소비자의 상점 선택은 유통관리자에게 매우 중요한 이슈이나, 소비자의 심리특성과 상점선택의 관계를 보여주는 연구는 많이 이루어지지 않았다. 본 연구에서는 소비자의 조절초점과 위험추구 성향이 EDLP(every day low price)와 HiLo(high-low price)상점의 선택에 미치는 영향을 보고자 한다. 할인크기는 작으나 할인을 자주하는 EDLP상점과 할인의 빈도는 낮으나 할인의 크기가 큰 HiLo상점에 대한 소비자의 선택은 할인크기와 할인빈도 중에서 어떠한 요소를 더 중요시 하느냐에 따라 달라진다. 본 연구는 이러 한 상점선택에 영향을 미칠 것으로 기대되는 소비자의 조절초점과 위험추구 성향의 영향에 대한 4개의 가설을 제시하였다. 구체적으로 자신들이 받을 수 있는 최대 이익에 더 민감한 향상초점 성향과 위험추구 성향의 소비자 들은 상대적으로 큰 할인을 제공하는 HiLo점포에 대한 선호가 높으며, 반대로 확실한 할인의 기회가 더 중요한 방어초점 성향과 위험회피 성향의 소비자들은 할인의 빈도가 높은 EDLP상점을 더 선호할 것이라는 가설이 제 시되었다(가설1, 가설3). 또한, 이러한 선호의 차이는 이들 소비자들이 할인의 크기와 할인빈도에 두는 가중치 의 차이 때문에 발생하는 효과임을 제시한다(가설2, 가설4). 이들 가설은 두 실증연구를 통해 검증되었다. 조절초점의 영향을 연구한 연구1은 방어초점 소비자가 향상초점 소비자보다 상대적으로 EDLP상점을 더 선호하는 것을 보여주었다. 또한 이러한 차이는 할인크기의 영향력이 조절초점에 따라 달라지기 때문이라는 결과를 보여주었다. 연구2는 위험추구 성향이 점포선택에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다. EDLP상점에 대한 선호는 위험회피 성향이 강할수록 커졌으며, 이러한 선호의 이유는 상점선택에 있어서 할인빈도의 중요성이 위험추구 성향에 따라 달라지기 때문임을 보여주었다.
Understanding factors affecting consumer store choice is essential for retail managers. Previous research has explored the influence of consumer buying behavior and demographic variables on store choice. However, little attention has been directed to psychological variables underlying consumer preference for choice. This research examines the potential impact that consumer`s individual dispositions have on the choice between EDLP (every day low price) and HiLo (high-low price) stores. EDLP stores offer more frequent price discounts, with each discount having a relatively small magnitude. On the contrary, HiLo stores offer less frequent discounts, but each discount size is larger. Therefore, consumers who give more weight to discount frequency should prefer EDLP to HiLo, whereas consumers who place more weight on discount depth should prefer HiLo to EDLP. We posit that potential individual variables that affect weight allocation on discount depth and frequency, consequently causing a differential store choice between EDLP and HiLo, are consumer`s self-regulatory focus and risk taking tendency. In particular, consumers with distinct promotion self-regulatory focus are more likely to prefer HiLo store to EDLP store because they are eager to achieve the maximum price discount. Conversely, consumers with distinct prevention self-regulatory focus are more concerned about not missing out promotion opportunities, leading to a greater preference of EDLP over HiLo store (Hypothesis 1). Individuals with risk-seeking orientations, like promotion-focus consumers, are more likely to prefer HiLo store because they are more sensitive to receiving the maximum discount than to merely getting any discounts. In contrast, individuals with risk-averse tendencies seek sure discount opportunities, similar to prevention-focus consumers, leading to a greater preference for EDLP store (Hypothesis 3). We further suggest that this difference in store preference is mainly driven by their differential weighing of discount frequency and discount depth. Specifically, discount depth exerts more effect on store choice for consumers with promotion- focus and risk-seeking orientations (Hypotheses 2a and 4a), whereas discount frequency is more heavily weighted by consumers with prevention-focus and risk-averse orientations (Hypotheses 2b and 4b). Two empirical studies provide evidence supporting our hypotheses. In Study 1, we examined the relationship between self-regulatory focus and store choice. Participants were presented with 18-month`s price history of a shampoo brand in an EDLP and a HiLo store. While the average prices offered by the two stores were the same, the EDLP store, compared with the HiLo, offered discounts more frequently, with a smaller depth. Participants were asked to choose a store to visit. Then we measured perceived discount depth and perceived discount frequency of the two stores, followed by measures for chronic self-regulatory focus. As expected, the result showed that participants with promotion (prevention) focus preferred HiLo (EDLP) store, with the choice of the HiLo store by promotion-focus participants and prevention-focus participants being 56% and 36%, respectively. To investigate whether the weighing of discount-frequency and discount-depth differs by self-regulatory focus, store choice was regressed on the self-regulatory focus score, the relative discount depth and frequency calculated using the perceived discount depth and frequency, the interaction of the self-regulatory focus and the relative discount depth, and another interaction of the self-regulatory focus and the relative discount frequency. The result supported the hypothesis 2a, showing that the influence of discount depth on store choice is stronger for promotion-focus than for prevention-focus. But the hypothesis 2b predicting that discount frequency is more important to prevention-focus was not supported. Study 2 tested the influence of individual`s risk attitude on store preference. The procedure was same with study 1 except for measuring participants` risk-seeking tendency instead of self-regulatory focus. The results supported the hypothesis 3 showing that preference for HiLo (EDLP) store was stronger for risk-seeking (risk-averse) individuals, with HiLo store choice of risk-seeking participants and risk-averse participants being 44% and 33%, respectively. Regression test examining the differential influence of discount depth and frequency on the store choice supported the hypothesis 4b: The discount frequency had stronger influence on stores choice for risk-averse consumers than for risk-seeking consumers. But our hypothesis 4 predicting that the discount depth has more value to risk-seeking consumers was not supported. The current research makes an important contribution to store choice literature. We expanded the scope of the factors related with store choice to consumers` psychological variables. Because psychological disposition exerts strong effect on every aspect of consumers` decision and explains why a consumer makes such a choice beyond picturing just a superficial relationship, elucidating the role of psychological variables in store choice provides valuable implications and seeds for future research. In addition, the findings of this research offer marketing managers interesting predictions. First, because the high fit between message framing and self-regulatory focus results in strong message persuasion, the loss-framing communication strategy might be effective in EDLP store whereas the gain-framing communication might be effective in HiLo. Second, promotion-focus consumers are low in status quo bias and endowment effect due to their inclination to new products. Thus, launching a new product through HiLo store first would help adoption of the new product.
