Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Manufacturing Method Preferences for Different Product Types on Purchase Intent and Product Quality Perception

제품유형에 따른 제조방식 선호가 구매의도와 품질지각에 미치는 효과

  • 이국희 (이화여자대학교 융합디자인연구소) ;
  • 박성연 (이화여자대학교 경영학과)
  • Received : 2016.03.23
  • Accepted : 2016.05.26
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Studies have observed various phenomena regarding the effect of the interaction between type, price, and brand image of a product on consumers' purchase intent and product quality perception. Yet, few have studied the effect of the interaction between product type and manufacturing method on these factors. However, the advent of three-dimensional (3D) printers added a new manufacturing method, 3D printing, to the traditional methods of handicraft and automated machine-based production, and research is necessary since this new framework might affect consumers' purchase intent and product quality perception. Therefore, this study aimed to verify the effects of the interaction between product type and manufacturing method on purchase intent and product quality perception. To achieve this, in our experiment 1, we selected product types with different characteristics (drone vs. violin vs. cup), and measured whether consumers preferred different manufacturing methods for each product type. The results showed that consumers preferred the 3D printing method for technologically advanced products such as drones, the handmade method for violins, and the automated machine-based manufacturing method, which allows mass production, for cups. Experiment 2 attempted to verify the effects of the differences in manufacturing method preferences for each product type on consumers' purchase intent and product quality perception. Our findings are as follows: for drones, the purchase intent was highest when 3D printing was used; for violins, the purchase intent was highest when the violins were handmade; for cups, the purchase intent was highest when machine-based manufacturing was used. Moreover, whereas the product quality perception for drones did not differ across different manufacturing methods, consumers perceived that handmade violins had the highest quality and that cups manufactured with 3D printing had the lowest quality (the purchase intent for cups was also lowest when 3D printing was used). This study is anticipated to provide a wide range of implications in various areas, including consumer psychology, marketing, and advertising.

제품유형과 가격, 브랜드 이미지 등의 상호작용이 소비자의 구매의도와 품질지각에 미치는 효과에 대해서는 다양한 현상을 관찰해 왔다. 그러나 제품유형과 제조방식의 상호작용이 이 요인들에 미치는 효과에 대해서는 연구가 드물었다. 그러나 3D프린터의 등장은 기계를 통한 자동화 생산과 수공예로 대표되던 제조방식에 3D프린팅이라는 새로운 방식을 추가하였고, 이러한 새로운 틀이 소비자의 구매의도와 품질지각에 영향을 미칠 가능성이 있기에 연구가 필요하다. 따라서 본 연구는 제품유형과 제조방식의 상호작용이 구매의도와 품질지각에 미치는 효과를 검증하기 위하여 이루어졌다. 이를 위한 실험 1은 성격이 다른 제품유형(드론 vs. 바이올린 vs. 컵)을 선정하였고, 제품유형별로 선호하는 제조방식이 다르게 나타나는지 측정하였다. 결과적으로 소비자들은 드론과 같은 최신제품은 3D프린팅 제작을, 바이올린은 수공예 제작을, 컵은 대량생산이 용이한 기계 제작을 선호하는 것으로 나타났다. 실험 2는 제품유형에 따른 제작방식 선호의 차이가 구매의도와 품질지각에 미치는 영향에 대한 검증을 시도하였다. 즉 드론은 3D프린팅 제조일 때 구매의도가 가장 높았고, 바이올린은 수공예일 때 구매의도가 가장 높았으며, 컵은 기계 제작일 때 구매의도가 가장 높았다. 또한 드론은 제작방식 간 품질지각에 차이가 없었던 반면, 바이올린은 수공예의 품질을 가장 우수하다고 지각했고, 컵은 3D프린팅에서 품질을 가장 낮게 지각했다(컵은 3D프린팅 제작일 때 구매의도도 가장 낮았다). 본 연구가 소비자 심리학, 마케팅, 광고 등의 분야에 폭넓은 시사점을 줄 것으로 기대한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 한국연구재단

