조절적 동기가 시간적 분리 프레이밍 효과에 미치는 영향

According to prior research, it is profitable to separate gain but to integrate loss. In respect of gain domain, it is higher psychological value that one experiences separated gain over time than that one does integrated gain all at once. In loss domain, however, this direction is the reverse - psychological value in the separated loss is higher than in the integrated it. This phenomenon is overall robust, but one cannot assert it always be true. For example, many consumers prefer payment by installments to payment in a lump sum - this means separating loss is more preferred to integrating loss. Also, recent advertisement copy says “Only 500 won a day, No concern about germs!” or “Only 800 won a day, Everyday car-washing & everyday new car!” - it places emphasis on benefit of “penny a day” against to burden of “payment in a lump sum.” Why do more consumers prefer “penny a day” to “lump sum?” In most context, “lump sum” functions as cost burden for consumers. But “penny a day” framing lightens this burden. So many companies include temporal reframing message in their advertising as like “penny a day.” Then, does “penny a day” framing always bring fortune on company? No, it does not. Maybe individual difference is in existence. For example, one sensitive to cost is more affected by temporal reframing. Another consumer would rather prefer payment in a lump sum. In this viewpoint, this study explores moderator of consumer preference for whether “penny a day” or “a lump sum.” I suggest regulatory focus as one of these moderating factors. Higgins(1997) says promotional person focuses on gain-nongain frame, but preventional person focuses on loss-nonloss frame. So it makes sense that promotional consumer is more interested in value-accumulating, whereas preventional consumer is more concerned with cost for consuming. This research is composed of two experiments. Ex. 1 explores context of “value-consuming.” That is, it equals cost-focusing context. This situation is expected to fit with prevention focus. Results confirm this expectation - preventional consumers are affected by temporal reframing, whereas promotional consumers are not. That is, preventional consumers prefer “penny a day” to “a lump sum,” whereas promotional consumers appears no difference. Additional context of “value-accumulating” is explored through Ex. 2. This gain-focusing situation (e.g. psychological gain after donation) is expected to fit with promotional focus. As if hypothesis, only promotional consumers responded to temporal reframing differentially. That is, they prefer “a lump sum” to “penny a day.” But preventional consumers do not respond differentially. Implications of this study can be summarized like followings. First, in addition of prior research that only focus on value-consuming context, this research also focus on value-accumulating context. Second, it is explored that the effect of regulatory focus with temporal reframing on consumer purchase intention - this is creative approach. Finally, managerial implications also can be applied through this research’s results. For example, periodical installment savings vs. periodical savings, accumulative vs. mutual funds, and periodical little amount donation vs. aggregate donation etc.