Journal of Service Research and Studies (서비스연구)

The Society of service Science (서비스사이언스학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effect of the decision to use innovative services on the choice of consumers with a risk-averse tendency

혁신 서비스 이용 결정이 위험회피 성향 소비자의 선택에 미치는 영향

  • Park, Kikyoung (Dept. of Business Administration, Gyeongsang National University)
  • 박기경 (경상국립대학교 경영학부)
  • Received : 2023.04.08
  • Accepted : 2023.06.18
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The spread of non-face-to-face services due to the COVID-19 pandemic has brought many changes in consumers' purchasing behavior and attracted much attention to new services. Could trying new services caused by this sudden environmental change alter consumers's choice patterns? This study proposes the research question of whether these new service experiences can change consumers' existing choice behavior, especially for risk-averse consumers who maintain their existing choice behavior or prefer safe alternatives. In this study, we examined whether trying out an unmanned payment services, one of innovative services that emerged after the pandemic crisis, can change the existing choice behavior of risk-averse consumers, i.e., make them more likely to prefer risky alternatives to safe alternatives. To accomplish these research goals, this research conducted one pilot survey and one study. The results of pilot survey showed that the stronger the prevention-focus tendency, the lower the self-efficacy to use the innovative service, with a negative relationship between them. Based on these findings, the study used an experimental method to examine the interaction effects between the use of innovation services and consumers' regulatory focus in a choice behavior and to explore the psychological mechanisms behind them. According to the results, it is found that prevention-focused consumers were more likely to choose risky alternatives and dissimilar extended brands following a trial of an unmanned payment service compared to not using that service. In contrast, promotion-focused consumers did not show different choice patterns regardless of following a trial of an innovative service. Furthermore, these results for prevention-focused consumers confirm the role of self-efficacy as a psychological mechanism. These findings shed light on the role of self-efficacy which has discussed in positive psychology into marketing area. Moreover, practical and academic implications are suggested by the finding that behavioral change occurs in risk-averse consumers, who are known to be hesitant to try new behaviors, indicating market expansion related to potential consumers for the use of the innovation services.

코로나 19로 인하여 비대면 서비스가 확산되면서 소비자의 구매행동에는 많은 변화가 일어나고, 여러 새로운 서비스도 주목받고 있다. 이렇게 갑작스레 변화된 환경으로 새로운 서비스를 경험하는 시도가 소비자의 기존 선택 행동의 형태를 변화시킬 수도 있을까? 특히 변화를 두려워하고 기존의 선택 경향을 고수하려는 소비자의 행동까지도 변화시킬 수 있다면 혁신 서비스 개발은 예상보다 더 많은 잠재 소비자를 획득할 수 있게 될 것이다. 이에 본 연구는 팬데믹 이후 나타난 언택트 서비스 중 하나인 무인 결제 서비스를 대상으로 혁신 서비스 이용 시도가 위험회피 성향을 가진 소비자의 기존 선택 행동에 변화, 즉 안전대안보다 위험대안을 선호할 가능성을 높이는지 살펴보고자 하였다. 탐색조사 결과에 따르면, 평소 위험회피 성향이 강할수록 혁신 서비스 사용에 대한 자기효능감은 낮아지는 부(-)의 관계가 나타났다. 이러한 조사 결과를 바탕으로 연구는 실험법을 사용하여 혁신 서비스 이용 여부와 소비자의 조절초점 간 상호작용과 심리적 기제를 함께 살펴보고자 하였다. 분석 결과에 따르면, 예방초점 소비자는 무인 결제 서비스 이용을 시도하는 조건에서 이용하지 않은 조건에 비하여 고위험 금융상품과 비유사 확장 브랜드에 대한 높은 선택가능성을 보였다. 이에 반하여 향상초점 소비자는 무인 결제 서비스 이용 시도 여부에 따른 차별된 선택 가능성을 보이지 않았다. 나아가 예방초점 소비자에게 나타난 이러한 선택 변화는 혁신 서비스에 대한 자기효능감이 심리적 기제로 작동하고 있음이 확인되었다. 본 연구는 새로운 행동을 시도하는데 주저함이 많다고 알려진 위험회피 성향의 소비자의 행동 변화 조건을 밝혀 혁신 서비스의 잠재적 소비자층을 발견하고, 관련 시장의 확장 가능성을 보여주었다는 점에서 실무 및 학문적 시사점을 제안하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2021년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 인문사회분야 신진연구자지원사업의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2021S1A5A8062244)

