Objectives: This study investigated the challenges of young cross-cultural individuals (CCIs) through the cultural homelessness (CH) framework. Methods: Through a survey of 151 CCIs, the study empirically examined the relationship between CH and psychological well-being (PWB), as well as the moderating role of emotional clarity (EC). Results: Results indicated that CH was significantly and negatively associated with PWB, especially on the Positive Relations with Others and Environmental Mastery dimensions. Individuals with high CH tended to have less satisfactory relationships and a reduced sense of control over daily life situations, regardless of their EC level. A significant interaction effect between CH and EC was found, specifically in Positive Relations with Others (PR) and Personal Growth (PG). For individuals with high CH, however, satisfactory relationships were dependent on their EC level; they reported more positive relationships with others when their EC levels were high. Interestingly, individuals with high CH were likely to report a high desire for personal growth regardless of their EC level, indicating that they may appear ambitious but may be experiencing unclear emotions. Conclusions: These findings suggest that CH and EC are issues that need to be dealt with simultaneously. As individuals' PWB depends not only on their CH level, but also on their EC, reducing the level of CH should not be the only goal in promoting the well-being of CCIs. Increasing individuals' EC would be just as important, as high EC, along with low CH, predicts important dimensions of PWB.
The interplay between hedonic and utilitarian attributes has assumed special significance in recent years; it has been proposed that consumption offerings should be viewed as experiences that stimulate both cognitions and feelings rather than as mere products or services. This research builds on previous work on hedonic versus utilitarian benefits, regulatory focus theory, customer satisfaction to address two question: (1) Is the shopping goal at the point of purchase different from the shopping value? and (2) Is the customer loyalty after the use different from the shopping value and shopping goal? We surveyed 345 peoples those who have bought the electronic-goods within 6 months. This research dealt with the shopping value which is consisted of 2 types, hedonic and utilitarian. Those who pursue the hedonic shopping value may prefer the pleasure of purchasing experience to the product itself. They tend to prefer atmosphere, arousal of the shopping experience. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "hedonic" to refer to their aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment-related value. On the contrary, Those who pursue the utilitarian shopping value may prefer the reasonable buying. It may be more functional. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "utilitarian" to refer to the functional, instrumental, and practical value of consumption offerings. Holbrook(1999) notes that consumer value is an experience that results from the consumption of such benefits. In the context of cell phones for example, the phone's battery life and sound volume are utilitarian benefits, whereas aesthetic appeal from its shape and color are hedonic benefits. Likewise, in the case of a car, fuel economics and safety are utilitarian benefits whereas the sunroof and the luxurious interior are hedonic benefits. The shopping goals are consisted of the promotion focus goal and the prevention focus goal, based on the self-regulatory focus theory. The promotion focus is characterized into focusing ideal self because they are oriented to wishes and vision. The promotion focused individuals are tend to be more risk taking. They are more sensitive to hope and achievement. On the contrary, the prevention focused individuals are characterized into focusing the responsibilities because they are oriented to safety. The prevention focused individuals are tend to be more risk avoiding. We wanted to test the relation among the shopping value, shopping goal and customer loyalty. Customers show the positive or negative feelings comparing with the expectation level which customers have at the point of the purchase. If the result were bigger than the expectation, customers may feel positive feeling such as delight or satisfaction and they would want to share their feelings with other people. And they want to buy those products again in the future time. There is converging evidence that the types of goals consumers expect to be fulfilled by the utilitarian dimension of a product are different from those they seek from the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004). Specifically, whereas consumers expect the fulfillment of product prevention goals on the utilitarian dimension, they expect the fulfillment of promotion goals on the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Majahan 2007; Higgins 1997, 2001) According to the regulatory focus theory, prevention goals are those that ought to be met. Fulfillment of prevention goals in the context of product consumption eliminates or significantly reduces the probability of a painful experience, thus making consumers experience emotions that result from fulfillment of prevention goals such as confidence and securities. On the contrary, fulfillment of promotion goals are those that a person aspires to meet, such as "looking cool" or "being sophisticated." Fulfillment of promotion goals in the context of product consumption