Journal of the Korean Society of Costume (복식)

The Korean Society of Costume (한국복식학회)
권호 표지

A Study on Ambivalent Consumption in the Purchase Behavior of Apparel Products

의류상품 구매행동에 나타나는 양면적 소비

  • Kim, Joo-Hyun (Dept. of Clothing and Textiles, Seoul National University) ;
  • Rhee, Eun-Young (Dept. of Clothing and Textiles, Seoul National University)
  • 김주현 (서울대학교 생활과학대학 의류학과) ;
  • 이은영 (서울대학교 생활과학대학 의류학과)
  • Published : 2007.03.02
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify the characteristics of ambivalent consumption appeared in the purchase behavior of apparel products by the 4Ps element of marketing mix and to clarify the relation between consumption value and clothing involvement that were the antecedent variable. Among the 4Ps element of marketing mix, brand was selected in the exterior criteria of products, and fashionability was selected in the internal criteria of products. Meanwhile, it was considered that there were no objects of conflicted or ambivalent criteria in the element of promotion. Finally, brand, fashionability, price, place, etc. were selected as the elements of marketing. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 550 subjects from Jun, 8th, 2006 to Jun, 22nd, 2006; 507 were used for the data analysis. The results from data analysis were following: firstly, it was identified that ambivalent consumption showed up, as the result from measuring the individual conflicting consumption by elements. Brand was the highest in the frequency of ambivalent consumption among the elements of marketing mix, and price, place, and fashionability were followed. Secondly, by product characteristics, the frequency of ambivalent consumption of casual shirt, group II, was lower than that of mountain climbing jacket, group III, in the brand element and the price element. Thirdly, as the results from conducting factorial analysis to consumption value, it had 5 dimensions, which were practical value, distinguishable/aesthetic value, conspicuous value, social/confirmative value, and enjoyable value. Also clothing involvement was classified into 4 dimensions of emotion, fashionability, symbolic and brand involvement in the result from conducting the factorial analysis to clothing involvement. Fourthly, the mean of ambivalent consuming group by each element was highest among that of other consuming groups in all the dimensions. Fifthly, ambivalent consuming group had the highest mean among other consuming groups in all the dimension of clothing involvement, such as emotion, fashionability, and symbolic by each element of marketing mix, and it means that overall, ambivalent consuming group is highly involved in all the dimension of clothing involvement.

