~1111(2078).fm

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "~1111(2078).fm"

보강 호
5 years ago
Views:

1 Ï Ð Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles Vol. 35, No. 9 (2011) p.1099~ z» z» xy y w w Classification of Consumer Review Information Based on Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Availability/Non-availability of Information Heesook Hong Dept. of Clothing & Textiles, Jeju National University ( ), (1 : , : ), y ( ) Abstract This study identified the types of consumer review information about apparel products based on consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the availability/non-availability of consumer review information for online stores. Data were collected from 31 females aged 20s' to 30s', who had significant experience in reading consumer reviews posted on online stores. Consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction with availability or non-availability of review information on online stores is different for information in regards to apparel product attributes, product benefits, and store attributes. According to the concept of quality elements suggested by the Kano model, two types of consumer review information were determined: Must-have information (product attribute information about size, fabric, color and design of the apparel product; benefit information about washing & care and comport of the apparel product; store attribute information about responsiveness, disclosure, delivery and after service of the store) and attracting information (attribute information about price comparison; benefit information about coordination with other items, fashionability, price discounts, value for price, reaction from others, emotion experienced during transaction, symbolic features for status, health functionality, and eco-friendly feature; store attribute information about return/refund, damage compensation and reputation/credibility of online store and interactive and dynamic nature of reviews among customers). There were significant differences between the high and low involvement groups in their perceptions of consumer review information. Key words: Review, Information, Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction, Involvement, e-wom; z»,, /,, I. Corresponding author heesookh@jejunu.ac.kr 200 ( w ) w w (KRF C00994). l s ù w w š š (Chevalier & Mayzlin, 200; Gauri et al., 200). m, ü /q t 1099

2 w wz 7PM/P 2010» 4 2,40 ( t 1.9%) 200 z (B2C) ƒ ³ š ( 2010 annual, 2011). t š t ù y q w» x w t. p l v, t ƒ w. š s w œ w» t x x ù s x ƒw ùkû (Forsythe & Shi, 2003; Lee, & Chung, 2000; Park & Stoel, 2002). w x ƒ j w w w w z». v s š w» wùƒ x (Henning-Thurau et al., 2004). w z» wš. t z» w z» w (Choi, 2004) ù z»ƒ (how) z ƒ j ³ w. z» xk( : w,, sƒ,, ) z ( z» w,, š t k t )ƒ ³ (Hong et al., 2009; Son & Rhee, 2007). l s t z» ü w ù(jin, 2010) v w (what) ƒ ³ (Hong & Jin, 2011). ù t z» ƒ sƒ w. w wš Kano et al.(194) x w l s z» ƒ œ œ w / w w. š / w z» (,,,,» ) xy m w. z» w l sƒ š œw w z», s y w y w w z» w w. š w l s t z» t q w w œw w w. II. x 1. x / e w» ƒ ù,» e sƒ (Hempel, 1977). w t ù ƒ n w» w w ùkù w» w (Churchill & Surprenant, 192). w w,» e (Expectation disconfirmation theory),» (positive disconfirmation) w,» û (negative disconfirmation) w (Oliver, 1977, 190). wr, e j x x / e. Kano et al.(194) (two dimensional model) t. / t 2 w g ùkù 5 x t w wš. t (must-be quality element) t ù wì œ wš, œ t ù w, œ w ƒ w. t (one-dimensional quality element) œ wš, œ w x ƒw. t (attractive quality element) œ, œ wš, t ù ƒ. t (indifferent quality element) œ œ» j, t (reverse quality element) œ wš, œ w.» œxw,,. Kano t ù w / w, w ww w. 1100