significantly increases the probability of a pleasurable experience, thus enabling consumers to experience emotions that result from the fulfillment of promotion goals. The proposed conceptual framework captures that the relationships among hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values and promotion versus prevention shopping goals respectively. An analysis of the consequence of the fulfillment and frustration of utilitarian and hedonic value is theoretically worthwhile. It is also substantively relevant because it helps predict post-consumption behavior such as the promotion versus prevention shopping goals orientation. Because our primary goal is to understand how the post consumption feelings influence the variable customer loyalty: word of mouth (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). This research result is that the utilitarian shopping value gives the positive influence to both of the promotion and prevention goal. However the influence to the prevention goal is stronger. On the contrary, hedonic shopping value gives influence to the promotion focus goal only. Additionally, both of the promotion and prevention goal show the positive relation with customer loyalty. However, the positive relation with promotion goal and customer loyalty is much stronger. The promotion focus goal gives the influence to the customer loyalty. On the contrary, the prevention focus goal relates at the low level of relation with customer loyalty than that of the promotion goal. It could be explained that it is apt to get framed the compliment of people into 'gain-non gain' situation. As the result, for those who have the promotion focus are motivated to deliver their own feeling to other people eagerly. Conversely the prevention focused individual are more sensitive to the 'loss-non loss' situation. The research result is consistent with pre-existent researches. There is a conceptual parallel between necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits and luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha 2007; Higginns 1997; Kivetz and Simonson 2002b). In addition, Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the precedence principle contends luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits higher than necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits. Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha (2007) show that consumers are focused more on the utilitarian benefits than on the hedonic benefits of a product until their minimum expectation of fulfilling prevention goals are met. Furthermore, a utilitarian benefit is a promise of a certain level of functionality by the manufacturer or the retailer. When the promise is not fulfilled, customers blame the retailer and/or the manufacturer. When negative feelings are attributable to an entity, customers feel angry. However in the case of hedonic benefit, the customer, not the manufacturer, determines at the time of purchase whether the product is stylish and attractive. Under such circumstances, customers are more likely to blame themselves than the manufacturer if their friends do not find the product stylish and attractive. Therefore, not meeting minimum utilitarian expectations of functionality generates a much more intense negative feelings, such as anger than a less intense feeling such as disappointment or dissatisfactions. The additional multi group analysis of this research shows the same result. Those who are unsatisfactory customers who have the prevention focused goal shows higher relation with WOM, comparing with satisfactory customers. The research findings in this article could have significant implication for the personal selling fields to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of the sales such that they can develop the sales presentation strategy for the customers. For those who are the hedonic customers may be apt to show more interest to the promotion goal. Therefore it may work to strengthen the design, style or new technology of the products to the hedonic customers. On the contrary for the utilitarian customers, it may work to strengthen the price competitiveness. On the basis of the result from our studies, we demonstrated a correspondence among hedonic versus utilitarian and promotion versus prevention goal, WOM. Similarly, we also found evidence of the moderator effects of satisfaction after use, between the prevention goal and WOM. Even though the prevention goal has the low level of relation to WOM, those who are not satisfied show higher relation to WOM. The relation between the prevention goal and WOM is significantly different according to the satisfaction versus unsatisfaction. In addition, improving the promotion emotions of cheerfulness and excitement and the prevention emotion of confidence and security will further improve customer loyalty. A related potential further research could be to examine whether hedonic versus utilitarian, promotion versus prevention goals improve customer loyalty for services as well. Under the budget and time constraints, designers and managers are often compelling to choose among various attributes. If there is no budget or time constraints, perhaps the best solution is to maximize both hedonic and utilitarian dimension of benefits. However, they have to make trad-off process between various attributes. For the designers and managers have to keep in mind that without hedonic benefit satisfaction of the product it may hard to lead the customers to the customer loyalty.
