Human Ecology Research

  • 제54권2호
  • /
  • Pages.207-225
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 2982-5725(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2982-6608(eISSN)
대한가정학회 (The Korean Home Economics Association)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

에니어그램 중심가치와 자기해석 수준에 따른 의류 소비자의 구매 의사결정 스타일

Fashion Consumers' Purchase Decision-Making Styles Related to the Enneagram Core Values and Self-Construal Levels

  • 김수연 (연세대학교 의류환경학과) ;
  • 안서영 (연세대학교 의류환경학과) ;
  • 고애란 (연세대학교 의류환경학과)
  • Kim, Su Yeon (Department of Clothing and Textiles, Yonsei University) ;
  • Ahn, Seo-Young (Department of Clothing and Textiles, Yonsei University) ;
  • Koh, Ae-Ran (Department of Clothing and Textiles, Yonsei University)
  • 투고 : 2016.02.02
  • 심사 : 2016.02.29
  • 발행 : 2016.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study investigated a conceptual framework of fashion consumers' purchase decision-making styles related to behavioral typology of personality. In response to critiques on fragmented and varied use of personality measurements, this study selectively tested and verified an alternative typological model of Enneagram value systems and self-construal levels that could explain the fashion consumers' typological propensities in purchase decision-making. One hundred-item measurement scale for the fashion consumers' purchase decision-making styles was developed based on the extensive literature. Three groups of fashion major students, a total of 107 participants, who respectively participated in 2-hour-long Enneagrams seminars from spring 2013 to fall 2014, were asked to re-sentence the question items to clearly reflect their Enneagram personality to make purchase decisions. Participants described their propensities in their own words about the most comfortable state during the 5-step processes of the purchase decision making process. The revised scale was distributed to 423 participants in January 2016, and the results verified the group differences in various styles in the process of purchase decision-making corresponding to the typological variables discussed in Enneagram. The correlation between Enneagram core values embodied by fashion consumers during the stages of purchase decision-making in extensive levels of self-construal were verified in the context of their fashion decision making. This study found the possibility of the typological approach toward Enneagram types of personality to be applicable to explain and predict peculiar facets of fashion consumers' purchase decision-making styles.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 286-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/341578
  2. Bazerman, M. H. (2001). Consumer research for consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4), 499-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/319624
  3. Blodgett, J., Hill, D., & Bakir, A. (2006). Cross-cultural complaining behavior? An alternative explanation. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 19, 103-117.
  4. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48 (3), 306-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
  5. Daniels, D. N., & Price, V. A. (2009). The essential enneagram: The definitive personality test and self-discovery guide. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne.
  6. DeCicco, T. L., & Stroink, M. L. (2007). A third model of self-construal: The metapersonal self. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 26, 82-104.
  7. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2012). Self-signaling and the costs and benefits of temptation in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (1), 15-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0490
  8. Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (4), 1204-1209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012
  9. Fowler, J. H., Baker, L. A., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Genetic variation in political participation. American Political Science Review, 102 (02), 233-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055408080209
  10. Friedman, H. L. (1983). The self-expansiveness level form: A conceptualization and measurement of a transpersonal construct. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 15 (1), 37-50.
  11. Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (3), 351-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.946436
  12. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Wicklund, R. A. (1985). Self-symbolizing and the neglect of others' perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (3), 702-715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.48.3.702
  13. Grace, D. (2005). Consumer disposition toward satisfaction (Cds): Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13 (2), 20-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2005.11658541
  14. Han, D., Duhachek, A., & Agrawal, N. (2014). Emotions shape decisions through construal level: The case of guilt and shame. Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 1047-1064. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/678300
  15. Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3), 283-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208816
  16. Hong, J., & Chang, H. H. (2015). "I" follow my heart and "We" rely on reasons: The impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1392-1411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/680082
  17. Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
  18. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  19. Kohn, M. L. (1959). Social class and parental values. American Journal of Sociology, 64 (4), 337-351. https://doi.org/10.1086/222493
  20. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42 (5), 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199106)42:5<361::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-#
  21. Lapid-Bogda, G. (2009). Bringing out the best in everyone you coach: Use the Enneagram system for exceptional results. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  22. Ma, Y., & Koh, A. (2001). A study on evaluation of salesperson's service and purchase behavior as related to customer's personality type. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 25 (6), 1155-1166.
  23. Mellers, B., Schwartz, A., & Ritov, I. (1999). Emotion-based choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 128 (30), 332-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.332
  24. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
  25. Oh, H. J. (2001). The differences of apparel evaluation on consumer's personality types. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 25 (2), 249-258.
  26. Pace, V. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). How similar are personality scales of the "same" construct? A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49 (7), 669-676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.014
  27. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (5), 847-855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847
  28. Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2010). Narrative and persuasion in fashion advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 368-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/653087
  29. Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (3), 255-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0403_4
  30. Saucier, G., & Srivastava, S. (2015). What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the big five and alternatives. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper, R. J. Larsen, & American Psychological Association (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 4. Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 283-305). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14343-013
  31. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6
  32. Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38 (3), 230-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00069-2
  33. Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (4), 663-688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029393
  34. Sherman, D. K. (2013). Self-affirmation: Understanding the effects. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7 (11), 834-845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12072
  35. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 158-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209205
  36. Solomon, M. R. (2014). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  37. Sproles, E. K., & Sproles, G. B. (1990). Consumer decision-making styles as a function of individual learning styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24 (1), 134-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1990.tb00262.x
  38. Sproles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers' decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20 (2), 267-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1986.tb00382.x
  39. St. James, Y., Handelman, J. M., & Taylor, S. F. (2011). Magical thinking and consumer coping. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (4), 632-649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/660163
  40. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
  41. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 83-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1057-7408(07)70013-x
  42. Venkatraman, M. P., & Price, L. L. (1990). Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness: Concepts, measurement, and implications. Journal of Business Research, 20 (4), 293-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90008-2
  43. Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3), 434-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.434
  44. Wang, Y., Ma, S. S., & Li, D. (2015). Customer participation in virtual brand communities: The self-construal perspective. Information & Management, 52 (5), 577-587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.04.003
  45. Wesley, S., LeHew, M., & Woodside, A. G. (2006). Consumer decision-making styles and mall shopping behavior: Building theory using exploratory data analysis and the comparative method. Journal of Business Research, 59 (5), 535-548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.005