RISS 검색 - 국내학술지논문 상세보기

국문 초록 (Abstract)

소비자 의사결정에 미치는 자기해석(self-construal) 및 문화의 영향을 검증해 보려는 시도가 늘어나고 있다. 자기해석(예컨대 독립적/상호의존적 자기해석)은 국가, 국적 혹은 지역적 구분과 같...

소비자 의사결정에 미치는 자기해석(self-construal) 및 문화의 영향을 검증해 보려는 시도가 늘어나고 있다. 자기해석(예컨대 독립적/상호의존적 자기해석)은 국가, 국적 혹은 지역적 구분과 같이 문화권 간 집단 수준에서 문화를 해석할 때 뿐 아니라 구성주의 혹은 상황주의적 접근을 통해 동일 문화권 내 개인 수준에서의 문화를 해석할 때에도 문화의 대용지표로서 광범위하게 활용되고 있다. 집단 수준(예컨대 동양 대 서양) 혹은 개인 수준(예컨대 자기해석)의 문화가 위험의사결정에 미치는 영향에 관한 기존 연구들에 의하면 전반적으로 동양은 서양에 비해 위험회피 수준이 높거나 위험추구 수준이 낮은 것으로 나타났으나 재무적 영역에서는 문화가 위험선호에 미치는 영향이 혼재되어 나타났다. 독립적 자기개념을 가지고 있는 사람이 상호의존적 자기개념을 가지고 있는 사람에 비해 위험선호가 높게 나타난 연구가 있는 반면 상호의존적 자기해석을 가지고 있는 사람(혹은 동양)이 독립적 자기해석을 가지고 있는 사람(혹은 서양)에 비해 위험선호가 높게 나타났다는 연구 결과도 보고된 바 있다. Hsee & Weber(1999)는 후자와 같은 현상을 완충(cushion)가설, 즉 사회적 네트워크가 실패에 대한 일종의 완충 역할을 수행하는데 실패했을 경우 사회적 네트워크로부터 도움을 받을 수 있는 수가 동양이 서양에 비해 많으므로 동양이 서양에 비해 재무적 영역에서는 위험추구 현상을 보인다는 가설을 제시하였으며, 문화가 재무적 위험선호에 미치는 영향을 사회적 네트워크가 매개하고 있음을 보여준 바 있다. 그러나 본 연구에서는 자기해석이 재무적 위험선호에 미치는 영향을 사회적 네트워크가 매개하는 역할을 수행하기 보다는 상황(이익영역 혹은 손실영역)에 따라서 그리고/혹은 자기해석과의 상호작용을 통해서 상이한 역할을 수행할 가능성이 있음에 주목하여 이를 검증해 보았다. 본 연구 결과에 따르면 기존 연구에서도 밝혀진 이익 보다는 손실영역에서 위험 선호도가 높게 나타난다는 현상을 검증한 것 이외에도 다음과 같은 사항이 발견되었다. 첫째, 재무적 영역(이익영역과 손실영역)과 사회적 네트워크 간에 이원상호작용이 나타났다. 즉, 재무적 영역에 따라 사회적 네트워크가 위험선호에 미치는 영향이 상이하게 나타났다. 이익영역에서는 사회적 네트워크가 재무적 위험선호에 긍정적인 영향(위험 선호 증대)을 미치지만 손실영역에서는 사회적 네트워크가 재무적 위험선호에 긍정적인 영향을 미치지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 재무적 영역, 사회적 네트워크 그리고 자기해석 간에 삼원상호작용이 나타났다. 특히 손실영역에서는 사회적 네트워크와 자기해석 간 상호작용이 발생하였으며, 독립적 자기해석이 강할수록 사회적 네트워크가 증가함에 따라 위험선호도는 상대적으로 약화되는 모습을 보였다. 이상의 발견사항들과 관련하여 마케팅 및 소비자학 관점에서의 시사점을 기술하였다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently, it has been found that self-construal, as a proxy for intra-cultural (e.g., European American vs. Asian American) and inter-cultural variations (e.g., Western vs. Easterm), has a significant influence on marketing, consumer behavior, and decision making. For example, it has been reported that motivation, consumer preference, attitudes toward brand extension, brand choices, new product adoption, persuasion, and negotiation were influenced by self-construal. A bulk of studies reported that Eastern people (e.g., Asian) tended to be less risk-seeking or more risk-averse than Western people (e.g., American, European) within the social domain. Within the financial domain, however, reports have shown mixed findings. Whereas some reports have shown that Asian people (e.g., Chinese individuals), or those who have interdependent self-construal, have higher risk preferences than Western people (American individuals), or those who have independent self-construal in both gain or loss domains when considering financial decision making (Hsee & weber 1999; Mandel 2003), other research findings have demonstrated the opposite (Hamilton & Biehal 2005) or no relationship between cultural background and risk preference (Li, Bi, & Zhang 2009). Some researchers have insisted that because Asian people, or those with interdependent self-construal, tend to have larger social network compared to Western people, or those with independent self-construal, this can help the decision maker in the case of a failure (called the ‘cushion hypothesis’). They, therefore, had higher risk preferences when compared to Westerners. Social network size was found to support and mediate these preferences. In this study, however, the authors proposed that social network size strengthened risk preference in the gain domain, while lessening risk preference in the loss domain. And in the loss domain, social network interacted with self-construal. That is to say, the objective of the study identified the differential role of social network in the relationship between self-construal and financial risk preference. Prospect theory predicts that people are generally risk-averse in the gain