본 연구는 공평성이론(equity theory)을 토대로, 소비자의 제품구매 후 비교대상에 비한 공평성/불공평성 지각이 감정과 만족에 어떠한 영향을 미치며, 그러한 관계가 성별에 따라 어떻게 달리 나타나는지를 조사한 것이다. 본 연구는 두 개의 하위 연구로 구성되어 있다. 연구 1에서는 소비자의 공평성 지각 조작을 위하여 소비자가 동일 제품을 구매한 다른 소비자와 비교하는 상황을 설정하고, 연구 2에서는 거래 상대방인 판매자와 비교하는 상황을 설정하였다. 각 연구를 위하여 공평성/불공평성을 달리 지각하도록 하는 세 개의 시나리오 (이득 불공평, 공평, 손해 불공평)를 작성하였으며, 각 피실험자에게 그 중 한 개의 시나리오를 읽도록 한 후 설문지에 응답하도록 하는 실험에 의해 자료를 수집하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 소비자는 비교 대상이 다른 소비자와 판매자, 어느 쪽이건 자신이 이득을 보았다고 여기면 그렇지 않은 경우에 비해 미안함과 만족을 크게 느낀다. 또한 이 경우 여성은 남성보다 더 미안함을 느낀다. 둘째, 다른 소비자와 비교하는 경우, 이득이 만족에 미치는 영향은 남성이 여성보다 크고, 손해가 만족에 미치는 영향은 여성이 남성보다 크다. 셋째, 판매자와 비교하는 경우, 손해가 만족에 미치는 영향은 여성이 남성보다 크다. 그러나 이득이 만족에 미치는 영향은 가설과는 달리 성별에 따라 다른 것으로 나타나지 않았다. 본 논문의 끝에는 연구 결과의 이론적 의미를 토론하고 미래 연구를 위한 연구 과제를 제시하였다.
To explain consumer satisfaction decision, equity theory postulates that consumers compare their own ratio of outcomes to inputs with others` ratio and are satisfied if their ratio is higher than others` ratio, and vice versa. In this case, the others can be another consumer who bought the same product or the seller who sold the product to themselves. Whereas numerous studies were performed on expectancy-disconfirmation theory in explaining consumer satisfaction decision, few studies were performed on equity theory. The present study investigated how consumers` postpurchase equity/inequity perception influences consumer emotion and satisfaction, and how this differs by gender. The research was organized as two studies. For each study, three scenarios (positive inequity, equity, negative inequity) were developed to have college student subjects perceive equity/inequity differently. In each study, subjects were asked to read one of the three scenarios concerning purchase of a cellular phone and answer the questionnaire. Study 1 is concerning the case where consumers compare their ratio with another consumer`s ratio and five hypotheses were established as follows: H1: Consumers will feel guilty more in the case that they perceive positive inequity compared with another consumer than other cases (equity, negative inequity). H2: Consumers will be satisfied more in the case that they perceive positive inequity compared with another consumer than other cases (equity, negative inequity). H3: When consumers perceive positive inequity compared with another consumer, female consumers will feel guilty more than male consumers. H4: The gain in the aspect of equity (positive inequity) will influence satisfaction more in the case of male consumers than female consumers. H5: The loss in the aspect of equity (negative inequity) will influence satisfaction more in the case of female consumers than male consumers. Fifty subjects (twenty-five males and twenty-five females) were allocated in each of three scenario cells. In order to manipulate the equity/inequity, the authors created situations where the subject compared the purchase price (inputs) with his/her friend`s purchase price (inputs) of the same phone (outcomes). In this case, if the subject paid less (more) than did his/her friend, he/she would feel positive (negative). If the subject paid the same price with his/her friend, he/she would feel equity. The research results of study 1 were as follows. When consumers knew that their purchase price was lower than their friend`s price (positive inequity), they felt guilty more than other cases (equity, negative inequity; F=12.68, p<.01, η2=.15), but were satisfied more (F=32.48, p<.01, η2=.31). Additionally, in this case, female consumers felt guilty more than did male consumers (t=4.64, p<.01, η2=.31). Thus, H1, H2, and H3 were supported. In addition, the gain in the case of positive equity influenced satisfaction more for male consumers than female consumers (regression coefficient β=1.2 vs. 1.0; parallelism test t=2.35, p<.01), whereas the loss in the case of negative inequity influenced satisfaction more for female consumers than male consumers (regression coefficient β=-1.16 vs. -.54; parallelism test t=6.46, p<.01). In other words, male consumers versus female consumers felt a greater degree of satisfaction from the positive inequity, whereas female consumers versus male consumers felt a greater degree of dissatisfaction from the negative inequity. These results were supportive of H4 and H5. The results of study 1 were generally consistent with our hypotheses. As stated, consumers may compare their ratio with the seller`s ratio as well as another consumer`s ratio. Study 2 deals with the case where consumers compare their ratio with the seller`s ratio and five hypotheses were established as H6-H10. These hypotheses were identical with H1-H5 except that consumers compare their ratio with the seller`s ratio. For example, H6 states: Consumers will feel guilty more in the case that they perceive positive inequity compared with the seller than other cases (equity, negative inequity). Sixty subjects (thirty males and thirty females) were allocated in each of three scenario cells. In order to manipulate the equity/inequity, similarly to study 1, the authors created situations where the subject compared his/her purchase price with the seller`s purchase price. In this case, if the seller gets no margin (the subject`s purchase price is equal to the seller`s purchase price), the subject would feel positive inequity. If the seller gets too much margin, the subject would feel negative inequity, and if the seller gets reasonable margin, the subject would feel equity. The research results of study 2 were as follows. When consumers knew that their purchase price was equal to the seller`s purchase price (positive inequity), they felt guilty more than other cases (equity, negative inequity; F=37.85, p=<.01, η2=.30), but were satisfied more (F=27.17, p<.01, η2=.23). Additionally, in this case, female consumers felt guilty more than did male consumers (t=2.47, p<.01, η2=.20). These results provide support for H6, H7, and H8 were supported. However, the gain in the case of positive equity did not influence satisfaction more for male consumers than female consumers (regression coefficient β=1.05 vs. 1.08; parallelism test t=.18, p>.01). Thus, there is no support for H9. Finally, the loss in the case of negative inequity influenced satisfaction more for female consumers than male consumers (regression coefficient β=-1.18 vs. -.55; parallelism test t=6.18, p<.01). This result was supportive of H10. The authors discussed the possible reasons why H9 was not supported.