혁신적인 지속가능한 식품에 대한 소비자 커뮤니케이션 : 대체육을 중심으로

학위논문 (석사) -- 서울대학교 대학원 : 농업생명과학대학 농경제사회학부(지역정보전공), 2021. 2. 문정훈.본 연구는 혁신적이고 지속가능한 식품(예:대체육)을 어떻게 효과적으로 커뮤니케이션해야 하는지 분석하는 데 목적이 있다. 해당 연구는 크게 (1)정보처리 과정과 (2)구매 결정 과정으로 구분하였다. 정보 처리 과정을 다룬 첫 번째 연구는 동일한 내용의 정보를 포함하지만 다르게 표현된 광고를 보고 소비자의 태도가 어떻게 바뀌는지 알아보고자 하였다. 본 연구는 메시지 프레이밍 (이익 vs. 손실) × 제품 종류 (배양육 vs. 식물성 고기) × 부정적 감정 (죄책감 vs. 수치심)의 총 8가지 상황에 대해 피시험자 간 설계로 실험을 진행하였다. 또한, 고기 섭취로 발생할 수 있는 문제점을 대처하는 방식(문제 초점 vs. 감정 초점)이 제품 종류에 따라 어떻게 작용하는지 확인하고자 하였다. 그 결과 배양육의 경우에는 메시지 프레이밍의 효과가 없었지만, 식물성 고기에서는 이익 메시지가 더 효과적임을 밝혔다. 또한, 죄책감의 상황에서는 메시지 프레이밍과 제품 종류에 대한 상호작용이 존재했지만, 수치심에서는 존재하지 않음을 나타내 두 감정의 차이를 밝혔다. 더 나아가서 배양육의 경우에는 감정 중심의 대처가 더 효과적이고, 식물성 고기에서는 문제 중심의 대처가 더 효과적임을 확인하였다. 두 번째 연구는 구매 결정 과정에 대한 연구로 배양육과 식물성 고기 구매 의사에 직접적으로 영향을 미치는 요인에 대해서 알아보고자 했다. 소비자들이 대체육을 구매하는 데 느낄 수 있는 양면적인 감정을 조사하고 각각 제품에 영향을 미치는 요인에 대해서도 알아보고자 했다. 배양육과 식물성 고기 공통으로 영향을 미치는 요인에는 식품에 대한 호기심, 부자연스러움, 과학기술에 대한 불신이 있었으며, 지속가능성과 푸드네오포비아 변수에서 차이를 나타내었다. 종합적으로, 배양육과 식물성 고기는 기존 고기로 발생할 수 있는 문제점을 해결하고자 노력한다는 점에서 공통점을 가지지만, 제품의 불확실성 특성에 따라서 소비자 커뮤니케이션 방식이 달라야 함을 제안한다. 본 연구에서는 대체육을 한정해서 보았지만, 해당 결과는 앞으로 계속해서 출시될 혁신적이고 지속가능한 식품을 이해하는데 기초를 제공할 것이다. 해당 연구는 마케터들에게 유용한 방향성을 제공하며, 소비자의 행동을 이해하는 데 공헌할 것이다.This study investigates how to effectively communicate innovative sustainable foods (e.g., alternative meat products) to consumers. This work is divided mainly into two parts (1) Information processing for innovative sustainable foods (2) Purchase decision about innovative sustainable foods. The first study, entitled “Message Framing to Promote Alternative Meat Products” examined consumers’ attitudes when information processing steps using message framing. In this study, a total of eight conditions were composed with a between-subject design: message framing (gain vs. loss) × product type (cultured meat vs. plant-based meat alternative) × negative emotion (guilt vs. shame). Besides, this work investigated how coping (problem-focused vs. emotion-focused) with the problems caused by conventional meat consumption works differently depending on the type of product. As a result, for the cultured meat, message framing did not affect, but for the plant-based meat alternative, the gain message was more effective than the loss message. Moreover, in the guilt situation, the interaction effect of message framing and product type was shown, whereas, in the shameful situation, there was no interaction effect. This work also confirmed that emotion-focused coping was more activated when participants faced cultured meat, but problem-focused coping was more effective in the case of plant-based meat alternatives. The second study, entitled “Ambivalent Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meat Products Purchasing” explored the positive and negative feelings toward alternative meat products and compared the differences in factors influencing alternative meat buying intention. The results showed that food curiosity, unnaturalness, and distrust of biotechnology are the factors affecting purchasing choices common to both alternative meat products; while sustainability is a factor influencing purchase choice of plant-based meat alternatives and food neophobia affects the choice of cultured meat. Overall, cultured meat and plant-based meat alternative have a common point, solving problems that may occur with conventional meat, but it is suggested that the consumer communication strategies should be