2012 94

http://www.kadpr.or.kr

7)8)

* PSP
**

()
.

. ( vs. )
( vs. ) , 3 227
. ,
,
.
, .

K EY

W O R D S

* spirit2088@gmail.com
** hanque@sookmyung.ac.kr,

148

1.
1990 , , ,
,

(, 2012). 2000


(, 2003; , 2004).

.
TV, , ,
,
.

,
. 1990

(e.g., , 1999; , 1998; , 1996; , 1999).

5

.

.
,
.
, ,
( )
.

149

 ,
. ,

.

2.
1)

. , ,

. , (1999)
, TV, ,
. ,

(2006)
,
.

, ,
, (,

2012). , (2001)
,
(, , , )
, , ,
.
.

2000

150

 .

, , ,
,
(, 2010, , 2003).
SNS
, , (
, 2010).
. (2007)
,
, .
, 4

(TV, , , ) , ( , ,
, ), , , (,
) .


.
,
( )
( ) .

2)

(publicity) .
,
(non-personal)
, ,

151

 (Kotler, 2003; Yale & Carothers, 2001).

,
.

.
, ,
(Belch & Belch, 2009). ,
, . ,

,
. , ,
,
. ,
,
. ,

(, 2008; Belch & Belch, 2009; Hallahan, 1999; Lord &

Putrevu, 1993).

, , , , ,
(e.g., , 2007;

Balasubramanan, 1994; Jo, 2004; Loda & Coleman, 2005). ,

(Preston & Scharbach, 1971)
, ()
( )
. (Cameron, 1994) 3
,
, 3
. (Lord & Putrevu, 1993)
,

152



.
,
. (Hallahan, 1999)
, ,

(argument quality) , , ,
.
,

.
. ,
(2007)
, ,
.
(2009)
.

, , , ,
, ,
.
,

.

3)
(information source)
,

153

 (, 1995).
,
,

(, 2004; , 2008). ,
, ,
(interviewee) .
, , , ,
.
(credibility) .

,
(, 2000).

(Ohanian, 1990).
,
, , , , ,
.
(expertise)

(McCracken, 1989). (Ohanian, 1990) ,

, , , , ,
,

. , (similarity)
. (,
, , ) , ,

(Belch & Belch, 2009). (Festinger,

1957) ,

154

 .
, .
,
, .

()

.
( vs. ) ( vs. )

.
1 :
?
2 :
?

,

. ( )

.
(e.g., , 2009; Okazaki, 2007; Philips

& Suri, 2004), ,

,
. .

155

 3:
? , (
) ( ) ?
4:
? ,
, , ,
?

< 1> .
, (/) (/
), ,
, , , .
( 1 2),
(
3),
( 4)
.

1.

156

3.
1)

. ,
(/) (/) 22
4 .

,
3 .
227 .
(random assignment) 4 1
. 227
16 211 .
109(51.7%), 102(48.3%) .
,
,

(, 1999; 2001). (/) 2

(/) 2 ( 1 ), 4
1 .

(), (),
() (), .

2)
(/) (

/) ,

157

 .
,
.

3 .
, 4 38
.

.
,

.
( 50 , 20 ),
.
, (
, , , )
.
.
,
(MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989)
. ( ) ,
, , , ,
5 .
, ( )
( ) 5
.
, (1993)
. , ( )
,
, ,

158

 1.

2.863

.659

3.299

.712

2.542

.815

3.097

.780

3.164

.797

3.536

.718

3.060

.927

3.189

.829

4.625

.000***

5.054

.000***

3.557

.000***

1.065

.288

*** p.001

5 . ,
,
,
5 .

4.
, , ,
. Cronbachs
, 0.7
.

< 1>
. t- ,

, ( t

4.625, p.001; t5.504, p.001; t3.557, p

.001).

159

 2.

3.102

.818

3.050

.603

2.821

.929

2.805

.752

3.337

.861

3.355

.694

3.127

.928

3.119

.834

.536

.593

.137

.891

.162

.871

.068

.946

< 2>
. t- , < 2>
.

< 3> < 4>

,
(Pearsons r.4, p.01) (MANOVA)
.9) t-
,
.
< 3> ,
(F8.746; p.01).
< 2> ,
,
.
.
,
.
9) , .

160

 3.

9.220

9.220

20.246

.110

.110

.242

.623

.056

.056

.123

.726

3.983

3.983

8.746

.012

.012

.026

.872

.612

.612

1.343

.248

.681

.681

1.495

.223

.000***

.003**

x
x
*** p.001, ** p.01

4.

14.102

14.102

22.770

.016

.016

.026

.873

3.689

3.689

5.957

.016*

1.329

1.329

2.146

.145

.300

.300

.484

.488

.914

.914

1.475

.226

.268

.268

.432

.512

.000***

x
x
*** p.001, * p.05

161

 2.

, <

4> , .
,
< 5> . (F
.597, p.05), (M2.980) (M2.656)
( ) .
< 6> ,
(F5.362, p.05),
. < 3>
,
, . ,
,
.

162

 5.

6.015

6.015

10.381

.019

.019

.032

.857

.336

.336

.580

.447

.461

.461

.795

.374

.111

.111

.192

.662

1.724

1.724

2.976

.086

.032

.032

.054

.816

.001**

x
x
** p.01

6.

