• 제목/요약/키워드: the aesthetic values

검색결과 413건 처리시간 0.02초

치과용 심미 수복 재료들의 색상 연구를 통한 새로운 치과용 색체계의 제안 (PROPOSAL OF NEW DENIAL COLOR-SPACE FOR AESTHETIC DENIAL MATERIALS)

  • 오윤정;박수정;김동준;조현구;황윤찬;오원만;황인남
    • Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
    • /
    • 제32권1호
    • /
    • pp.19-27
    • /
    • 2007
  • 본 연구는 새로운 치과용 색체계 개발을 목적으로 현재 치과에서 사용되고 있는 Vita shade를 사용하는 9 제조사의 12종의 광중합형 복합레진과 1종의 치과용 도재의 색상을 diffuse/$8^{\circ}$ 수광 방식을 사용하는 분광색체계 (MiniScan XE plus, Model 4000S, Hunter Lab, USA)를 이용해 D65 표준광과 10도 관찰자 시야 하에서 CIE $L^*a^*b^*$ 값을 측정하고 색상 범위를 분석하였다. 분석한 정보를 color sorting system을 응용한 CNU Cons Dental Color Chart의 색상 표현 방식인 T###에 치과용 수복 재료들의 범위를 적용하여 다음의 결과를 얻었다. 측정된 $L^*a^*b^*$ 값의 분포를 분석해 보면 $L^*$ 값은 80.40과 52.70 사이에, $a^*$ 값은 10.60과 -3.60 사이에, 그리고 $b^*$ 값은 28.40과 2.21 사이에 분포한다. $L^*$ 값의 평균값은 67.40, 중앙값은 67.30이며, $a^*$ 값은 2.89와 2.91, $b^*$ 값은 14.30과 13.90 이다. 이러한 분석을 토대로 CNU Cons Dental Color Chart의 T###의 첫 번째 숫자에 해당하는 $L^*$ 값의 각 숫자간의 차이는 2.0으로, 그리고 2번째 숫자인 $a^*$ 값의 각 숫자간의 차이는 1, 그리고 세 번째 숫자인 $b^*$ 값의 각 숫자간의 차이는 2로 정하였다. T555에 해당하는 $L^*$ 값의 범위는 66.0이상, 68.0미만으로, $a^*$ 값의 범위는 3이상 4미만으로, $b^*$ 값의 범위는 14이상 16미만으로 결정하였다.

쇼핑 가치 추구 성향에 따른 쇼핑 목표와 공유 의도 차이에 관한 연구 - 전자제품 구매고객을 중심으로 (Shopping Value, Shopping Goal and WOM - Focused on Electronic-goods Buyers)

  • 박경원;박주영
    • 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.

  • PDF

순천 초연정(超然亭) 원림의 문화경관 변용 양상 (A Study on the Cultural Landscape Metamorphosis of ChoYeon Pavilion's Garden in SoonCheon City)

  • 강병선;이승연;신상섭
    • 한국전통조경학회지
    • /
    • 제35권3호
    • /
    • pp.13-21
    • /
    • 2017
  • 순천시 송광면 삼청리 왕대마을에 자리하고 있는 초연정이 왕의 피난처, 제각, 별업, 강학공간으로 변모되는 양상에 착안하여, 시기별로 변모되는 장소성과 문화경관의 변용양상을 탐색하고 그 의미를 추적한 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 연재 송병선이 명명한 '초연'이란 정자명칭은 노자의 도덕경에 연원하는데, 순천 초연정을 비롯하여 포천 초연대, 가평 초연대, 창덕궁 후원 초연대, 유성 옥류각의 초연물외 등 정(亭), 대(臺), 각(閣) 등 공간속에 다양하게 투영되고 있어 도가적 풍류가 유가적 공간에 자연스럽게 접목되는 유불도 습합양상을 도출할 수 있다. 둘째, 초연정은 모후산 풍수경관과 수목석이 어우러진 계류풍광과 암경, 월출경, 도가적 이상향을 반영한 동천복지, 성리학적 이상향을 반영한 구곡처 등 승경향유의 요처에 절묘하게 자리하고 있으며, 왕대마을(왕의 주둔지), 유경(留京), 왕대사적 바위글씨, 그리고 오장대(장군기를 꽂아 놓은 자리), 모후산 등 고려말 공민왕의 피난처였다는 전설이 전해지는 장소성을 갖는다. 셋째, 초연정의 아름다운 계류 암벽 바위글씨(趙鎭忠別業, 宋秉璿)를 통해 유가적 가치를 반영한 거점(별업)뿐만 아니라 도가적 동천복지로서의 영역성(1km 이내에 월청, 풍청, 수청 각자와 삼청동천), 그리고 외원권역을 확장하여 수변계류에 9곡 <세록교(洗鹿橋) 봉일대(捧日臺) 자미구(紫薇鳩) 운매대(雲梅臺) 와룡총(臥龍叢) 광석대(廣石臺) 은선굴(隱仙窟) 벽옥담(碧玉潭) 와석포(臥石布)>을 설정하고 산수유상과 강학, 경관미학적감수성 제고 등 수심양성을 위한 성리학적 낙토를 원림속에 담아낸 복합 문화경관 향유 양상을 보여준다. 넷째, 초연정은 1778년 대광사 승려의 수도처(水石亭)로서 선원 기능을 하던 장소인데, 1836년 조진충이 선조의 묘 앞에 제각을 지어 별업을 초창했고, 1864년 조재호는 기와로 중수하여 선조를 기리는 별업기능과 도가적 은일처로 활용하는 확장성을 추적할 수 있다. 이후 1890년 조준섭은 스승 연재 송병선에게 '초연'이라는 정자 명칭을 받아 강학처로 활용하는 등 (1)불교 수도처${\rightarrow}$(2)유교 별업처${\rightarrow}$(3)별업+도교적 풍류처${\rightarrow}$(4)별업+도교적 풍류처+강학처(성리학적 낙토)로 용도가 확장 변용되는 양상을 추적할 수 있다.