The purpose of this paper was to review the results of the subjective well-being(swb) studies performed by Hahn and coworkers in Korean culture. As the correlates of swb, we dealt with demographic/individual difference variables, intrapersonal variables, interpersonal process variables, and Korean cultural variables. We proposed that the components of swb were consisted of quality of life(cognitive swb) and overall happy feelings about one's own life(emotional swb). It was also assumed that a measure of total swb could be calculated by summated mean of cognitive swb and emotional swb measures. The data of the swb studies were analyzed and interpreted according to the above three measures of swb. The results of a nationwide survey(Hahn, 2004) from age of 19 to 75 years ald(n=2,230) showed significant simple correlation coefficients between the following demographic/individual difference variables and swb: Gender difference in swb was found(total swb r=.08, p<.001; life satisfaction r=.10, p<.001; overall emotional swb r=.05, p<.05). Men were happier than women in terms of all three measures of swb. It was also found that women appeared to experience greater positive and negative emotions. Correlation between age and emotional swb(r=.09, p<.001) was significant, but life satisfaction was not significant(r=.04, n.s). Correlations between economic status and swb were also significant(total swb r =.23, p<.001; life satisfaction r=.15 p<.001; overall emotional swb r=.15, p<.001l). Although existence of father was negatively related to emotional swb(r=-.05, p<.05), the existence of mother was not related to any of swb measures. Similarly existence of brothers was related positively to overall emotional swb, but existence of sisters was not. Though existence of son was not related to swb, daughter contributed negatively to swb(total swb -.12, p<.01; life satisfaction -.09, p<.05; emotional swb r=-.12, p<.01). We assumed that family member-in-Iaw also contributed to swb because the extended dose social networks were important in Korean culture. The results showed that the following family member-in-law variables were related to swb: Parents-in-law(total swb r=.11, p<.01; life satisfaction r=.10, p<.01; emotional swb r=.10, p<.01), father-in-law(total swb r=.11, p<.01; life satisfaction r=.11, p<.01; emotional swb r=.06, n.s). The result suggested that especially father-in-law contributed to swb through financial and social support. Correlations between emotional experiences in everyday life and swb were also presented. The range of correlation coefficients between the positive emotion measures and swb were r=.30~.48(p<.001) when the above two measures obtained at same time. But the range decreased to r=.19~32(p<.001) when the swb measure was obtained 9 month later longitudinally. Intercorrelations between positive emotional experience; and life satisfaction were r=.37~58(p<.001) when two measures were obtained at same time. We also examined the effects of the intrapersonal cognitive responses to the most stressful life event upon swb. The results of nationwide survey(n=1,021) showed that self-disclosure(total swb r=.09, p<.010; life satisfaction r=.10, p<.01; emotional swb r=.07, p<.01), rumination(total swb r=-.17, p<.001), thought avoidance(total swb r=.12, p<.001; life satisfaction r=-.08; emotional swb r=-.12, p<.001) and suppression(total swb r=-.13, p<.001; life satisfaction r=-.08, p<.05: emotional swb r=-.13, p<.001) contributed to swb. It was also suggested that mismatch between self-guide and regulatory focus contributed negatively to emotional swb. It was also found that social comparison motives and fulfillment of the motives contributed to swb. The results of a survey research(n=363 college students) revealed that the higher the general social comparison motive, the lower the swb(total swb r=-.15, P<.01: life satisfaction r=-.17. p<.01; emotional swb r=-.10, p<.05). It was also found that satisfaction level of self-evalution motive contributed positively to swb(total swb r=-.14. p<.01: life satisfaction r=-.12, p<.05; emotional swb r=.15, p<.001). Both of self-improvement motive(r=.13, p<.05) and satisfaction level of self-improvement motive(r=.12, p<.05) contributed positively to emotional swb, respectively. The above results suggested that swb was depended upon the interaction effect of social comparison motive; and level of fulfillment of the motives. We also reported the significant multiple predictors of swb in a sample of age from 60years to 89years olds. The results of multiple regression analysis showed that the significant multiple predictors of swb were past illness(β=.174, p<.001), economic status(β=.418, p<.001), marital satisfaction(β=.0841, p<.001), satisfaction of offsprins(β=.065, p<.01), expectation level of social support from offsprings(β=-.049, p<.001), and negative emotions(β=-.454. p<.001) among 16 social psychological factors. It was also found that swb was an important multiple predictors of physical health. This finding was replicated in a longitudinal study. Both of positive and negative emotional experiences were significant multiple predictors of physical health one year later. The results of the discriminant analysis showed both of total swb and positive emotional experiences contributed to discriminate the happy and healthy olds from unhappy and unhealthy olds. We paper also examined the effects of the nonnative social behaviors upon swb in Korean culture. The main hypotheses of the study(Hahn, 2006, in press) was that the important nonnative behaviors would influence on swb through both of the mediation