번들제품 유형이 양가적 반응에 미치는 영향: 제품특성(평가속성기준, 대안수)과 소비자특성(심적 계좌, 심적 시뮬레이션)의 조절효과를 중심으로*

Abstract

This study is to investigate the influence of bundling type on ambivalent response which is a state of having simultaneous conflicting reactions, beliefs, or feelings towards bundled packaging. It is hypothesized that hedonic bundled packaging would trigger ambivalent response more than utilitarian one. And it examines the moderating roles of product characteristic variables such as criteria of evaluation attribute and choice set size on the relationship between bundling type and ambivalent response. It also looks into the moderating effects of consumer characteristic variables such as mental account, mental simulation on the relationship between bundling type and ambivalent response. Hypotheses are set as follows. H1: The influence of the bundling type on ambivalent response will be different. Specifically, hedonic bundled packaging will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than utilitarian one. H2: The influence of the bundling type on ambivalent response will vary depending on the criteria of evaluation attribute. H2-1: In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, multi-finality will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than uni-finality. H2-2: In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, uni-finality will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than multi-finality. H3: The influence of the bundling type on ambivalent response will vary depending on the choice set size. H3-1: In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, large number of alternatives will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than small number of ones. H3-2: In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, small number of alternatives will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than large number of ones. H4: The influence of the bundling type on ambivalent response will vary depending on the mental account. H4-1: In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, the mental account will be likely to have no interaction effect on the relationship between bundling type and ambivalent response. H4-2: In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, the specific level of the mental account will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than the comprehensive level of the mental account. H5: The influence of the bundling type on ambivalent response will vary depending on the mental simulation. H5-1: In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, the process-focused simulation will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than the outcome-focused simulation. H5-2: In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, the outcome-focused simulation will be likely to have higher influence on ambivalent response than the process-focused simulation. Several experiment are conducted to collect data. The subject samples are selected from college students using convenience sampling method in Daejeon Metropolitan City. Laundry detergent and ramen are selected as experimental products. The data are analyzed with IBM SPSS 24.0 statistics program. T-test (H1) and 2×2 analysis of variance (H2, H3, H4, H5) are used to test the hypotheses. In addition, frequency and reliability analysis are conducted. The results of the study can be summarized as follows. First, it is revealed that bundling type has different influence on ambivalent response of bundled product. Specifically, hedonic bundled packaging triggers higher influence on ambivalent response than utilitarian one. Second, it shows that the criteria of evaluation attribute has a moderating role on the type of bundling type affecting ambivalent response. In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, multi-finality has higher influence on ambivalent response than uni-finality. In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, uni-finality has higher influence on ambivalent response than multi-finality. Third, it shows that the choice set size has a moderating role on the type of bundling type affecting ambivalent response. In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, large number of alternatives has higher influence on ambivalent response than small number of ones. In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, small number of alternatives has higher influence on ambivalent response than large number of ones. Fourth, the mental simulation has a moderating role on the type of bundling type affecting ambivalent response. In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, there is no difference on ambivalent response depending on the type of mental account. In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, the specific level of the mental account has higher influence on ambivalent response than the comprehensive level of the mental account. Fifth, mental simulation has a moderating role on the type of bundling type affecting ambivalent response. In the case of the utilitarian bundled packaging, the process-focused simulation has higher influence on ambivalent response than the outcome-focused simulation. In the case of the hedonic bundled packaging, the outcome-focused simulation has higher influence on ambivalent response than the process-focused simulation. In the end, the implications, limitations and future research directions based on the study results are discussed and suggested.