3 z» z» xy 7 2. t w z» 1) t z» ü z» x wù., l t ù» w y w me w (Henning-Thurau et al., 2004). w, t z» (after-purchase apparel product review information) t w / ƒ,, sƒ, l œ ü w. t z»,, m,,, p j( : p l, n, r ) mw ¾ l s t (posted reviews or customer reviews) xk. l s t z» t ù xk y s w ü. l s 7 t (gp, f, v,, fp, p d, ½ ) z» ü w (Jin, 2010), t w z» ù Ì, e ü ù w ü. w ü. š xk(, ), t xk, x k( w, g p sw),» xk( w, ), z xk(, k ), xk(w ), xk( / ) w ü w. l s, s, š w ü. 2) Kano / t z» xy Kano / x (Kano et al., 194), z» œ w œ w w. œ w œ w. l s œ»» w z»». (Hong & Jin, 2011) l v t ( :,, ) w z» t xk( : xk, xk) w z» w š w. w w, t ù ü t l s œ w, œ» ƒ. t g ù ƒ w t xk œ œ w ƒ. t, t xk, l s w z» l s œ w / x dw. š / t z»,,,» y dw. 3. t z» (involvement) w ƒ ù w (Zaichkowsky, 195). š y (ELM: Elaboration Likeli- hood Model), š mw w w w. (Petty et al., 193) p, x ƒ ù k w w. y ƒ ù, z, x w ƒ k (Dholakia, 2001). z» w š t, t xk, s w z» š w w ƒ. w z», y w. f, p ƒ ( ) š 1101

4 w wz 7PM/P w ƒ w ( ). l s t v z» œ w, / xy t ƒ dw. III. 1. x x <Fig. 1>,. 1. t z» / / t (1-1), t xk (1-2), s (1-3) ³ wš, t z» yw. 2. t (2-1), t xk (2-2), s (2-3) / / t ƒ ³ w. 2. d / / l s t z» ƒ œ w w w w ƒ w. š (Hong & Jin, 2011) l v» z» t (,,,,, ƒ ), t x k (,»,, z, /, xk ƒ t ƒe ), s ( s t/y,, š, s sq/ ) l s œ œ ö / w d. ƒ v w š q z» (» xk ey /» w, xk t w /, s s y w ) ƒ.» / w x s 5 (Õ v w, ¼, w, / w e, w ) x d. w (category sorting) w ƒ z» ƒ 5 w kw w ƒ z» xyw. t t w» wš, Zaichkowsky(195) d w m ƒ w t w ƒ( w, ù ƒ, w, v w, w, w, Fig. 1. Research model and research questionsu 1102

5 z» z» xy 9. ù ) 5 Likert d w. w w k (, z, 1 ) (œm : 0.517~0.41, : 55.0, w :.719~.00), ü e (Cronbach's α=.793) w. š y, 4 w (, w,, ) d x w x w (χ 2 =1.350, p=.509; GFI =.99; AGFI=.990; RMSEA=.000, p=.720; TLI=1.005), (composite reliability=.797), s³ (AVE=.497) yw. t w 4 d w s³ (Mean= 3.451)» (n=151, 47.5%) š (n=17, 52.5%). z p (,, y, ƒ s³, w,, ) w l s t w x z» x» kx x d. 3. m mw ƒ. l s x š, z» x (n=31) ƒ m. l s t w z»» %, 3 ~2 17.3%, 3 1%. <Table 1>, 40.9%ƒ 20 z,» y (57.2%), (40.3%), (33.0%), w (55.3%). ƒ s³ 49%ƒ 150 ~450. ƒ l s ƒ w t t kw z k t w k t w z» / / w w. 77.%ƒ v, p d, p, ƒ,, fp, f z» w w, 22.4% ù t (, s, ½, gp,, ù,, l, ö, w ) z» w w. SPSS 1.0(k, Table 1. Participants' demographic characteristics (n=31) Characteristics Age Marital status Occupation Family monthly income ( 10,000) Education Area of residence Categories,, χ 2 ) AMOS 1.0(y ) w. IV. Frequency (%) 20~24 4 (20.1) 25~ (40.9) 30~34 79 (24.9) 35~39 45 (14.1) Married 12 (57.2) Not married 2 (25.) Missing 54 (17.0) House wife/not employed 31 (09.7) Employed 14 (57.9) Students 3 (11.3) Others 12 (03.) Missing 55 (17.3) Less than (0.9) 150~less than (1.) 250~less than (20.1) 350~less than (12.3) 450~less than (09.5) More than (15.7) No idea (01.9) Missing 57 (1.2) Graduated from high school but do not attend college 34 (10.) Currently undergraduate or graduate students 4 (15.1) Graduated from college but do not attend graduate school 17 (55.3) Graduate from graduate school (01.9) Missing 54 (17.0) Capital city (Seoul) 105 (33.0) Big cities 4 (2.4) Provinces 74 (23.4) Missing 55 (17.2) 1. t w z» / / t ( z w ), 1103