Keywords

References

  1. 김동원 (1994), 소비가치에 관한 연구: 시장세분화를 중심으로. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
  2. 김미영 (1989). 생활양식유형과 의복평가기준에 관한 연구. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위논문
  3. 김소영 (1993). 소비자의 의복 쇼핑성향과 점포애고 행동에 관한 연구. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위 논문
  4. 김선희 (1999), 의복 소비가치의 구조와 의복관여 및 유행선도력과의 관계연구. 이화여자대학교 대학원 박사학위논문
  5. 권미화 (2000). 청소년 소비자의 소비가치와 소비행동의 합리성. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문
  6. 남승규 (1996), 소비자 의사결정에서 가치의 영향. 성균관대학교 대학원 박사학위논문
  7. 보건복지부 (2003) 보건복지 통계연보. 자료검색일 2006. 05. 10. http://www.mohw.go.kr/
  8. 성영준 (1998), 제품의 소비가치가 충동구매에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
  9. 이수진, 황선진, 변유선 (1997). 유행관여에 따른 패션전문점의 점표 속성에 관한 연구. 한국의류학회지, 21(2), pp. 346-356
  10. 이영선 (1991) . 소비자의 의복관여와 외적 정보탐색. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위논문
  11. 이영선 (2000). 의복중요성 지각과 의복관여 가치, 유행의사 선도력 및 쇼핑과 관련지어. 한국의류학회지, 24(4), pp. 549-559
  12. 이영경 (1987). 의복품목에 따른 제품관여의 수준과 유형 및 정보탐색 활동에 관한 연구. 연세대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
  13. 이은영 (1997). 패션마케팅. 서울: 교문사
  14. 이창수 (1997). 소비자의 선불구매에 따른 인지적 위험과 소비가치에 관한 실증적 연구. 배재대학교 대학원 박사학위논문
  15. 임종원, 김재일, 홍성태, 이유재 (1999). 소비자 행동론 (제2판), 서울: 경문사
  16. 유희 (1995), 소비자의 가치의식과 의류제품 평가. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
  17. 하수진 (2003). 해외 패션명품 소비자의 세분화 및 양면적 소비행동 연구. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
  18. 중산층을 되살리자 (2006.1.2) 중앙일보. p. 1
  19. 최순화 (2002). 소비시장의 앙면성. 삼성경제연구소
  20. LG 주간경제 (2000.07.26)
  21. LG 경제연구원 (2005). 2010대한민국트렌드. 서울: 한국경제신문 한경 BP
  22. Albertson, B., John B., & R. Michael A. (2004). Ambivalence as experienced conflict, Political Psychology Workshop, University of Chicago
  23. Barry J.B., William R.., & Mitch G. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, March, pp, 644-656 https://doi.org/10.1086/209376
  24. Bleuler, E. ([1911] 1950). Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias. New York: International University Press
  25. Cacioppo, J.T. et, al (1997). Beyond Bipolar Conceptualizations and Measures: the Case of Attitudes and Evaluative Space, Personality and social Psychology Review, 1(1), pp, 3-25 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2
  26. Cacioppo, J.T. & Bernston, G.G. (1994). Relationship Between Attitudes and Evaluative Space: A critical review with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, pp, 401-423 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401
  27. Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2002). Ambivalence and attitude. European Review of Social Psychology. 12, pp. 37-70 https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000012
  28. Gluckman M. (1962). Les Rites de Passage, in Essays of the Ritual of social Relations, ed. Daryll Forde et. al., Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1-52
  29. Krugman, H.E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public Opinion Ousrterly. 29, pp. 349-356 https://doi.org/10.1086/267335
  30. Kaplan, K.J. (1972). On the Ambivalence-Indifference Problem in Attitude theory and Measurement: A Suggested Modification of the Semantic Differential Technique. Psychological bulletin, 77, pp. 361-372 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032590
  31. Lopata, Helena Z. (1991). Role Theory, in Social Roles and Social Institution, ed, Judith R Blau and Norman Goodman, Boulder, Co: Westview, 1-12
  32. Munson, J.M., & McQuarrie, E.F. (1987). The Zaichkoesky personal involvement inventory: Modification and extension. Advances in Consumer Research, 14. pp. 36-40
  33. Mowen, J.C. (1993), Consumer Behavior. 3rd ed., New York: Macmillan Publishing Company
  34. Merrill Lynch (2004). The World Wealth Report
  35. Olsen, S.O., James, W., & Ulf, O. (2005), Consequences of Ambivalence on Satisfaction and Loyalty. Psychology and Marketing, 22(3), pp, 247-269 https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20057
  36. Orthony, Andrew, Gerald L.C., & Allan C. (1988). The Cognitive Structure of Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  37. Otnes J.R.. & Constance C.M. (1994). The Pleasure and Pain of Being Close: Men's Mixed Feelings about Participation in Valentine's Day, in Advance in consumer Research. 21. ed. Chris Allen and Deborah Roedder-Jone, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. pp. 159-164
  38. Otnes, Cele. Tina. M.L.. & L.J. Shrum. (1997). Toward an Understanding of Consumer Ambivalence. Journal of Consumer Research. 24(June). pp. 80-93. https://doi.org/10.1086/209495
  39. Peter, J.P., & Olson, J.C. (1987). Consumer behavior: Marketing strategy perspectives. Homewood. AI: Irwin
  40. Priester. J.R, & Petty R.E. (1996). The Gradual Threshold Model of Ambivalence: Relating the Positive and Negative Bases of Attitudes to Subjective Ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), pp. 431-449 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.431
  41. Rokeach, M.J. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New york: The Free Press
  42. Rook. D.W. (1985). The Effects of Deadline Pressure on Attitudinal Ambivalence. Marketing Letters, 14(2), pp, 83-95 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025465917331
  43. Rothschild, M.L. (1984). Perspectives on involvement: Current problems and future directions. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, pp. 216-217
  44. Sheth. J.N., Newman, B.I., & Gross, B.L. (1991). Why We buy What We Buy: A Theory of Concumption Values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), pp. 159-170 https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8
  45. Snyder, C., & Fromkin, F. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York., Plenum
  46. Sincoff, Julie B. (1990). The Psychological Characteristics of Ambivalent People. Clinical Psychology Review. 10(1), pp, 43-67 https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(90)90106-K
  47. Tigert, D.J., Ring, L.J., & King, C.W. (1976). Fashion involvement and buying behavior: A methodological study. Advances in Consumer Research, 3, pp. 46-52
  48. Vinson, D.B., Scott, J.E., & Lamont, L.M. (1977). The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, April, pp. 44-55
  49. Zeithmal, V.A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Mean-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), pp. 2-22 https://doi.org/10.2307/1251446
  50. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), pp. 341-352 https://doi.org/10.1086/208520