domain, whereas risk-seeking in the loss domain. In the gain domain, however, because people preferred implicit social support and decision makers expected to receive implicit social support from their social networks even after a failure to decision making, risk preference was strengthened with increased social network size. In the loss domain, decision makers expected to receive both implicit and explicit social support from their social networks. While European Americans were willing to receive explicit social support from their social networks, they experienced stress when facing implicit social support. Stress led self-construal to reach lower level, and when low construal level was boosted, people thoroughly investigated and dwelled on the negative aspects. Therefore, independent self-construal lessened their risk preference in the loss domain as social network increased. Whereas Korean Americans were unwilling to receive explicit social support from their social networks, they experienced low levels of stress when facing implicit social support. This means that interdependent self-construal, compared to independent self-construal, strengthened their risk preferences in the loss domain as social network size increased. Therefore, the financial domain (gain vs. loss) and/or self-construal interact in relation to social network. An experiment was conducted following the analysis of previous research, and the results are listed below: First, financial domain (gain vs. loss) was found to differentially influence financial risk preference. Financial risk preference was higher in the loss domain than the gain domain. Second, social network interacted with financial domain (gain vs. loss). This means that social network was found to moderate the impact of financial domain (gain vs. loss) on financial risk preference. More specifically, social network size positively influences financial risk preference in the gain domain but not the loss domain. Third, a three-way interaction was found among three variables (financial domain, social network size, and self-construal). More specifically, social network size interacted with self- construal in the loss domain. Independent self-construal relatively decreased financial risk preferences in the loss domain as social network size increased. Theoretical and practical implications were described from the perspective of marketing and consumer studies.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Hong, Jiewen, "“I” Follow My Heart and “We” Rely on Reasons: The Impact of Self-Construal on Reliance on Feelings versus Reasons in Decision Making" 41 (41): 1392-1411, 2015

2 Aaker, Jennifer L., "‘I’ Seek Pleasures and ‘We’ Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion" 28 (28): 33-39, 2001

3 Weber, Elke U., "What Folklore Tells Us about Risk and Risk Taking: Cross-Cultural Comparisons of American, German, and Chinese Proverbs" 75 (75): 170-186, 1998

4 Gelfand, Michele J., "Toward a Culture-by-Context Perspective on Negotiation: Negotiating Teams in the United States and Taiwan" 98 (98): 504-513, 2013

5 Cross, Susan E., "The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal" 15 (15): 142-179, 2011

6 Triandis, Harry C., "The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts" 96 (96): 506-520, 1989

7 Lee, Angela Y., "The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Self-construals: The Role of Interdependence in Regulatory Focus" 78 (78): 1122-1134, 2000

8 Singelis, Theodore M., "The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals" 20 (20): 580-591, 1994

9 Chang, Janet, "The Interplay Between Collectivismand Social Support Processes Among Asian and Latino American College Students" 6 (6): 4-14, 2015

10 Zhang, Y., "The Influence of Self-construal on Impulsive Consumption" 35 (35): 838-850, 2009