An explorative and descriptive study in order to determine the effect of family structure and other socio-demographic variables on health behavior, belief, locus, and value and utilization of public health service was carried out. Data were collected from 1,653 subjects randomly sampled in three areas, Seoul, Kyunggi province, and Cheju province. From Seoul 849 subjects were selected, 397 subjects Kyunggi, and 407 subjects from Cheju, respectively. Self-reporting questionaires were administered during the period from March to June, 1992. The major findings were as follows: 1) The subjects visited herb-doctor's at irregular intervals mainly to have tonic medicine prepared. They preferred herb-doctor's rather than with doctors at clinics and hospitals. Statistically significant difference was found among the regions studied (p<0.05). 2) The reason for visiting hospitals was primarily for treatment of diseases. They preferred hospital because they felt that the hospitals offer much highly reliable treatment services as well as medical accessibility. For the purpose of hospital utilization, statistically significant differences existed among sex, educational level, family type and region. However, no significance was found among sex, educational level, and region (p<0.05). 3) The subjects utilized general hospitals mainly for diagnosis and treatment of diseases. They preferred general hospitals because of their much better facilities and reliability. Statistical significance was found among sex, educational level, and region (p<0.05). 4) The subjects visited dentist at irregular intervals basis. They visited once half a year or three to four months. their purpose of visit was mainly for diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Statistical significance differences were found among educational level, region and economic standard (p<0.05). 5) Whenever their illnesses were mild and the pharmacies was located in nearby they visited to pharmacies. They visited once a month and patient medicines. Statistically significant differences were found among sex, educational level and region (p<0.05). 6) The subjects believed that herb medicine was quite efficacious for treatment of some diseases, particularly by information handed down through time-honored tradition and experience. However, they recognized that the efficacy of folk medicine can vary with type and severity of diseases. Statistical significance was among sex, educational level, region and economic standard (p<0.05). 7) The reason why subjects believed that pray and superstition are effective for treatment of certain type of diseases, particularly in neuropathy, was the belief in God's almighty. Statistically significant differences were found among sex, educational level, regions and economic standard (p<0.05). 8) Most of subjects under same condition preferred western medicine because they believed that it is more scientific and prompts in showing therapeutic effect. Statistical significance was not found in the choice of type of public health service among, regions. But significant differences were found among sex, educational level and region (p<0.05). 9) The subjects looked for pharmacy if they thought the symptom was mild. However, they visited hospitals for chronic disease and general hospitals for emergency treatment. Statistical significances were found among educational level, region and economic standard (p<0.05). 10) Although most of students wanted to have a healthy life as for the component of health standard and value, they think that they are not healthy (p<0.05). As for the health behavior, significant difference was found in the proportion of smoking and drinking between educational level and region (p<0.05). The health locus was affected by educational level, and health behavior was influenced by region, sex and educational level. The utilization of type of public health service was influenced by family type and region, and health belief by region and educational level, and the health values by region and economic standard respectively, most of correlation showed statistical significance. Among them, the highest correlation was seen between locus of control and external/internal locus of control, which is quite obvious. The correlation between health belief and behavior was the next highest, but still low (0.343). All the other variables are low but significant except only a few of those. These findings indicate that health education should be incorporated into the curriculum so as to develop desirable health habit, and ability of self-control in accordance with their growth stages. A systematic and scientific understanding on the herb/folk medicine is needed, and greater reliability of the utilization of public health services are is still required. Health policy for equal distribution of health service throughout the country along the hierarchical health service system and complementary mutual assistance and cooperation among various health organizations are also required.
This study investigates when and how disagreements in online customer ratings prompt more favorable product evaluations. Among the three metrics of volume, valence, and variance that feature in the research on online customer ratings, volume and valence have exhibited consistently positive patterns in their effects on product sales or evaluations (e.g., Dellarocas, Zhang, and Awad 2007; Liu 2006). Ratings variance, or the degree of disagreement among reviewers, however, has shown rather mixed results, with some studies reporting positive effects on product sales (e.g., Clement, Proppe, and Rott 2007) while others finding negative effects on product evaluations (e.g., Zhu and Zhang 2010). This study aims to resolve these contradictory findings by introducing preference heterogeneity as a possible moderator and causal attribution as a mediator to account for the moderating effect. The main proposition of this study is that when preference heterogeneity is perceived as high, a disagreement in ratings is attributed more to reviewers' different preferences than to unreliable product quality, which in turn prompts better quality evaluations of a product. Because disagreements mostly result from differences in reviewers' tastes or the low reliability of a product's quality (Mizerski 1982; Sen and Lerman 2007), a greater level of attribution to reviewer tastes can mitigate the negative effect of disagreement on product evaluations. Specifically, if consumers infer that reviewers' heterogeneous preferences result in subjectively different experiences and thereby highly diverse ratings, they would not disregard the overall quality of a product. However, if consumers infer that reviewers' preferences are quite homogeneous and thus the low reliability of the product quality contributes to such disagreements, they would discount the overall product quality. Therefore, consumers would respond more favorably to disagreements in ratings when preference heterogeneity is perceived as high rather than low. This study furthermore extends this prediction to the various levels of average ratings. The heuristicsystematic processing model so far indicates that the engagement in effortful systematic processing occurs only when sufficient motivation is present (Hann et al. 2007; Maheswaran and Chaiken 1991; Martin and Davies 1998). One of the key factors affecting this motivation is the aspiration level of the decision maker. Only under conditions that meet or exceed his aspiration level does he tend to engage in systematic processing (Patzelt and Shepherd 2008; Stephanous and Sage 1987). Therefore, systematic causal attribution processing regarding ratings variance is likely more activated when the average rating is high enough to meet the aspiration level than when it is too low to meet it. Considering that the interaction between ratings variance and preference heterogeneity occurs through the mediation of causal attribution, this greater activation of causal attribution in high versus low average ratings would lead to more pronounced interaction between ratings variance and preference heterogeneity in high versus low average ratings. Overall, this study proposes that the interaction between ratings variance and preference heterogeneity is more pronounced when the average rating is high as compared to when it is low. Two laboratory studies lend support to these predictions. Study 1 reveals that participants exposed to a high-preference heterogeneity book title (i.e., a novel) attributed disagreement in ratings more to reviewers' tastes, and thereby more favorably evaluated books with such ratings, compared to those exposed to a low-preference heterogeneity title (i.e., an English listening practice book). Study 2 then extended these findings to the various levels of average ratings and found that this greater preference for disagreement options under high preference heterogeneity is more pronounced when the average rating is high compared to when it is low. This study makes an important theoretical contribution to the online customer ratings literature by showing that preference heterogeneity serves as a key moderator of the effect of ratings variance on product evaluations and that causal attribution acts as a mediator of this moderation effect. A more comprehensive picture of the interplay among ratings variance, preference heterogeneity, and average ratings is also provided by revealing that the interaction between ratings variance and preference heterogeneity varies as a function of the average rating. In addition, this work provides some significant managerial implications for marketers in terms of how they manage word of mouth. Because a lack of consensus creates some uncertainty and anxiety over the given information, consumers experience a psychological burden regarding their choice of a product when ratings show disagreement. The results of this study offer a way to address this problem. By explicitly clarifying that there are many more differences in tastes among reviewers than expected, marketers can allow consumers to speculate that differing tastes of reviewers rather than an uncertain or poor product quality contribute to such conflicts in ratings. Thus, when fierce disagreements are observed in the WOM arena, marketers are advised to communicate to consumers that diverse, rather than uniform, tastes govern reviews and evaluations of products.