-08-¹ÚÀ±Áö,±è±â¿Á

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "-08-¹ÚÀ±Áö,±è±â¿Á"

세경 사
6 years ago
Views:

1 Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association J. Korean Home Econ. Assoc. Vol. 50 No. 7, 81-96, November eissn pissn Consumer Values Derived from Products by Consumers: Difference among the Four Types of Products Classified with Product Attributes and Visibility Client Service, The Nielson Company Korea Department of Consumer and Family Sciences, Sungkyunkwan University Abstract The purpose of this study is to understand consumer values derived from products by the contemporary consumers, as the meaning of a product is extended from the functional utilities to the mediums of fulfilling consumer values. Consumer values have been researched from the marketers perspectives and, thus, the scales to measure consumer values tend to be too abstract and not always reflective of the consumers perspectives. Holbrook s typology of consumer values is utilized and the products are classified into four groups according to the product characteristic of the utilitarian versus hedonic, and the consumption spaces of the indoor and outdoor. The findings are as follows. First, the values of efficiency, excellence, ethics, and spirituality are more likely derived from utilitarian products, while the value of play is more likely derived from the hedonic products. Second, the values of efficiency, excellence, and ethics are more likely derived from the indoor products, and values of playfulness, esthetics, status, and respect are more likely derived from the outdoor products. Third, the most frequently mentioned values are the efficiency, playfulness, and status. Fourth, the list of products answered as being representative for four types of products are short to include obvious products such as TV, mobile phone, computer, car, refrigerator, and MP3 player. Both the utilitarian and hedonic values are derived from TV, computer, and mobile phone, while the utilitarian value from refrigerator and car, and the hedonic value from MP3 player, digital camera, and game consoles. The results imply that consumer values should be carefully understood and reflected in developing new products in order to successfully fulfill consumers underlying needs and requirements. (consumer value), (utilitarian product), (hedonic product), (indoor product), (outdoor product) Corresponding Author : Kee Ok Kim, Department of Consumer and Family Sciences, Sungkyunkwan University, 25-2, Sungkyunkwan-ro, Jongnogu, Seoul, , Korea Tel: , kokim@skku.edu 1 ( ). Copyright 2012, The Korean Home Economics Association. All rights reserved

2 - 82 -

3 - 83 -

4 - 84 -

5 Table 1. Holbrook s typology of consumer value Self-oriented Other-oriented Active Reactive Active Reactive Extrinsic EFFICIENCY (O/I, Convenience) EXCELLENCE (Quality) STATUS (Success, Impression Management) ESTEEM (Reputation, Materialism, Possessions) Intrinsic PLAY (Fun) AESTHETICS (Beauty) ETHICS (Virtue, Justice, Morality) SPIRITUALITY (Faith, Ecstasy, Sacredness, Magic) Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Introduction to consumer value. In M. B. Holbrook (Ed.), Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research (pp. 1-28). London: Routledge

6 - 86 -

7 Table 2. Consumer value scale Consumer value Item Item source 1. It needs to be easy to use. Interview Efficiency 2. It needs to be long lasting. [27] 3. It needs to be easy to maintain. Interview 1. It needs to be of good quality. [27] Excellency 2. It needs to perform well. [27] 3. It needs to be safe to use. Interview 1. It needs to be joyful to use. [27] Play 2. It needs to feel good when using. [27] 3. It needs to be pleasant to use. [27] 1. It needs to be beautiful in shape. [27] Aesthetics 2. It needs to be of good design. [27] 3. It has a stimulating design to try out. Interview Status Esteem Ethics Spirituality 1. It needs to be seen as used by the high-income bracket of the population. [27] 2. It needs to be seen as used by the upper level segment of the population. [27] 3. It needs to reflect who I am. Interview 1. It needs to be the thing which people envy. [27] 2. It needs to give good impression to others. Interview 3. It needs to be limited and not overtly popular. Interview 1. It needs to be fairly ethical in consumption. [27] 2. It needs to be eco-friendly in use. Interview 3. It needs to fulfill the sense of patriotism. Interview 1. It needs to be helpful for the human life. Interview 2. It needs to be worthwhile for the humanity. Interview 3. It needs to be of good influence on the society. Interview Table 3. Types of products Utilitarian Hedonic Indoor I. Indoor utilitarian Those products usually used indoors and enhance convenience. Indoor hedonic Those products usually used insdoors and give pleasure and playfulness Outdoor. Outdoor utilitarian Those products usually used outdoors and enhance convenience. Outdoor hedonic Those products usually used outdoors and give pleasure and playfulness

