• 기록학연구
• /
• 제22호
• /
• pp.157-199
• /
• 2009

중국공산당의 창당과 함께 문서와 당안 관리 조직이 출현한 것은 아니었다. 1926년 중앙 비서처가 설립된 이후 문서과와 그 소속 문건열람처, 문건보관처 등이 설립됨으로써 본격화되었던 것이다. 1930년대 초 비서조직의 업무개선이 집중적으로 논의되었는데, 비판의 핵심은 정치적 역할을 자각하지 못한 채 단순히 "기능적 조직"으로 전락하고 말았다는 것이었고, 이의 해결 방안은 곧 "비서처 업무의 정치화"였다. 나아가 1940년대에는 "정풍운동"의 영향으로 문서만이 아니라 각종 주요 정보자료를 수집하여 정리, 제공하는 재료과의 임무가 강조되었다. 한편, 문서의 작성에 있어서 인물이나 기관의 명칭을 다르게 표기한다든가 약물을 사용하여 문서를 작성하는 등 보안의 유지가 줄곧 강조되었으며, 또한 업무활동과 지역의 상황에 대한 정기보고를 통해 중앙과 지방간의 소통이 강조되었다. 비서장은 중요 공문의 초안을 작성하는 것은 물론, 모든 문건의 열람과 심사를 담당하여 문서처리의 중심적 역할을 수행하였다. 문서의 처리가 끝나면 당안이라고 불리우며 보관되었는데, 중앙 비서처 문서과의 "문건보관처"가 이러한 역할을 담당하였다. "중앙문고"라고 불리기도 한 문건보관처는 1930년대 초부터 더 이상 당안을 이관받을 수 없었지만, 1940년대에는 재료과가 문서와 간행재료를 보존하고 제공하는 역할을 강화해갔다. 특히 조사연구를 위한 재료의 수집이 실행되었고, 일본의 통치 아래에 있던 지역을 회복하면서 대량의 당안과 문헌 자료를 수집하기도 하였다. 1931년 당안의 분류방법과 목록작성방법이 규정된 이후 특히 1940년대에 본격적으로 제도화되었는데, 기본적으로는 주제분류법이 유지되었고 기초적인 목록표기법이 채택되었다. "중요성"과 "기밀성"을 관리의 기준으로 삼는 원칙은 비교적 초기부터 나타났지만, 문서의 보존과 폐기를 구분하는 평가의 개념이나 절차는 명확치 않았다. 비밀의 보안관리와 접근제한의 제도를 실행하는 한편, "보존과 이용의 통일"이라는 구호에서도 알 수 있듯이 당안재료의 이용제공에 대한 문제의식은 매우 강렬하였다. 혁명운동과 전쟁의 와중에서도 중국공산당은 문서당안의 관리와 보존을 강화해가는 노력을 지속했다. 그 성과가 항상 바람직한 것도 아니었고, 그 경험을 안정적으로 발전시켜갈 수 있었던 것도 아니었다. 그것은 필경 중국공산당이 처해 있던 역사적 여건에서는 불가피한 일이었을 것이다. 이 과정에서 두드러지게 나타난 특성은 단지 기능적인 수준에서 문서당안관리의 효율화를 추진했던 것이 아니라 것이 아니라, 오히려 중국공산당의 혁명운동에 미치는 정치적 의의에 대한 자각을 강화해가며, 혁명 정책 연구의 실증적 근거이자 또한 중국공산당 역사의 증거로서 당안재료가 갖는 가치에 주목하였던 것에서 찾을 수 있을 것이다.