6 90 w wz 7PM/P ( Ì, tƒ, e ), (, l, k p ), ( y ), ( t ), ƒ ( s ƒ )ƒ w l s œ w ƒ w / Kano et al.(194) 5 w ( ) w <Table 2>. d t ü (,,,, ) w z» Õ w ƒ. ù ƒ w, w ƒ. t ü w z» l sƒ v š w. ƒ œ» y. ƒ ƒ ƒ ùkù (Hong & Jin, 2011) ƒ w z» w, w š. ƒ x z» œ»» w (Positive disconfirmation) l s z» œ s w ƒ ƒw w. wr, t w z» (, ) / / <Table 3> t w ƒ. ù w z» w ƒ. Õ w, w» ( ) w w (42.7%) š (57.9%). ƒ w w» ( ) w (1.%) š (1.%). (59.5%) š 7.5%ƒ w» wš. ù w ( ) š w š (14.5%) (27.5%).» w w w š š, w w. š (χ 2 = , p=.03) (χ 2 =12.01, p=.0.17) Õ w ( ) w w š, w w ( )š w w. t ü (,, ) w w j» j. 2. txk w z» / / t xk w z» ƒ w / w Table 2. Consumers' perception of review information on apparel product attributes (n=27) Information Size Fabric Sewing quality Color Design Price comparison This is the requisite information that must be provided. 140 (44.0%) 135 (42.5) 117 (3.) 12 (40.3) 11 (37.1) 5 (1.2) provided; otherwise, I will be dissatisfied. 50 (15.4) 2 (19.3) 72 (22.) 71 (22.3) 5 (1.2) 55 (17.3) provided; otherwise, I will not show dissatisfaction. 5 (17.9) 52 (1.4) 5 (20.4) 5 (1.2) (20.) 125 (39.3) My satisfaction will not be affected no matter whether this information is provided or not. 1 (5.7) 20 (.3) 1 (5.0) (2.5) 2 (.2) 29 (9.1) I will be dissatisfied if this information is provided; otherwise, I will be satisfied. 12 (3.) 7 (2.2) (1.9) 11 (3.5) (2.5) 9 (2.) 1104

7 z» z» xy 91 Table 3. Differences between low and high involvement groups in their perception of review information on apparel product attributes (n=27) Information & Groups Size Fabric Sewing quality Low High Low High Low High This is the requisite information that must be provided. 5 (42.7%) 4 (57.9) 0 (45.) 75 (51.7) 47 (35.9) 70 (4.3) provided; otherwise, I will be dissatisfied. 22 (1.) 27 (1.) 35 (2.7) 27 (1.) 42 (32.1) 30 (20.7) provided; otherwise, I will not show dissatisfaction. 3 (27.5) 21 (14.5) 24 (1.3) 2 (19.3) 33 (25.2) 32 (22.1) My satisfaction will not be affected no matter whether this information is provided or not. 14 (10.7) 4 (2.) 12 (9.2) (5.5) 9 (.9) 7 (4.) I will be dissatisfied if this information is provided; otherwise, I will be satisfied. 3 (2.3) 9 (.2) 0 (0.0) 7 (4.) 0 (0.0) (41) χ 2 -value *** * 12.10* *p<.05, ***p<.001 <Table 4>. xk ( k, h ) Õ w w y. k w wš z» kw ts š ƒ (Hong & Jin, 2011). x k (g p, w ), x k (w ), z xk (k,, ) w» xk (», ey ) w š w w. xy. š x (27.7%, 29.%), ƒ t ƒe (27%, 30.%) xk ( : 2.%, 29.9%), Õ w ( )š w w w ( )š w w w. t xk xk wš w û. t w z» w. k w xk œ œ ù w 2. p ey (3.4%, 25.%), (32.4%, 29.2%), (32.7%, 25.5%), w (34.%, 25.%) w w. w x xk w z» t w z» j w w. ù šw w z» w p (Kano et al., 194). w y y y y y ƒ. f, wz ey t w ƒ y y t y ey w ƒ ù» w. z» w yw l w v ƒ. wr, k (χ 2 =15.73, p=.003), x (χ 2 =9.73, p=.044), w (χ 2 =9.017, p=.01) w / / <Table 5> t w ƒ. ù x xk, / / t ƒ. k x w z» 1105