8 Table 4. Self-monitoring scale Factor loading Item Public performance Other oriented 3. In different situations with different people, I often act like a very different person I can make impromptu speeches on topics about which I have almost no information I have considered being an entertainer I am not always the person I appear to be I feel a bit awkward in a company and do not show up quite so well as I should I am not particularly good at making other people like me In a group of people, I am rarely at the center of attention At a party, I let others keep the jokes and stories going I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone else or to win their favor. (deleted) Table 5. Reliability test: Cronbach s α Scale Indoor utilitarian Outdoor utilitarian Indoor hedonic Outdoor hedonic Efficiency (3 items) Excellence (3) Play (3) Consumer value Aesthetics (3) Status (3) Esteem (3) Ethics (3) Spirituality (3) Self-monitoring (10).915 α Scheffé α Scheffé

9 Table 6. Characteristics of the respondents Category f (%) Category f (%) Sex Male 181 (48.0) 100 < (5.0) Female 196 (52.0) 200 < (15.9) 20s 94 (24.9) 300 < (26.5) Age 30s 91 (24.1) 400 < (22.8) 40s 96 (25.5) Monthly family income 500 < (13.8) 50s 96 (25.5) (Unit: 1,000 won) 600 < (6.9) Professional 14 (3.7) 700 < (4.0) Semi-professional 35 (9.3) 800 < (1.6) Managerial 8 (2.1) 900 < (0.3) Self-owned 45 (11.9) (3.2) Clerical 92 (24.4) None 51 (13.5) Official 14 (3.7) < (15.1) Occupation Sales 6 (1.6) 100 < (26.3) Service 16 (4.2) 200 < (19.4) Blue colors 18 (4.8) 300 < (14.1) Students 47 (12.5) Monthly individual income 400 < (4.5) Housewives 65 (17.2) (Unit: 1,000 won) 500 < (3.4) No jobs 5 (1.3) 600 < (1.6) Misc. 12 (3.2) 700 < (0.3) Elementary 1 (0.3) 800 < (0.3) Middle school 4 (1.1) 900 < (0.5) High school 87 (23.1) (1.1) Education College 45 (11.9) 1.00 low < (59.4) Public College graduate 216 (57.3) Selfmonitoring performance 4.25 high (4.06) Graduate 24 (6.4) Married 247 (65.5) 1.00 low < (51.2) Marital status Other oriented single 130 (34.5) 4.00 high (48.8)

10 Table 7. Consumer values from utilitarian vs. hedonic products Consumer value Utilitarian Hedonic Mean (s.d.) Mean (s.d.) t Efficiency 4.36 (0.53) 4.17 (0.62) 8.77*** Excellency 4.50 (0.51) 4.29 (0.62) 9.31*** Play 4.01 (0.73) 4.36 (0.61) 10.19*** Aesthetics 3.89 (0.68) 3.92 (0.67) 1.33 Status 3.17 (0.94) 3.17 (0.94) 0.07 Esteem 3.38 (0.89) 3.40 (0.91) 0.75 Ethics 3.76 (0.83) 3.67 (0.85) 5.38*** Spirituality 4.11 (0.73) 3.99 (0.78) 7.14*** ***p <.01 Table 8. Consumer values from indoor vs. outdoor products Consumer value Indoor Outdoor Mean (s.d.) Mean (s.d.) t Efficiency 4.29 (0.57) 4.24 (0.59) 2.61*** Excellency 4.42 (0.55) 4.37 (0.56) 2.91*** Play 4.16 (0.63) 4.21 (0.61) 2.79*** Aesthetics 3.73 (0.74) 4.07 (0.69) 10.28*** Status 3.08 (0.94) 3.26 (0.96) 7.73*** Esteem 3.29 (0.89) 3.49 (0.94) 8.14*** Ethics 3.74 (0.82) 3.69 (0.85) 3.25*** Spirituality 4.08 (0.76) 4.06 (0.75) 0.96 ***p <.01 Table 9. Consumer values from the four types of products (Scheffé test) Value Indoor utilitarian Outdoor utilitarian Indoor hedonic Outdoor hedonic F Efficiency 4.41 a 4.31 a 4.18 b 4.16 b 12.39*** Excellency 4.52 a 4.47 a 4.31 b 4.27 b 15.03*** Play 3.95 b 4.07 b 4.37 a 4.36 a 31.36*** Aesthetics 3.70 b 4.07 a 3.76 b 4.07 a 24.96*** Status 3.05 c 3.30 a 3.12 bc 3.23 ab 4.95*** Esteem 3.27 c 3.50 a 3.31 bc 3.48 ab 5.50*** Ethics Spirituality 4.15 a 4.14 a 3.81 c 3.98 b 15.81*** Note. In each row, means that share a subscript do not differ at the.05 significant level. ***p <