References

  1. Ang, S. H., & Lim, E. A. C. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2006.10639226
  2. Ashby, F. G. & Maddox, W. T. (2004). Human category learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 149-178.
  3. Bak, D. (2003). Rapid prototyping or rapid production? 3D printing processes move industry towards the latter. Assembly Automation, 23(4), 340-345. https://doi.org/10.1108/01445150310501190
  4. Berman, B. (2012). 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business Horizons, 55(2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003
  5. Birtchnell, T. & Urry, J. (2013). Fabricating futures and the movement of objects. Mobilities, 8(3), 388-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2012.745697
  6. Barker, J. (2001). Violin Making: A Practical Guide. Ramsbury, UK: Crowood Press.
  7. Chang, T. Z. & Wildt, A. R. (1994). Price, product information, and purchase intention: An empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070394221002
  8. Chung, E. K., Kim, H. J., Lim, G. Y., & Sohn, Y. W. (2013). “The time vs. money effect” on undergraduate consumers' responses : Product type as a moderator. Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 16(1), 43-52.
  9. Davis, J., Hirschl, T. A., & Stack, M. (Eds.). (1997). Cutting edge: Technology, Information Capitalism and Social Revolution. New York, NY: Verso.
  10. Fallon, A. E. & Rozin, P. (1983). The psychological bases of food rejections by humans. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 13(1), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.1983.9990728
  11. Gelman, S. A. (1988). The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories. Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 65-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90025-4
  12. Heine, K. (2011). The Concept of Luxury Brands. Berlin, Berlin: Technische Universitat Berlin.
  13. Hooper, R. (2014). 3D-printing drone squirts foam to pick up waste. New Scientist, 222(2968), 21-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(14)61105-2
  14. Hornick, J. F. (2014). 3D printing and the future (or demise) of intellectual property. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing, 1(1), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2013.0005
  15. Hudders, L., Pandelaere, M., & Vyncke, P. (2013). Consumer meaning making. International Journal of Market Research, 55(3), 391-412. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2013-036
  16. Jacoby, J., Olson, J. C., & Haddock, R. A. (1971). Price, brand name, and product composition characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(6), 570. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032045
  17. Jeong, S. (2009). Comparison of emotional words by products. Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 12(2), 43-52.
  18. Jung, Y., Lee, G., Li, H. O., & Kim, S. (2015). Emotional adjective profile of various odor stimuli. Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 18(2), 75-84.
  19. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
  20. Kamins, M. A. & Gupta, K. (1994). Congruence between spokesperson and product type: A matchup hypothesis perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 11(6), 569-586. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220110605
  21. Kenney, M. & Florida, R. (1988). Beyond mass production: production and the labor process in Japan. Politics & Society, 16(1), 121-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/003232928801600104
  22. Kotha, S. (1996). From mass production to mass customization: the case of the National Industrial Bicycle Company of Japan. European Management Journal, 14(5), 442-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(96)00037-0
  23. Lee, G., Kim, S., & Li, H. O. (2014). The effect of perceived within-category variability through its examples on category-based inductive generalization. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 25(3), 233-257. https://doi.org/10.19066/cogsci.2014.25.3.003
  24. Lee, G., Li, H. O., & Kim, S. (2015). The verification of fundamental mechanism where the perception of product-family influences brand extension evaluation: Mediating effect of the products' feature generalization. Journal of Marketing Studies, 23(3). 97-116.
  25. Marks, P. (2011). 3D printing takes off with the world's first printed plane. New Scientist, 211(2823), 17-18.
  26. Mironov, V., Boland, T., Trusk, T., Forgacs, G., & Markwald, R. R. (2003). Organ printing: computeraided jet-based 3D tissue engineering. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 21(4), 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(03)00033-7
  27. Moon, J., Chadee, D., & Tikoo, S. (2008). Culture, product type, and price influences on consumer purchase intention to buy personalized products online. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.05.012
  28. Moriarty, R. T., & Kosnik, T. J. (1989). High-tech marketing: concepts, continuity, and change. MIT Sloan Management Review, 30(4), 7-7.
  29. Nguyen, A., Heeler, R. M., & Taran, Z. (2007). High-low context cultures and price-ending practices. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(3), 206-214. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420710751582
  30. Peterson, R. A. (1970). The price-perceived quality relationship: Experimental evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 7(4), 525-528. https://doi.org/10.2307/3149649
  31. Rein, J. R., Goldwater, M. B., & Markman, A. B. (2010). What is typical about the typicality effect in category-based induction? Memory & Cognition, 38(3), 377-388. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.3.377
  32. Richter, C. & Lipson, H. (2011). Untethered hovering flapping flight of a 3D-printed mechanical insect. Artificial Life, 17(2), 73-86. https://doi.org/10.1162/artl_a_00020
  33. Schubert, C., Van Langeveld, M. C., & Donoso, L. A. (2014). Innovations in 3D printing: a 3D overview from optics to organs. The British Journal of Ophthalmology, 98(2), 159-161. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304446
  34. Stopp, S., Wolff, T., Irlinger, F., & Lueth, T. (2008). A new method for printer calibration and contour accuracy manufacturing with 3D-print technology. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 14(3), 167-172. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540810878030
  35. Tapscott, D. & Caston, A. (1993). Paradigm Shift: The New Promise of Information Technology. New York, NY: Professional Book Group.
  36. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
  37. Zoran, A. (2011). The 3D printed flute: digital fabrication and design of musical instruments. Journal of New Music Research, 40(4), 379-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09298215.2011.621541