Âü°í¹®Çå

 

°ø¹ÌÇý(2002). È£½ºÆ®¼¿¸µ ±¤°íÀÇ È¿°ú¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸. °è¸í´ëÇб³ ¼®»çÇÐÀ§³í¹®.

±è¿µÈ£(2000). µå¶ó¸¶ ÆÐ·¯µð±¤°íÀÇ È¿°ú¿¬±¸TV. È«ÀÍ´ëÇб³ ¼®»çÇÐÀ§³í¹®.

±èÀÇÁß(1999). È£½ºÆ®¼¿¸µ ±¤°íÈ¿°ú¿¬±¸. Áß¾Ó´ëÇб³ ¼®»çÇÐÀ§³í¹®.

±èÀç°ü(2000). È£½ºÆ®¼¿¸µ ±¤°íÀÇ È¿°ú¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸. ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ ¼®»çÇÐÀ§³í¹®.

±èÀçÈÖ(1999). ±¤°í±â¾ï ¹× ±¤°íŵµ¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ Áß°£±¤°íÀÇ È¿°ú. ±¤°íÇבּ¸, 10(4), 59-84.

±èÃæÇö(1995). ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ÀÇ »óȲ ¹× ¹è°æÀÌ ±¤°íÀÇ ¼³µæ·Â¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ. ±¤°í¿¬±¸, 28, 36-64.

±èÅ¿ë, ÀÌÁ¾¼±(2001). ºí·Ï°ú À§Ä¡¿¡ µû¸¥ TV±¤°í½Ãû·ü ºñ±³: ÃÊ´ÜÀ§·Î ÃøÁ¤µÈ ±¤°í½Ãû·üÀ» ±Ù°Å·Î. ±¤°í¿¬±¸ ¿©¸§È£ , 51(15), 29-47.

¹ÚÁ¾¿ø ±è¼º±â(1997). È£½ºÆ®¼¿¸µ ±¤°í°¡ ¾î¸°À̵éÀÇ Á¦Ç°ÅµµÇü¼º¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â È¿°ú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ½ÇÇ迬±¸. ±¤°íÇבּ¸, 8(1), 85-99.

À¯½Â¿±(2002). ÇÁ·Î±×·¥¼Ó¼º°ú ±¤°íÁ¦½Ã¹æ½Ä¿¡ µû¸¥ ±¤°í¸ðµ¨ ¸Æ¶ôÈ¿°ú. ±¤°íÇבּ¸, 13(4), 131-153.

À¯½Â¿±(2003). ½ºÆ÷Ã÷½ºÅ¸¸¦ ¸ðµ¨·Î ±â¿ëÇÑ ±¤°í¸¦ ¾î¶»°Ô Á¦ÀÛÇÒ °ÍÀΰ¡? Ä«ÇÇÁ¦Ç° ¹× ¹è°æÀ» Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î. ±¤°íÇבּ¸, 14(5), 7-31.

À̱ԿÏ, ¹Ú¿Ï±â(1999). ¹æ¼ÛÇÁ·Î±×·¥ Àü/ÈÄCMÀÇ ±¤°í³ëÃâÈ¿°ú ºñ±³¿¬±¸. ±¤°íÇבּ¸, 10(4), 7-34.

ÀÌÁ¾¼±(1999). ±Û·Î¹ú ½ºÅÄ´õµå Àû¿ëµÉ ¹æ¼Û±¤°í ¿µ¾÷Á¦µµ. ±¤°íÁ¤º¸ 3¿ùÈ£, 62-67.

ÀÌÁ¾¼±(2000). 21¼¼±â ¹æ¼Û±¤°í¿µ¾÷ÀÇ ½Å ÆÐ·¯´ÙÀÓ È®´ë½Ç½Ã. ±¤°íÁ¤º¸ 4¿ùÈ£. 4, 34-38.

Á¶Á¤½Ä, ±è°æÈñ(1997). ÅÚ·¹ºñÀü ±¤°í½Ãû·ü°ú ÇÁ·Î±×·¥ ½Ãû·üÀÇ Â÷À̺м®. ±¤°í¿¬±¸ Á¦34È£, 10-29.

Çѱ¹±¤°íÀÚÀ²½ÉÀDZⱸ(1996). ±¤°í½ÉÀÇ»ç·ÊÁý. 75.

ÇÑÁöÈñ(1999). ±¤°íÀÇ ¸Æ¶ôÈ¿°ú¿¬±¸: ¼±Ç౤°íÀÇ °¨Á¤ÀÌ À¯¸Ó±¤°íÀÇ È¿°ú¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î. ¼­°­´ëÇб³ ¼®»çÇÐÀ§³í¹®.

Atkin, C. (1975). The effects of television advertising on children: first year experimental evidence, Lansing, Mich: Department of Communication, Michigan State University, Quoted in P. S. Raju and Subhash C. Lonial, op. cit., 240-255.

Feltham, T. S. and S. J. Arnold (1994). Program Involvement and Ad/ Program Consistency as Moderator of Program Context Effects, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(1), 52-53.

Howard, D. J. & Barry, T. E. (1994). The Role of Thematic Congruence between a Mood-Inducing Event and Advertised Product in Determining the Effects of Mood on Brand Attitudes, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(1), 1-27.

Hoy, M. G., Young, C. E. and Mowen, L. C. (1986). Animated Host-Selling Advertisements: Their Impact on Young Children¡®s Recognition, Attitudes, and Behavior, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 171-184.

Kamins, M. I. Marks & D. Skinner (1991). Television Commercial Evaluation in the Context of Program-Induced Mood Congruency Versus Consistency Effects, Journal of Advertising, 20(june), 1-14.

Kunkel, D. (1988). Children and host- selling television commercials. Communication Research, 15(1), 71-92.

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E.(1989). An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad in Advertising Pretesting Context. Journal of Marketing, 23(April), 48-65.

Miller, Joseph H., Jr & Paul Busch (1979). Host selling vs. premium TV commercial: an experimental evaluation of the ir influence on children, Journal of Marketing Research, 16(August), 323-332.

Meyers-Levy, J. & Alice M. Tybout (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research, 16(June), 52.

Peterson, R. A., Wilson, W. R., & Brown, S. P.(1992). Effects of Advertised Customer Satisfaction Claims on Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intention. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(March), 34-40.

Shumann, D. W. & Thorson, F. (1990). The Influence of Viewing Context Commercial Effectiveness: A Selection-Processing Model, Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 12, 1-20.

Yoon, K.(1992). Involvement Level and the Mediating Role of Attitude toward the Advertising. In L. N. Reid(Ed.). Processing of the 1992 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising(46-54). American Academy of Advertising.

´ÙÀ½ ÆäÀÌÁö·Î