바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Consumer Sympathy and Message Strategy

Abstract

Survey study and experimental study were performed to examine action plan for establishment of effective message strategy based on consumer sympathy modules. In the survey study, 239 undergraduates were asked to answer questionnaire including information processing style scale and regulatory focus scale that are basis of sympathy module. Each response was measured on 7 point Likert type rating scales and are examined relationships between information processing style and regulation focus. In the experimental study, 64 undergraduates were randomly assigned to sympathy module groups and were asked to evaluate messages that include static/dynamic and useful/joyful appeals, in order to investigate differences of degree of sympathy and favorableness about messages according to rational/emotional sympathy modules. To ensure reliability and validity of these scales, data was analyzed with internal consistency and factor analysis. For hypotheses testing, correlation analysis and analysis of variance(ANOVA) were conducted. According to results from both studies, first, there are strong correlations between information processing style and regulatory focus. Second, the more message sympathize to, the more chance have to favor. Third, rational sympathy module significantly influences on sympathize and favor to static message and useful message. Finally, emotional sympathy module does not influence on dynamic message and joyful message. These findings suggest that to sympathize consumer is important and message strategy need to concern to consumer sympathy modules, in order to raise message effect. Finally, limitations of this study and directions for further studies are discussed.

keywords
Consumer Sympathy, Rational/Emotional Sympathy Module, Regulatory Fit, Message Strategy

Reference

1.

고한준 (2010). 광고메시지에 대한 이해가 광고효과에 미치는 영향. 광고학연구, 21(1), 7-21.

2.

권익현 (2005). 지각된 위험이 메시지 프레이밍 효과에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구. 마케팅연구, 20(3), 29-45.

3.

김성훈 (2005). 감정적 반응이 공익광고효과에 미치는 영향. 광고학연구, 16(1), 163-181.

4.

김은주, 김정일, 남승규 (2012). 소비자 공감모듈에 기반을 둔 메시지전략. 한국광고학회 추계연차학술대회 및 국제심포지움 발표논문집, 92-95.

5.

김은주, 김정일, 남승규, 노길광 (2011). 일반의사결정척도의 타당화. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 12(4), 751-770.

6.

나준희, 최지호 (2005). 소비자의 조절적 동기와 광고의 제시유형이 제품태도에 미치는 영향. 광고학연구, 16(2), 263-283.

7.

남승규 (2008). 자기조절적 관점에서 본 소비활성황전략. 한국소비자학회 추계학술대회 논문집, 117-126.

8.

남승규 (2009). 소비자분석. 서울: 학지사.

9.

남승규 (2010a). 소비자 공감에 대한 이론적 연구. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 11(4), 619-636.

10.

남승규 (2010b). 광고효과의 기원, 공감의 실체. 한국광고학회 추계연차학술대회논문집, 53- 57.

11.

남승규 (2011). 광고반응평가차원에 기초한 광고효과 제고 전략. 광고학연구, 22(8), 45- 58.

12.

남승규 (2012). 소비자행복 척도의 개발 및 타당화. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 13(3), 403-420.

13.

안광호 (2011). 정서지배 소비자행동: EQ가 IQ를 지배하는 소비자 판단과 선택. 서울: 학현사.

14.

양 윤, 김신혜 (2011). 메시지 틀, 조절초점, 지각된 위험이 광고메시지 태도와 구매의도에 미치는 영향. 광고학연구, 22(1), 257- 276.

15.

윤태웅, 이병관 (2011). 메시지 방향성이 광고반응에 미치는 효과 연구. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 12(1), 169-189.

16.

이주원, 성영신 (2009). 소비자에게 제품 디자인이란 어떤 의미인가. 한국광고학회 추계연차학술대회논문집, 305-311.

17.

제러미 리프킨 (2010). 공감의 시대. 서울: 민음사. 이경남 역.

18.

조영석, 황장선 (2011). 제품광고의 사회적 메시지가 광고효과에 미치는 영향: 감정이입과 조절적 동기의 역할. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 12(1), 149-168.

19.

조형오 (2000). 금연광고 메시지 유형의 효과분석: 메시지 프레이밍과 메시지 소구방향의 매개역할. 광고학연구, 11(1), 133- 157.

20.

최자영, 최윤식 (2011). 자기조절초점에 따른 공익연계마케팅(CRM) 광고가 제품태도에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 12(1), 1-25.

21.

Adval, R. (2001). Sometimes it just feel right: The differential weighting of affect-consistent and affect-inconsistent product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 1-17.

22.

Cho, H. & Boster, F. (2008). Effects of gain versus loss frame antidrug ads on adolescents. Journal of Communication, 58(3), 428-446.

23.

Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 3, 388-404.

24.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

25.

Dardis, F. E. & Shen, F. (2008). The influence of evidence type and product involvement on message-framing effects in advertising. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7, 222-238.

26.

Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

27.

Escalas, J., & Stern, B. (2003). Sympathy and empathy: Emotional responses to advertising drama. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 566- 578.

28.

Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13, 1, 1-6.

29.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1290.

30.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217- 1230.

31.

Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 14, 4, 209-213.

32.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory. American Economic Review, 47, 263-291.

33.

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.

34.

Lutz, R. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. In L. F. Alwitt & A. A. Mitchell(Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects: Theory, research, and application(pp.45-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

35.

Maheswaran, D. & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361-367.

36.

Nisbett, R. E. & Ross, L. (1980). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cllifs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

37.

Pham, M. T. & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and Oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 503-518.i

38.

Rossiter, J. R. & Percy, L. (1997). Advertising communication and promotion management. New York: McGraw- Hill Company.

39.

Rotham, A. J. & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19.

40.

Saaty, T. L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw-Hill

41.

Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, think, act, and relate to your company and brands. New York: Free Press, Inc.

42.

Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

43.

Sherif, M. & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: CT: Yale University Press.

44.

Smith, M. B. (1996). Framing in advertising and the moderation impact of consumer education. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 49-64.

45.

Spicer, J. (2005). Making sense of multivariate data analysis. CA: Sage Pub.

46.

Statt, D. A. (1997). Understanding the consumer: A psychological approach. Macmillan Press Ltd.

47.

Szwarc, P. (2005). Researching customer satisfaction & loyalty. Kogan Page.

48.

Vohs, K. D. & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation: An introduction. In R. F. Baumeister(Eds), Handbook of self- regulation: Research, theory and applications (pp.1- 12). Guilford Publications, Inc.

49.

Zaltman, G. (2003). How customers think: Essential insights into the mind of the market. Harvard Business Press.

logo