• 마케팅과학연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.68-79
• /
• 2009

The interplay between hedonic and utilitarian attributes has assumed special significance in recent years; it has been proposed that consumption offerings should be viewed as experiences that stimulate both cognitions and feelings rather than as mere products or services. This research builds on previous work on hedonic versus utilitarian benefits, regulatory focus theory, customer satisfaction to address two question: (1) Is the shopping goal at the point of purchase different from the shopping value? and (2) Is the customer loyalty after the use different from the shopping value and shopping goal? We surveyed 345 peoples those who have bought the electronic-goods within 6 months. This research dealt with the shopping value which is consisted of 2 types, hedonic and utilitarian. Those who pursue the hedonic shopping value may prefer the pleasure of purchasing experience to the product itself. They tend to prefer atmosphere, arousal of the shopping experience. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "hedonic" to refer to their aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment-related value. On the contrary, Those who pursue the utilitarian shopping value may prefer the reasonable buying. It may be more functional. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "utilitarian" to refer to the functional, instrumental, and practical value of consumption offerings. Holbrook(1999) notes that consumer value is an experience that results from the consumption of such benefits. In the context of cell phones for example, the phone's battery life and sound volume are utilitarian benefits, whereas aesthetic appeal from its shape and color are hedonic benefits. Likewise, in the case of a car, fuel economics and safety are utilitarian benefits whereas the sunroof and the luxurious interior are hedonic benefits. The shopping goals are consisted of the promotion focus goal and the prevention focus goal, based on the self-regulatory focus theory. The promotion focus is characterized into focusing ideal self because they are oriented to wishes and vision. The promotion focused individuals are tend to be more risk taking. They are more sensitive to hope and achievement. On the contrary, the prevention focused individuals are characterized into focusing the responsibilities because they are oriented to safety. The prevention focused individuals are tend to be more risk avoiding. We wanted to test the relation among the shopping value, shopping goal and customer loyalty. Customers show the positive or negative feelings comparing with the expectation level which customers have at the point of the purchase. If the result were bigger than the expectation, customers may feel positive feeling such as delight or satisfaction and they would want to share their feelings with other people. And they want to buy those products again in the future time. There is converging evidence that the types of goals consumers expect to be fulfilled by the utilitarian dimension of a product are different from those they seek from the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004). Specifically, whereas consumers expect the fulfillment of product prevention goals on the utilitarian dimension, they expect the fulfillment of promotion goals on the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Majahan 2007; Higgins 1997, 2001) According to the regulatory focus theory, prevention goals are those that ought to be met. Fulfillment of prevention goals in the context of product consumption eliminates or significantly reduces the probability of a painful experience, thus making consumers experience emotions that result from fulfillment of prevention goals such as confidence and securities. On the contrary, fulfillment of promotion goals are those that a person aspires to meet, such as "looking cool" or "being sophisticated." Fulfillment of promotion goals in the context of product consumption significantly increases the probability of a pleasurable experience, thus enabling consumers to experience emotions that result from the fulfillment of promotion goals. The proposed conceptual framework captures that the relationships among hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values and promotion versus prevention shopping goals respectively. An analysis of the consequence of the fulfillment and frustration of utilitarian and hedonic value is theoretically worthwhile. It is also substantively relevant because it helps predict post-consumption behavior such as the promotion versus prevention shopping goals orientation. Because our primary goal is to understand how the post consumption feelings influence the variable customer loyalty: word of mouth (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). This research result is that the utilitarian shopping value gives the positive influence to both of the promotion and prevention goal. However the influence to the prevention goal is stronger. On the contrary, hedonic shopping value gives influence to the promotion focus goal only. Additionally, both of the promotion and prevention goal show the positive relation with customer loyalty. However, the positive relation with promotion goal and customer loyalty is much stronger. The promotion focus goal gives the influence to the customer loyalty. On the contrary, the prevention focus goal relates at the low level of relation with customer loyalty than that of the promotion goal. It could be explained that it is apt to get framed the compliment of people into 'gain-non gain' situation. As the result, for those who have the promotion focus are motivated to deliver their own feeling to other people eagerly. Conversely the prevention focused individual are more sensitive to the 'loss-non loss' situation. The research result is consistent with pre-existent researches. There is a conceptual parallel between necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits and luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha 2007; Higginns 1997; Kivetz and Simonson 2002b). In addition, Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the precedence principle contends luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits higher than necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits. Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha (2007) show that consumers are focused more on the utilitarian benefits than on the hedonic benefits of a product until their minimum expectation of fulfilling prevention goals are met. Furthermore, a utilitarian benefit is a promise of a certain level of functionality by the manufacturer or the retailer. When the promise is not fulfilled, customers blame the retailer and/or the manufacturer. When negative feelings are attributable to an entity, customers feel angry. However in the case of hedonic benefit, the customer, not the manufacturer, determines at the time of purchase whether the product is stylish and attractive. Under such circumstances, customers are more likely to blame themselves than the manufacturer if their friends do not find the product stylish and attractive. Therefore, not meeting minimum utilitarian expectations of functionality generates a much more intense negative feelings, such as anger than a less intense feeling such as disappointment or dissatisfactions. The additional multi group analysis of this research shows the same result. Those who are unsatisfactory customers who have the prevention focused goal shows higher relation with WOM, comparing with satisfactory customers. The research findings in this article could have significant implication for the personal selling fields to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of the sales such that they can develop the sales presentation strategy for the customers. For those who are the hedonic customers may be apt to show more interest to the promotion goal. Therefore it may work to strengthen the design, style or new technology of the products to the hedonic customers. On the contrary for the utilitarian customers, it may work to strengthen the price competitiveness. On the basis of the result from our studies, we demonstrated a correspondence among hedonic versus utilitarian and promotion versus prevention goal, WOM. Similarly, we also found evidence of the moderator effects of satisfaction after use, between the prevention goal and WOM. Even though the prevention goal has the low level of relation to WOM, those who are not satisfied show higher relation to WOM. The relation between the prevention goal and WOM is significantly different according to the satisfaction versus unsatisfaction. In addition, improving the promotion emotions of cheerfulness and excitement and the prevention emotion of confidence and security will further improve customer loyalty. A related potential further research could be to examine whether hedonic versus utilitarian, promotion versus prevention goals improve customer loyalty for services as well. Under the budget and time constraints, designers and managers are often compelling to choose among various attributes. If there is no budget or time constraints, perhaps the best solution is to maximize both hedonic and utilitarian dimension of benefits. However, they have to make trad-off process between various attributes. For the designers and managers have to keep in mind that without hedonic benefit satisfaction of the product it may hard to lead the customers to the customer loyalty.