Case of Promotion and Prevention Decision Making?, Journal of Customer Psychology, Vol.12, No.3, pp.177-191, 2002.
  43. Lee, A. Y. and J. L. Aaker, Bringing the Frame into Focus : The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.86, No.2, pp.205-218, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205
  44. Cesario, J., H. Grant and E. T. Higgins, Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Transfer from Feeling Right?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.86, No.3, pp.388-404, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388
  45. Higgins, E. T., L. C. Idon, A. L. Freitas, S. Spiegel and D. C. Molden, Transfer of Value From Fit, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.84, No.6, pp.1140-1153, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1140
  46. Avent, T. and E. T. Higgins, How Regulatory Fit Affects Value in Consumer Choices and Opinions, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.43, No.1, pp.1-10, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.1.1
  47. Freitas, A. L., N. Liberman, and E. T. Higgins, Regulatory Fit and Resisting Temptation during Goal Pursuit, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.38, No.3, pp.291-298, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1504
  48. Higgins, E. T., Value From Regulatory Fit, Psychological Science, Vol.14, No.4, pp.209-213, 2000.
  49. Higgins, E. T., C. Roney, E. Crowe. and C. Hymes, Ideal versus Ought Predilections for Approach and Avoidance: Distinct Self-Regulatory Systems, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.66, pp.276-286, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276
  50. Lpckwood, P., C. H. Jordan, and Z. Kunda, Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.83, No.4, pp.854-864, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854
  51. Markman, A. B. and C. M. Brendle, The Influence of Goals on Value and Choice?, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 39, ed. Douglas L. Medin, SanDiego, CA: Academic Press, pp.97-128, 2000.