8 92 w wz 7PM/P Table 4. of review information on apparel product benefits (n=27) Information This is the requisite information that must be provided. provided; otherwise, I will be dissatisfied. provided; otherwise, I will not show dissatisfaction. My satisfaction will not be affected no matter whether this information is provided or not. I will be dissatisfied if this information is provided; otherwise, I will be satisfied. Utilitarian benefit information Wash & care 104 (32.7%) 70 (22.0) 70 (22.0) 23 (7.2) 9 (2.) Comfort 10 (34.0) 9 (21.7) 74 (23.3) 1 (5.7) 7 (2.2) Redeeming of body defect (27.7) 0 (1.9) 94 (29.) 2 (.) (1.9) Functional benefit information Health functionality 3 (11.3) 35 (11.0) 130 (40.9) 2 (19.5) 13 (4.1) Eco-friendly feature 31 (9.7) 31 (9.7) 122 (3.4) 2 (25.) 10 (3.1) Financial benefit information Price discount 55 (17.3) 3 (19.) 105 (33.0) 41 (12.9) 12 (3.) Value for price (27.0) (21.4) 9 (30.) 1 (5.0) (2.5) Table 4. Continued Information This is the requisite information that must be provided. provided; otherwise, I will be dissatisfied. provided; otherwise, I will not show dissatisfaction. My satisfaction will not be affected no matter whether this information is provided or not. I will be dissatisfied if this information is provided; otherwise, I will be satisfied. Social-psychological benefit information Symbol of status 23 (7.2%) 35 (11.0) 103 (32.4) 93 (29.2) 22 (.9) Reaction from others 49 (15.4) 51 (1.0) 11 (37.1) 44 (13.) 14 (4.4) Emotional experience in transaction 31 (9.7) 44 (13.) 104 (32.7) 1 (25.5) 1 (5.0) Coordination with other items 31 ( 9.7) 34 (10.7) 134 (42.1) 9 (21.7) (2.5) Esthetic benefit information Fashionability of the product 30 (9.4) 39 (12.3) 110 (34.) 2 (25.) 15 (4.7) Suitability for their self-image 91 (2.) 52 (1.4) 95 (29.9) 2 (.) 10 (3.1) w,, w w w ( k : 29%, 29%, 29.%; x : 29.%, 29%, 2.2%). ù š k (45.5%) w w. š x» (33.%) y (39.3%) w w. w w w w š (25.5%) (13.7%) {. t xk ( k, x ) w w j» ƒ. yw t š w v ƒ. 3. s w z» / / l s t/ y/y, e, y (,, œ, ), š ( v l, ), s sq/ w» w z» l s œ w w y w 110

9 z» z» xy 93 Table 5. Differences between low and high involvement groups in their perception of review information on apparel product benefits (n=27) Information & Groups This is the requisite information that must be provided. provided; otherwise, I will be dissatisfied. provided; otherwise, I will not show dissatisfaction. My satisfaction will not be affected no matter whether this information is provided or not. I will be dissatisfied if this information is provided; otherwise, I will be satisfied. *p<.05, **p<.01 Wash & Care Redeeming of body defect Price discount Low High Low High Low High 3 (29.0%) 3 (29.0) 39 (29.) 15 (11.5) 1 (0.) (45.5) 32 (22.1) 31 (21.4) (5.5) (5.5) 39 (29.) 3 (29.0) 37 (2.2) 15 (11.5) 2 (1.5) 49 (33.) 22 (15.2) 57 (39.3) 13 (9.0) 4 (2.) 1 (13.7) 3 (29.0) 50 (3.2) 19 (14.5) (4.) χ 2 -value 15.73** 9.73* (25.5) 25 (17.2) 55 (37.9) 22 (15.2) (4.1) sƒw <Table >. l s š y ù š y z» m ( z» w m), (š z» ), œ ( z» w w œ ), ( z» y y y ) w z» v w w. xy. š l s e l s v l ( z t A/S), ( vw w ) w z» w v w w. p, œ,, e w z» Õ w 50% 40% w w. ù l s t/yt, sq/,, w w. l s w z» ( e,,, œ, vl ) ù ( t/y,, š, sq/ ). wr, <Table 7> l s (χ 2 =1.09, p=.002), vl (χ 2 =9.23, p =.044), e (χ 2 =10.293, p=.03), s sq / (χ 2 =13.370, p=.01) / Table. of review information on online store attributes (n=27) Information This is the requisite information that must be provided. provided; otherwise, I will be dissatisfied. provided; otherwise, I will not show dissatisfaction. My satisfaction will not be affected no matter whether this information is provided or not. I will be dissatisfied if this information is provided; otherwise, I will be satisfied. Information on interaction between store and customers or among customers Store's responsiveness 10 (50.3) 42 (13.2) 4 (15.1) 19 (.0) 7 (2.2) Promptitude of response 129 (40.) 2 (19.5) 49 (15.4) 23 (7.2) 13 (4.1) Disclosure of reviews 127 (39.9) 43 (13.5) 9 (21.7) 24 (7.5) 13 (4.1) Interactive and dynamic nature of reviews 52 (1.4) 57 (17.9) 111 (34.9) 4 (14.5) 10 (3.1) 1107