References

  1. Adler, P.(1981), Momentum, a Theory of Social Action: A Theory of Social Action, Sage Publishing Co.
  2. Andrews, J., and Smith, D.C.(1996), "In Search of the Marketing Imagination: Factors Affecting the Creativity of Marketing Programs for Mature Products," Journal of Marketing Research, 33(2), 174-187.
  3. Bandura, A.(2012), On the Functional Properties of Perceived Self-Efficacy Revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
  4. Chen, T., Li, F., and Leung, K.(2016), When Does Supervisor Support Encourage Innovative Behavior? Opposite Moderating Effects of General Self-Efficacy and Internal Locus of Control. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 123-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12104
  5. Chernev, A.(2004), Goal Orientation and Consumer Preference for the Status Quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 557-565. https://doi.org/10.1086/425090
  6. Crowe, E., and Higgins, E.T.(1997), Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
  7. Dhar, R.(1997), Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 215-231. https://doi.org/10.1086/209506
  8. Dhar, R., Huber, J., and Khan, U.(2007), The Shopping Momentum Effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 370-378. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.3.370
  9. Gollwitzer, P.M., and Bayer, U.C.(1999), Deliberative versus Implemental Mindsets in the Control of Action. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guilford Press. 403-422.
  10. Haws, K.L., Dholakia, U.M., and Bearden, W.O.(2010), An Assessment of Chronic Regulatory Focus Measures, Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 967-982. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.967
  11. Hayes, A.F.(2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: Methodology in the Social Sciences. Kindle Edition.
  12. Higgins, E.T.(1998), Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
  13. Hsee, C.K., and Leclerc, F.(1998), Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1086/209534
  14. Khan, U., and Dhar, R.(2006), Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.2.259
  15. Langens, T.A.(2007), Regulatory Focus and Illusions of Control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 226-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206293494
  16. Liberman, N., Idson, L.C., Camacho, C.J., and Higgins, E.T.(1999), Promotion and Prevention Choices between Stability and Change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1135-1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1135
  17. Michael, L.H., HOU, S.T., and FAN, H.L.(2011), Creative Self-Efficacy and Innovative Behavior in a Service Setting: Optimism as a Moderator. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(4), 258-272. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01430.x
  18. Ng, T.W., and Lucianetti, L.(2016), Within-Individual Increases in Innovative Behavior and Creative, Persuasion, and Change Self-Efficacy over Time: A Social-Cognitive Theory Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000029
  19. Nordgren, L.F., and Dijksterhuis, A.P.(2009), The Devil Is in the Deliberation: Thinking too much Reduces Preference Consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 39-46. https://doi.org/10.1086/596306
  20. Park, K.Y., Ryu, G.S., and Park, J.W.(2015), The Effects of Regulatory Focus, Assortment Size, and Choice Mode on Consumer Choice of Financial Products, Korean Journal of Marketing, 30(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.15830/kmr.2015.30.4.1
  21. Pennington, G.L., and Roese, N.J.(2003), Regulatory Focus and Temporal Distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 563-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00058-1
  22. Pham, M.T., and Chang, H.H.(2010), Regulatory Focus, Regulatory Fit, and the Search and Consideration of Choice Alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 626-640. https://doi.org/10.1086/655668
  23. Roskes, M., De Dreu, C.K., and Nijstad, B.A.(2012), Necessity Is the Mother of Invention: Avoidance Motivation Stimulates Creativity through Cognitive Effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 242-256 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028442
  24. Ryu, G., Suk, K., Yoon, S.O., and Park, J.(2014), The Underlying Mechanism of Self-Regulatory Focus Impact on Compromise Choice. Journal of Business Research, 67(10), 2056-2063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.013
  25. Sela, A., Berger, J., and Liu, W.(2009), Variety, Vice, and Virtue: How Assortment Size Influences Option Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 941-951. https://doi.org/10.1086/593692
  26. Stanimirovic, R., and Hanrahan, S.J.(2004), Efficacy, Affect, and Teams: Is Momentum a Misnomer?, International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2004.9671732
  27. Taylor, S.E., and Gollwitzer, P.M.(1995), Effects of Mindset on Positive Illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 213-226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.213
  28. Vallerand, R.J., Colavecchio, P.G., and Pelletier, L.G.(1988), Psychological Momentum and Performance Inferences: A Preliminary Test of the Antecedents-Consequences Psychological Momentum Model, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 92-108. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.10.1.92
  29. Wilcox, K., Vallen, B., Block, L., and Fitzsimons, G.J.(2009), Vicarious Goal Fulfillment: When the Mere Presence of a Healthy Option Leads to an Ironically Indulgent Decision. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 380-393. https://doi.org/10.1086/599219
  30. Xu, A.J., and Wyer Jr, R.S.(2007), The Effect of Mind-Sets on Consumer Decision Strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 556-566. https://doi.org/10.1086/519293
  31. Zhou, R., and Pham, M.T.(2004), Promotion and Prevention across Mental Accounts: When Financial Products Dictate Consumers and Investment Goals. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 125-135. https://doi.org/10.1086/383429