.png){kind=logo}
open access
메뉴
본 연구에서는 감각단서, 접촉욕구, 정보처리유형이 인지반응과 제품평가에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다. 실험 1의 결과, 제품접촉이 소비자에게서 인지반응을 산출하였다. 또한 접촉욕구가 높은 소비자에게 접촉기회가 주어졌을 때 인지반응이 가장 많이 산출되었으며, 아울러 제품평가도 매우 호의적이었다. 그러나 접촉욕구가 낮은 소비자는 접촉기회가 있을 때보다 없을 때 제품평가가 더 호의적이었다. 실험 2의 결과, 접촉욕구가 높은 소비자의 경우, 분석처리 시 촉각단서가 제시될 때 제품평가가 가장 호의적이었다. 그러나 접촉욕구가 낮은 소비자의 경우, 정보처리유형에 관계없이 촉각단서가 제시될 때 제품평가가 가장 비호의적이었다. 이런 결과들을 통해 제품접촉이 소비자의 인지반응을 산출한다는 것과 촉각은 접촉욕구가 높은 소비자에게 특히 효과적이고, 시각은 접촉욕구가 낮은 소비자에게 더 효과적임을 알 수 있었다.
The purpose of this study is to find how the sensory cues of stimulus, information processing modes, and need for touch influence on consumer's cognitive response and product evaluation. The hypothesis of experiment 1 is that when one has chance of touching the product, it would produce more cognitive thoughts than when one has no chance, and if one has high NFT(need for touch), one would evaluate positively a product. The results show the significant main effects of both NFT and chance of touching on the amount of cognitive response, and the significant main effects of NFT, chance of touching, and the significant interaction effect between these two factors on the product evaluation. The hypothesis of experiment 2 is that when one receives a haptic cue, one who has high NFT would evaluate more positively the product in the analytic processing. But in the case of low NFT, when one receives a haptic cue, one would evaluate negatively the product regardless of information processing modes. The results show the significant main effect of sensory cues, the significant two-way interaction effect between NFT and sensory cues, and the significant three-way interaction between NFT, sensory cues, and information processing modes on the product evaluation.
김영미 (2010). 백화점 여성 의류매장의 비주얼머천다이징에 대한 시각적 반응이 브랜드 태도에 미치는 영향. 박사학위 청구논문, 고려대학교 일반대학원 가정학과 의류학 전공.
김성희 (2003). 휴대용 단말기에서 사용자 감성에 따른 개인화 서비스에 대한 연구. 한국디자인학회, 봄, 14-15.
양 윤, 민재연 (2004). 무드, 정보처리 유형 및 광고 유형이 광고에 대한 감정․인지 반응과 광고 태도에 미치는 영향. 광고학연구, 15(3), 7-37
이경탁 (2005). 정치광고에 대한 인지적 반응과 정서적 반응. 광고태도의 매개효과를 중심으로. 광고학연구, 19(5), 283-303.
이성일 (1999). 진동식 촉각 자극에 대한 손의 상대적 민감도 반응. 대한인간공학회지, 18(3), 1-12.
이학식 (1992). 광고노출에 의한 소비자의 태도형성-문헌적 연구와 종합적 연구의 시도. 광고연구, 가을호, 33-54.
전성희, 양 윤 (2008). 소비자의 자기통제와 접촉욕구가 충동구매에 미치는 영향. 2008 (사)한국심리학회 연차학술발표대회논문집.
Batra R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 65-81.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought-listing technique. In T. Merluzzi, C. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment. New York: Guilford Press, 309-342.
Childers, T. C., & Houston, M. J. (1983). Imagery paradigms for consumer research: Alternative perspectives from cognitive psychology. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 59-64.
Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer research, 12(September), 125-35.
Citrin, A. V., Stem, D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Clark, M. J. (2003). Consumer need for tactile input: An internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 915-922.
Craig, J. C., & Rollman, G. B. (1999). Somesthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 305-331.
Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2007). Taste perception: More than meets the tongue. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 490-498.
Johansson. R. S. (1978). Tactile sensibility in the human hand: receptive field characteristics of mechanoreceptive units in the glabrous skin area. Journal of Physiology 28, 101-125.
Hornik, J. (1992). Effects of physical contact on customers’ shopping time and behavior. Marketing Letters 3, 49-55.
Katz, D. (1989). The world of touch. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum associates publishers.
Krishina, A., & Morrin, M.. (2008). Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 807-818.
MacInnis, D., & Price, L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 473-491.
Peck, J., & Chiders, T. L. (2003a). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67, 35-48.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003b). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The “need for touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430-442.
Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 434-447.
Peck, J., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good: Customers’ affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70, 56-69.
Peck, J. (2009). Does touch matter? Insight from haptic research in marketing. In A. Krishna (Ed.), Sensory marketing: A Confluence of psychology, neuroscience and consumer behavior research. New York: Psychology Press/ Routledge.
Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman. A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 5-20.
Richardson, A. (1969). Mental imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experience marketing. Free pr.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 278-292.
Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1991). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. NY: Oxford University Press.
Stier, D. S., & Hall, J. A. (1984). Gender differences in touch: An empirical and theoretical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 440.