10 94 w wz 7PM/P Table. Continued Information Return /Refund Correspondence of delivery upon ordering After Service Customer services Compensation for emotional injury Reputation/ Credibility This is the requisite information that must be provided. 4 (20.1%) 124 (39.0) 110 (34.) 57 (17.9) 72 (22.) provided; otherwise, I will be dissatisfied. 2 (19.) 2 (19.5) 1 (19.2) 1 (19.2) (20.) provided; otherwise, I will not show dissatisfaction. 101 (31.) 5 (1.2) 73 (23.0) 110 (34.) 94 (29.) My satisfaction will not be affected no matter whether this information is provided or not. 34 (10.7) 22 (.9) 22 (.9) 39 (12.3) 37 (11.) I will be dissatisfied if this information is provided; otherwise, I will be satisfied. 15 (4.7) 10 (3.1) 10 (3.1) 9 (2.) 7 (2.2) / t w ƒ. ù y/ t/y, œ, w z» / / w ƒ. l s w ƒ ƒ, š (4.1% > 51.1%). ù s ƒ, w ( ) š (9.7%) (21.4%). vl š (4.3%) w, (30.5%), (27.5%), (29.%) w w. e w w w w š ƒ. w w. s sq/ w, š w w. w w(3.%) ƒ š, Table 7. Differences between low and high involvement groups in their perception of review information on online store attributes (n=27) Information & Groups Correspondence of delivery upon ordering Store's responsiveness After Service Reputation/ Credibility Low High Low High Low High Low High This is the requisite information that must be provided. 53 (40.5%) 71 (49.0) 7 (51.1) 93 (4.1) 40 (30.5) 70 (4.3) 24 (1.3) 4 (33.1) provided; otherwise, I will be dissatisfied. 33 (25.2) 29 (20.0) 2 (21.4) 14 (9.7) 3 (27.5) 25 (17.2) 35 (2.7) 31 (21.4) provided; otherwise, I will not show dissatisfaction. 30 (22.9) 2 (19.3) 21 (1.0) 27 (1.) 39 (29.) 34 (23.4) 4 (3.) 4 (31.7) My satisfaction will not be affected no matter whether this information is provided or not. 14 (10.7) (5.5) 14 (10.7) 5 (3.4) 11 (.4) 11 (7.) 23 (17.) 14 (9.7) I will be dissatisfied if this information is provided; otherwise, I will be satisfied. 1 (0.) 9 (.2) 1 (0.) (4.1) 5 (3.) 5 (3.4) 1 (0.) (4.1) χ 2 -value * 1.09** 9.23* ** *p<.05, **p<