different depending on product types. Although this study has limited alternative meat products, this work will offer a basis for understanding innovative sustainable foods. The results of these studies provide useful guidelines for effective promotional messages about cultured meat, plant-based meat alternative, and contribute to understanding consumers’ behavior toward innovative sustainable foods.Contents I. Introduction 1 1. Motivation of this Study 1 2. The Purpose of this Study 3 3. Theoretical Background 6 3.1. The Concept of Innovative Sustainable Foods (ISF) 6 3.2. Literature Review of ISF 9 II. Study 1: Message Framing to Promote Alternative Meat Products 18 1. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 18 1.1. Innovative Sustainable Product Types 18 1.2. Prospect Theory and Message Framing 22 1.2.1. Prospect Theory: Value Function and Decision Weighting Function 22 1.2.2. Message Framing 25 1.3. The Types of Innovative Products and Message Framing 26 1.4. Negative Emotions Related to Meat Consumption 28 1.5. Alternative Meat and Coping Strategies for Conventional Meat Consumption 31 2. Method 33 2.1. Procedure and Design and Data Collection 33 2.2. Message Framing of Target Advertisement 34 2.3. Negative Emotion Priming 35 2.4. Post-treat Measures 36 2.4.1. Attitude toward Ad 36 2.4.2. Attitude toward Product 36 2.4.3. Problem-focused Coping and Emotion-focused Coping 37 2.4.4. Participants Characteristics 37 3. Results 37 3.1. Participants 37 3.2. Measurement Assessment 38 3.2.1. Loadings of Survey Items and Description of Variables 38 3.3. Manipulation Check 41 3.3.1. Product Familiarity and Knowledge 41 3.3.2. Message Framing 42 3.3.3. Negative Emotions 42 3.4. Interaction Effects of 2 (message framing) × 2 (product type) on the Main Outcome Measures 43 3.4.1. Attitude toward Ad 43 3.4.2. Attitude toward Product 44 3.5. Moderating Effects of Negative Emotions on the Main Outcome Measures 45 3.5.1. Attitude toward Ad 45 3.5.2. Attitude toward Product 47 3.6. The Group Difference in Coping Strategies depending on Product Types 49 3.6.1. Attitude toward Ad 50 3.6.2. Attitude toward Product 51 3.7. Summary of the Results 52 4. Discussion 52 4.1. Theoretical Implication 55 4.1.1. Message Framing and Perceived Product Innovativeness 55 4.1.2. Guilt and Shame Emotion and Meat Consumption 56 4.1.3. Elaboration Likelihood Model and Coping Strategies 57 4.1.4. Building on Prior Innovative Sustainable Products Research 58 4.2. Practical Implications 59 4.2.1. Cultured Meat Marketers 59 4.2.2. Plant-based Meat Alternative Marketers 60 4.3. Limitations and Future Study 61 III. Study 2: Ambivalent Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meat Products Purchasing 62 1. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 64 1.1. Consumer Ambivalence 64 1.2. Ethical Viewpoint 66 1.2.1. Sustainability 67 1.2.2. Unnaturalness 68 1.3. Food Safety 68 1.2.1. Drug-free Cleanness 69 1.2.2. Distrust of Biotechnology 70 1.4. Initial Reaction 71 1.4.1. Food Curiosity 71 1.4.2. Food Neophobia 72 2. Methodology 74 2.1. Data Collection 74 2.2. Measurement Development 75 3. Results 76 3.1. Demographics 76 3.2. Measurement Assessment 77 3.3. Assessment of the Structural Model 79 4. Discussion 82 References 89 Appendix A. One Example of Survey Questionnaires (Study 1) 102 Appendix B. Study Frames (Study 1) 106 Appendix C. One Example of Survey Questionnaires (Study 2) 108Maste