11 Table 10. The three top ranked consumer values from the four types of products Indoor utilitarian Outdoor utilitarian Indoor hedonic Outdoor hedonic 1st Efficiency Efficiency Play Play 2nd Play Play Efficiency Efficiency 3rd Spirituality Status Status Status Table 11. List of products answered as being representative of each product type Indoor utilitarian f (%) Outdoor utilitarian f (%) Indoor hedonic f (%) Outdoor hedonic f (%) Computer 137 (36.3) Mobile phone 172 (45.6) TV 257 (68.2) MP3 109 (28.9) Refrigerator 123 (32.6) Car 151 (40.1) Computer 73 (19.4) Mobile phone 85 (22.5) TV 43 (11.4) Notebook 33 ( 8.8) Game player 13 ( 3.4) Digital camera 72 (19.1) Washer 22 ( 5.8) MP3 4 ( 1.1) Notebook 8 ( 2.1) Bicycle 21 ( 5.6) Notebook 13 ( 3.4) Bicycle 4 ( 1.1) Audio player 8 ( 2.1) Camera 21 ( 5.6) Vacuum cleaner 12 ( 3.2) Electronic dictionary 3 ( 0.8) Radio 3 ( 0.8) Car 20 ( 5.3) Gas range 4 ( 1.1) E-book 1 ( 0.3) MP3 2 ( 0.5) PMP 11 ( 2.9) Rice cooker 3 ( 0.8) PMP 1 ( 0.3) Home theater 2 ( 0.5) Notebook 9 ( 2.4) Water purifier 3 ( 0.8) Bag 1 ( 0.3) CD player 1 ( 0.3) Game player 8 ( 2.1) Kimchi refrigerator 2 ( 0.5) Navigator 1 ( 0.3) Gas range 1 ( 0.3) Golf club 4 ( 1.1) Iron 2 ( 0.5) Multi focal lens 1 ( 0.3) Misc. 1 ( 0.3) DSLR 3 ( 0.8) Bidet 2 ( 0.5) Lip balm 1 ( 0.3) Refrigerator 1 ( 0.3) Digital cam-coder 2 ( 0.5) Dish washer 2 ( 0.5) Stroller 1 ( 0.3) Net book 1 ( 0.3) Tennis racket 2 ( 0.5) Bed 2 ( 0.5) Purse 1 ( 0.3) Coffee port 1 ( 0.3) Fishing pole 1 ( 0.3) Stone moxa 1 ( 0.3) Tumbler 1 ( 0.3) Air conditioner 1 ( 0.3) Navigator 1 ( 0.3) Dryer 1 ( 0.3) Hand bag 1 ( 0.3) Rice cooker 1 ( 0.3) Cigarette 1 ( 0.3) Lox 1 ( 0.3) Vacuum cleaner 1 ( 0.3) Hiking shoes 1 ( 0.3) Remote control 1 ( 0.3) Coffee maker 1 ( 0.3) Badminton racket 1 ( 0.3) Face washer 1 ( 0.3) Fabric deodorizer 1 ( 0.3) Soju 1 ( 0.3) Range 1 ( 0.3) Smart pad 1 ( 0.3) Printer 1 ( 0.3) Ear phone 1 ( 0.3) Jump rope 1 ( 0.3) Hand cream 1 ( 0.3) Total 377 (100) 377 (100) 377 (100) 377 (100)

12 Table 12. Consumer values from the four product types by characteristics Indoor utilitarian Outdoor utilitarian Indoor hedonic Outdoor hedonic Ef Ex Pl Ae St Es Et Sp Ef Ex Pl Ae St Es Et Sp Ef Ex Pl Ae St Es Et Sp Ef Ex Pl Ae St Es Et Sp Sex Male l l Female h h 20s b b b b c b c b b b c b Age 30s b b bc b bc bc b b 40s a a a a a a a ab a a ab a 50s a a ab a a a a a a a a Professional Clerical/official Sales/self-owned a Occupation Students b b b b b b Wives a a a a Other a a a a a Education Marital status < College College Married h h h h h h h h h h h h h Single l l l l l l l l l l l l l Monthly household income < 300 a a b a a b 300 ~ < 400 b a a 400 ~ < 500 b b b 500 b a b b a Monthly individual income < 100 a ab a ab ab 100 ~ < 200 a a b b c c b c 200 ~ < 300 b b bc bc bc 300 b b a a a b a a a Selfmonitoring Public performing Other directedness low l l h l l h l l h h l l high h h l h h l h h l l h h low l l l high h h h Note. In each column, means that share a subscript do not differ at the.05 significant level. Ef = Efficiency; Ex = Excellence; Pl = Play; Ae = Aesthetics; St = Status; Es = Esteem; Et = Ethics; Sp = Spirituality

13 Scheffé

14 1. Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M., J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase

