본 연구는 소비자들의 구매 목적이 실용적인지 또는 쾌락적인지에 따라 실제 쇼핑 상황에서 제시되는 비관련 제품의 가격이 소비자들이 구매하고자 하는 표적제품에 대한 지불용의가격에 어떠한 영향을 미치는 지를 살펴보고, 비관련 제품 가격에 의한 정박 효과의 근저에 깔려있는 심리 기제에 관하여 시간 지연과 자기 규제적 자원의 고갈이라는 두 가지 변수를 활용하여 그 특성을 규명하고자 하였다. 이러한 목적을 가지고 실험한 결과로 얻어낸 본 연구의 발견점들은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 제품을 구매하는 목적이 실용적 목적이냐 또는 쾌락적 목적이냐에 따라서 구매하려고 하는 제품과 관련이 없는 제품 가격, 즉 비관련 제품가격에 의한 정박 효과의 크기가 달라진다는 것을 보였다 (실험 1). 즉, 실용적 구매목적을 가진 소비자와 비교하여 쾌락적 구매목적을 가진 소비자가 표적제품에 대한 지불용의가격을 정하는데 있어서 우연히 제시된 제품가격에 의해 더 큰 영향을 받는다는 것을 밝혔다. 둘째, 소비자들의 자기 규제적 자원이 고갈되면, 자기 규제적 자원이 고갈되지 않은 경우와 비교해 볼 때, 초기 값으로 제시된 주변 제품가격의 영향을 더 많이 받게 된다는 것을 보임으로써 비관련 제품 가격에 의한 정박 효과가 계산이나 추리와 같은 통제된 과정 (controlled process)이 아니라 자동적으로 일어나는 직관적인 과정에 의해 나타나는 것을 알아냈다 (실험 2). 셋째, 시간 지연이 있는 경우와 시간 지연이 없는 경우를 비교하여 정박 효과의 크기가 어떻게 변화하는지를 조사하여, 제시된 비관련 제품의 가격을 보고 난 후 시간 지연이 발생한 경우에는 초기 값의 영향이 지속되지 않고 사라진다는 것을 보였다 (실험 3). 즉, 비관련 제품 가격의 정박 효과는 목표 점화(goal priming)와 같은 동기적인 요인보다는 인지적 연상 (cognitive association)에 의해 나타나는 것으로 보인다. 따라서 본 연구는 비관련 제품 가격에 의한 정박 효과가 발생하는 조건들과 그 같은 정박 효과의 심리적인 특성에 대해 새로운 시각을 제시해 준다.
Consumers encounter countless products and services every day. As a result, they are bound to be exposed to endless numbers--that is, prices. In such an environment, incidental prices surrounding consumers could affect consumers` internal reference price for the target product as anchors. This, in turn, may well significantly influence consumer choice. Building on the recent field studies that documented the anchoring effect of incidental prices (Nunes and Boatwright 2004), this research explores the boundary conditions for the effect of incidentally exposed prices on the consumers` willingness to pay for a target product. Furthermore, this study investigates psychological mechanisms underlying the impact of incidental prices on the willingness to pay for a target product. In Experiment 1, we predicted the anchoring effect of incidental prices on the willingness to pay for the target product (hypothesis 1) and the moderating influence of purchase goal (hedonic vs. utilitarian) on the anchoring effect of incidental prices (hypothesis 2). To test hypotheses 1 and 2, Experiment 1 adopted a 2 (anchor: high vs. low)×2 (purchase goal: utilitarian vs. hedonic) between-subjects factorial design. The results of Experiment 1 showed that consumers exposed to the high level of unrelated product prices expressed higher willingness to pay for the target product (Mhigh=954,300KRW) than those exposed to low prices (Mlow=771,300KRW) in the case of desktop computer (F(1,145)=13.35, p<.01). In the cases of running shoes (Mhigh=154,400KRW vs. Mlow =94,300KRW, F(1,89)=10.28, p<.01) and MP3 players (Mhigh=184,200KRW vs. Mlow=113,900KRW, F(1,109)=14.75, p<.01), we observed similar patterns of results. Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported. For all three categories of desktop computers, running shoes and MP3 players, there were significant interactions between purchase goal and the level of anchor (desktop computers: F(1,145)=8.85, p<.05, running shoes: F(1,89)=4.44, p<.05, MP3 players: F(1,109)=8.04, p<.01). When consumers had hedonic purchase goals, those who were exposed to high anchors revealed higher willingness to pay for the target product (Mcomputer/high=1,080,800KRW, Mrunning shoes/high=210,000KRW, Mmp3player/high=224,800KRW) than those exposed to low anchors (Mcomputer/low=745,700KRW, Mrunning shoes/low=110,400KRW, Mmp3player/low=102,700KRW) for all three product categories (p<.01). In contrast, when consumers had utilitarian goals, those who were exposed to high anchors did not express significantly higher willingness to pay for the target product (Mcomputer/high=831,900KRW, Mrunning shoes/high=98,800KRW and Mmp3player/high=143,600KRW) than those exposed to low anchors (Mcomputer/low=795,100KRW, Mrunning shoes/low=78,200KRW and Mmp3player/low=125,200KRW). Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported. In Experiments 2 and 3, we investigate the underlying mechanisms of the anchoring effect that occurs in the case of hedonic purchase goal by introducing the time delay and resource depletion as experimental manipulations. In Experiment 2, we tested hypothesis 3, which posited that the anchoring effect would be enhanced when consumers experience resource depletion. To test hypothesis 3, Experiment 2 adopted a 2 (anchor: high vs. low)×2 (resource depletion: no depletion vs. depletion) between-subjects factorial design. The results show that the interaction effect between anchor and resource depletion was significant (F(1,43)=4.65, p<.05). Participants who experienced resource depletion were more heavily influenced by the anchor compared with those who did not experience resource depletion. Specifically, the impact of incidental prices (i.e., the anchoring effect) increased as a result of resource depletion. Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported. In Experiment 3, we tested whether incidental prices influence consumers` decision making simply through cognitive associational processes (hypothesis 4-1) or through motivational goal-related processes (hypothesis 4-2). Experiment 3 adopted a 2 (anchor: high vs. low)×2 (time delay: no delay vs. delay) between-subjects factorial design. The interaction effect between anchor (high/low) and time delay was significant (F(1,89)=3.10, p<.10). The result showed that when time delay was introduced after participants encountered an anchor, the anchoring effect diminished. This result reveals that the priming effect was mainly due to cognitive association rather than goal priming. Thus, hypothesis 4-1 was supported. Overall, this research identifies a boundary condition of the anchoring effect of incidental prices on the willingness to pay for a target product, and clarifies psychological mechanisms underlying the anchoring effect. The findings of this research can be used as a guideline for marketers to manage environmental factors influencing consumers` willingness to pay for a certain product/service.