11 z» z» xy 95 (2.7%) w w, (1.3%) w w (17.%) w w j ù û. š y s w ( s, vl, e ) w w w w j». s sq/ w x x (, ). s sq/ w xyw w t w š w v ƒ. V. t z» ƒ l s w w ³ wš, l s v Õ œ w t z» ( ) w ù w w w ( ) w œw. wš, z w w., z» l s œ w / w t, t xk, s w z» y. š w / t z» xy., t w z» ƒ ( ) wš ƒ (,,, ) w. t xk xk ( ) wš ƒ (» xk, xk, z xk, xk, xk ) w. t xk (ey,,, w ) w w w ƒà. l s ( s,, œ, vl, e ) ( t/y,, š, sq/ ) w. ù z» ( œ œ ù yƒ )ù» w w ( œ w ) ƒ., t t, t xk, s w z» w ƒ y. t (,, ), t xk ( k ), s ( s, vl, e ) š w {. p, z» ( : k, x, s sq/ ), w y. f, š s sq/ w w y. š k x š xy,, w w p x ³ w. ù û t x z» w w. t z» w m z» zw k t t w wì š w v ƒ.., l s t ü (,,,, ) w, t xk( k, h ) w, s y (,, œ ), e, vl w ƒ y w w., s y w wù t (ƒ ), xk (g p, w, ), xk (w, ƒ ƒe ), z xk (k,, ), 1109

12 9 w wz 7PM/P xk (h ),» xk (», ey ), s ( t/y, vl, sq/ w z» ) s y w v ƒ.» e w» (positive disconfirmation) w w» ƒ y w s œ s w ù ƒ w. wr, z» wù ƒ ƒ s, ƒ s s y y. ù t t w, w, w t t s q. t y, ½, kk ƒ r t,,, l d w yƒ» ƒ û. š s ƒ w z» ƒ s œ w ƒ w š ƒ,, wì š w t kw» t y œ t x j. l sƒ s ƒ w s s û v ƒ w. p s w ƒ ù wš l s, ƒ x û» z» ƒ w s š s y w w., s z» z» ù š w s t sƒw wz w z» q w. š v w z» s œ w w w. w z w. l s t z» w. sw t z»ù ( :, p j, m, f p) z» y w z v w., z» / / x 5 d w m w. z x w d w w k ƒ wš, m ƒ w m ( : natural logarithm regression analysis) wš ƒ x mw v ƒ. wr š w, y y z» w yw mw z w ü r t w. ƒ x mw v ƒ. References Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (200). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), Choi, E. Y. (2004). A study on the contents and consumers' recognition of clothing product evaluation statements in the internet apparel shopping mall. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture, 12(), Churchill, G. A., & Surprenant, C. (192). An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), Dholakia, U. M. (2001). A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), Forsythe, S. M., & Shi, B. (2003). Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in internet shopping. Journal of Business Re-search, 5(11), Gauri, D. K., Bhatnagar, A., & Rao, R. (200). Role of word of mouth in online store loyalty. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), Hempel, D. J. (1977). Consumer satisfaction with the home buying process: conceptualization and measurement. In H. K. Hunt (Ed.), The conceptualization of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (pp ). MA: Marketing Science Institute. Henning-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word of mouth via consumer-opin- 1110

13 z» z» xy 97 ion platforms: What motives consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 1(1), Hong, B. S., Lee, E. J., & Cho, M. A.G(2009). The effect of purchase reviews on the trust, satisfaction commitment, and repurcnase intention of consumer in Internet shopping mails. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 33(11), Hong, H.G S., & Jin, I. K. (2011). An exploratory study of important information on consumer reviews in Internet shopping. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 35(7), Jin, I.G K. (2010). Difference in the importance and usage of consumer review information according to involvement with apparel products. Unpublished master's thesis, Jeju National University, Jeju. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (194). Attractive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), Lee, S. A., & Chung, S. J.G (2000). A study on consumers' risk recognition regarding purchase of apparel goods through Internet. Journal of Fashion Business, 4(4), Oliver, R. L.G (1977). Effect of expectation and disconfirma- tion on post exposure product evaluations: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2(4), Oliver R. LU (190). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), Park, J. H., & Stole, L. (2002). Apparel shopping on the Internet: Information availability on apparel merchant websites. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, (2), Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (193). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), Son, J. A., & Rhee, E.GY. (2007). The effects of information characteristics (direction, consensus) on word-of-mouth performance in online apparel shopping. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 31(), Zaichkowsky, J. L. (195). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, annual and 4 th quarter e-commerce and cyber shopping trend report. (2011, February 25). Statistics Korea. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from

605.fm

605.fm Journal of the Korean Housing Association Vol. 19, No. 6, 2008 y k y p w sƒ Care-giver s Needs and Evaluation on the Actual Condition of the Playgrounds in Child Care Facilities y* Choi, Mock-Wha x **