15 decisions. Journal of Consumer Reserch, 9, Beatty, P. H., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). Problems with VALS in international marketing research: An example from an application of the empirical mirror technique. Advances In Consumer Research, 15, Bourne, F. S. (1958). Group influence in marketing and public relations. In R. Likert & S. P. Hayes (Eds.), Some applications of behavioral research (pp ). Paris: UNESCO. 4. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1988). On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Bronowski, J. (1959). Science and human values, New York: Harper & Brothers. 6. Browne, A. B., & Kaldenerg, D. (1997). Conceptualizing self-monitoring: Links to materialism and product involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(1), Buzz, H. E. Jr., & Goodstein, L. D. (1996). Measuring customer value: Gaining the strategic advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 24, Chung, J. E. (2009). Influence of consumer s aptitude and situational control, Focused on information search and decision rules. Unpublished master s thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea. 9. DeBono, K. G., & Packer, M. (1991). The effects of advertising appeal on perceptions of product quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing, 37, Geaff, T. R. (1996). Image congruence effects on product evaluations: The role of self-monitoring and public/private consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 13(5), Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), Han, E. K. (2000). Determinants of Korea-Japan World Cup web-site usage, Advertising Research, 56, Han, J. H. (206). The contemporary consumers decision-making styles: Focused on the consumer value. Unpublished master s thesis, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea. 15. Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: An axiology of services in the consumption experience. In R. T. Rust & L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 16. Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Introduction to consumer value. In M. B. Holbrook (Ed.), Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research (pp. 1-28). London: Routledge. 17. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspect of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feeling, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), Hong, S. T., & Kang, M. S. (2003). Strategic utilization of consumer value in the service industry-focused on builup of the communityhaving the same service value-. Journal of Aviation Management Society of Korea, 1(1), Hwang, M. W., & Jeong, H. B. (2007). Study on the emotional consumption value-focused on the relationship among consumer innovativeness, new product adoption and emotional consumption value s components. Korea Broadcast Advertising Corporation, Advertising Journal, 17, Kahle, L. R. (1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America, New York, NY: Praeger Publishers. 21. Kim, S. K., & Yang, Y. (1995). The influence of selfmonitoring, use situation, and perceived risks on consumer behavior. Advertising Journal, 29, Lee, E. S. (1999). Situational consumer behavior by individual s self-monitoring aptitude, Journal of Consumer Studies, 10(1), Lee, H. S., Ahn, K. H., & Ha, Y. W. (2010). Consumer behavior: Marketing strategic approach., 5 th Ed., Seoul, Korea: Bubmunsa. 24. Lee, K., M. (2005). Measuring the value of PDA with the laddering technique. Unpublished master s thesis, Sookmyung Women s University, Seoul, Korea. 25. Lee, K. O., & Chung, Y. S. (1998). A development of a consumer value scale. Journal of Consumption

16 Culture, 2(1), Lee, S. H. (1995). A study of hospital choice on the basis of consumption values theory. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 30(2), Lee, Y. I. (2009). The effect on perception of consumer value of product characteristics and market position. Journal of Commodity Science and Technology, 27(4), Mitchell, A. (1983). The nine American life styles. New York: Warner. 29. Mittal, B. (1989). The dimensions of advertising involvement. Advance in Consumer Reserch, 16, Munson, J. M., & McIntyre, S. H. (1978). Personal values: A cross-cultural assessment of self values and values attributed to a distant cultural stereotype. In H. K. Hunt (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp ), 5, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. 31. Nurkka, P., & Kujala, S. (2008). What matters-user values or value to the end-user? CHI 2008 Proceedings of 26 th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 5-10, Florence, Italy. 32. Pitts, R. E., & Woodside, A. G. (1991). Special Issues: Examining the structure of personal values and consumer decision making. Journal of Business Research, 22, Riesman, D., Glazer, N., & Denney, R. (1950). The lonely crowd. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 34. Rokeach, M. J. (1969). Beliefs, attitudes, and values, San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 35. Rokeach, M. J. (1973). The nature of human values, New York: Free Press. 36. Schmitt, B. H., Leclerc, F., & Dube, L. (1996). Intrusions into waiting lines: Does the queue constitute a social system?. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63, Shavitt, S., Lowrey, T., & Han, S. (1992). Attitude functions in advertising: The interactive role of products and self-monitorign. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, Sherman, S. J., & Fazio, R. H. (1983). Paralles between attitude and traits as predictors of behavior. Journal of Personality, 51, Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22, Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), Solomon, M. R. (2012). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. 10 th Ed., London: Prentice Hall. 44. Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, Ulaga, W. (2001). Customer value in business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(4), Vinson, D. E., Scott, J. E., & Lamont, L. M. (1977). The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 41, Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), Yang, Y., & Lee, E. J. (2002). The comparison of male and female college students value system and recognition of importance in product attributes. Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 3(1), Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3),

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;

,,.. 400,,,,,,.,,, -, -, -., 3.. :, Tel : 010-9540-0640, E-mail : sunney05@hanmail.net ,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012).