processes of adjustment to social relationships and psychological stress. The survey data were collected from 2,129 adults age of 19 to 75, from 7 regional areas in Korea. The results of the study revealed that almost all of correlation coefficients between 15 normative social behaviors and the above three criteria w-ere significant. The fitness test results of the covariance structural equation model showed that all of the fitness indices were satisfactory (GFI=.974, AGFI=.909, NNFI=.922, NFI=.973, CFI=.974. RMR=.049, RMSEA=.073). The results of the analysis revealed that the following five path coeffi6ents from behaviors to social adjustment were significant; behavior tor family and family members(t=5.87, p<.001), courteous behavior(t=4.39, p<.001), faithful behavior (t=2.15. p<.05). collectivistic behavior(t=8.31, p<.001). Seven path coefficients from the normative behaviors to psychological stress were significant; behavior for family and family members (t=-4.63, p<.001), faithful behavior(t=-3.86, p<.001). suppression of emotional expression(t=3.99, p<.001), trustworthy and dependable behavior(t=-2.21, p<.05), collectivistic behavior(t=3.72, p<.001), effortful and diligent behavior(t=2.94, p<.001), husbandry and saving behavior(t=3.40, p<.001). The above results suggested that four normative behaviors among seven behaviors contributed negatively to psychological stress in current Korean society. The results abo confirmed the hypothesized paths from social adjustment (t=10.40, p<.001) to swb and from psychological stress(t=-19.74, p<.001) to swb. The important results of the study were discussed in terms of the Confucian traditions and recent social changes in Korean culture. Finally limitations of this review paper were discussed and the suggestions for the future study were also proposed.
This study researches the effects of common features on a no-choice option with respect to regulatory focus theory. The primary interest is in three factors and their interrelationship: common features, no-choice option, and regulatory focus. Prior studies have compiled vast body of research in these areas. First, the "common features effect" has been observed bymany noted marketing researchers. Tversky (1972) proposed the seminal theory, the EBA model: elimination by aspect. According to this theory, consumers are prone to focus only on unique features during comparison processing, thereby dismissing any common features as redundant information. Recently, however, more provocative ideas have attacked the EBA model by asserting that common features really do affect consumer judgment. Chernev (1997) first reported that adding common features mitigates the choice gap because of the increasing perception of similarity among alternatives. Later, however, Chernev (2001) published a critically developed study against his prior perspective with the proposition that common features may be a cognitive load to consumers, and thus consumers are possible that they are prone to prefer the heuristic processing to the systematic processing. This tends to bring one question to the forefront: Do "common features" affect consumer choice? If so, what are the concrete effects? This study tries to answer the question with respect to the "no-choice" option and regulatory focus. Second, some researchers hold that the no-choice option is another best alternative of consumers, who are likely to avoid having to choose in the context of knotty trade-off settings or mental conflicts. Hope for the future also may increase the no-choice option in the context of optimism or the expectancy of a more satisfactory alternative appearing later. Other issues reported in this domain are time pressure, consumer confidence, and alternative numbers (Dhar and Nowlis 1999; Lin and Wu 2005; Zakay and Tsal 1993). This study casts the no-choice option in yet another perspective: the interactive effects between common features and regulatory focus. Third, "regulatory focus theory" is a very popular theme in recent marketing research. It suggests that consumers have two focal goals facing each other: promotion vs. prevention. A promotion focus deals with the concepts of hope, inspiration, achievement, or gain, whereas prevention focus involves duty, responsibility, safety, or loss-aversion. Thus, while consumers with a promotion focus tend to take risks for gain, the same does not hold true for a prevention focus. Regulatory focus theory predicts consumers' emotions, creativity, attitudes, memory, performance, and judgment, as documented in a vast field of marketing and psychology articles. The perspective of the current study in exploring consumer choice and common features is a somewhat creative viewpoint in the area of regulatory focus. These reviews inspire this study of the interaction possibility between regulatory focus and common features with a no-choice option. Specifically, adding common features rather than omitting them may increase the no-choice option ratio in the choice setting only to prevention-focused consumers, but vice versa to promotion-focused consumers. The reasoning is that when prevention-focused consumers come in contact with common features, they may perceive higher similarity among the alternatives. This conflict among similar options would increase the no-choice ratio. Promotion-focused consumers, however, are possible that they perceive common features as a cue of confirmation bias. And thus their confirmation processing would make their prior preference more robust, then the no-choice ratio may shrink. This logic is verified in two experiments. The first is a