.558

.558

.740

.391

.009

.009

.012

.912

2.737

2.737

3.633

.058

.240

.240

.319

.573

4.041

4.041

5.362

.022*

1.364

1.364

1.810

.180

.173

.173

.230

.632

x
x
* p.05

163

 3.

5.
1)

(
), ( ),
.
,

.
.
.
() (
) , (endorser)

164

 .
22 4 4
, 227 3
.
, ,

. (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996)
, 3

. (Cameron, 1994) (Lord &

Putrevu, 1993) ,
.
, , ,
, .

.
, ,
. ,

,
.
,
. ,
.
, ,
,
.
,
, .

165

2)
.
,
3
() ,
.
,
.
,

.

.

.

.
,
.
, ,
. ,

(IMC)
.
, ,

.
,

.

166

 ,
,

.
,
. ,

. , ,
,

.

3)

,

.
,
.
, ,

.
3 ,
.
.

,
10) TV,
(cross-media strategy)

167

 .
, ,

.
.
,
.

.
,

()
.
,
, .

.
, (200 )
.
( , )
. ,


.

10) Korea Media Index 2012 1 ,

5.38% .

168

(2012). .
.
(2008). . , 79 2,

6390.
(1999). : .

, 1 1, 530.
(2000). . , 2, 29
54.
(2006). . , 6 3, 141178.
(2003). PR :
. , 17 2, 177206.
(2010). .

, 519520.
(2007).
: . , 9 2, 207243.
(2008).
, , 10 3, 92121.
(1998). , , 26 1, 203219.
(2003). PR . , 5 2, 2868.
(2007). .

, 9 3, 104128.
(1995). .

, 13 2, 1425.
(1996). . , 10, 97115.
(2004). : .

, 48 4, 218242.
(1999). . , 3, 6783.
(2007).
: , , 18

3, 2951.

169

(2004). .

, 15 2, 177202.
(2009). .

, 11 1, 248275.
(2001). . , 5 2
, 128155.
(2007). PR : PR
. , 21, 2947.
(2008). . , 8 4,

702739.
(1993). :
. , 4, 6378.

Balasubramanan, S. K.(1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and

public policy issues. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 2946.
Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A.(2009). Advertising & promotion: An integrated marketing
communications perspective(8th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Cameron, G. T.(1994). Does publicity outperform advertising? An experimental test of
the third-party endorsement. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(3),
185207.
Festinger, L.(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Hallahan, K.(1999). Content class as a contextual cue in the cognitive processing of
publicity versus advertising, Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(4),
293320.
Jo, S.(2004). Effect of content type on impact: Editorial vs. advertising. Public Relations
Review, 30, 503512.
Kotler, P.(2003). Marketing management: Analysis planning, implementation and
control(11th ed.). EnglewoodCliffs.NJ:PrenticeHall.
Loda, M., & Coleman, B. C.(2005). Sequence matters?: A more effectively to use
advertising and publicity. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(4), 362372.
Lord, K. R., & Putrevu, S.(1993). Advertising and publicity: An information processing
perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14(1), 57.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J.(1989). An empirical examination of the structural
antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal
of Marketing, 53(April), 4865.

170

McCracken, G.(1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the

endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 310321.
Ohanian, R.(1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity
endorsers perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of
Advertising, 19(3), 3952.
Okazaki, S.(2007). Exploring Gender Effects in a Mobile Advertising Context: On the
Evaluation of Trust, Attitudes, and Recall, Sex Roles, 57(11/12), 897908.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.(1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contemporary approach. Boulder. CO: Westview Press.
Philips, M., & Suri, R.(2004). Impact of gender differences on the evaluation of
promotional emails, Journal of Advertising Research, 44(4), 360368.
Preston, I. L., & Scharbach, S. E.(1971). Advertising: More than meets the eye? Journal
of Advertising Research, 3, 1942.
Yale, D. R. & Carothers, A. J.(2001). The publicity handbook. IL: NTC Publishing
Group.
2012 7 31 2012 9 10 2012 9 15

171

 1
[A] -

172

[B] -

173

[C] -

174

[D] -

175

A b s tra c t

Persuasive Effects of College Marketing

for New Students Recruiting
Focusing on Analyzing Impacts of Message Type
and Source Type

Kim, Sun-Hwa
Researcher, Institute of Public Strategy & Performance, Infomaster Inc.

Han, Kyoo-Hoon
Associate Professor, Dept. of Advertising & Public Relations, Sookmyung Womens University

The present study examined the effects of two major strategies of promotion,
advertising and publicity, used by colleges to recruit high school graduates on high
school studentsattitude and intention to apply for the endorsed college. This study
also compared the effectiveness of persuasion by two frequent types of human
information source in college marketing, a president of the college and a college
student(s). An experiment was conducted with the sample of senior high school
students, a primary target group of college marketing, by manipulating message type
and source type under a 2x2 factorial design. Results indicated that publicity has more
positive impact on promotion effectiveness than advertising in general and
information source type is not much influential. Based on the results, theoretical and
practical implications were discussed, as were several directions for further research
on college marketing effects.
KEY

W ORDS

source type

college marketingadvertisingpublicitymessage type