What is a leather iron or a bird phone? Using conceptual combinations to generate and understand new product concepts

Journal of Consumer Psychology

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 202-217

  Gill, Tripat ^a,c   Dubé, Laurette ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548529443     PISSN: 10577408     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70029-3     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Barone, M. J. (2005). The interactive effects of mood and involvement on brand extension evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 263-270.
2. Brunner, T. A., & Wanke, M. (2006). The reduced and enhanced impact of shared features on individual brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 101-111.
3. Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraintguided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299-349.
4. Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 47-60.
5. Dimofte, C. V., & Yalch, R. F. (2007). The SMAART scale: A measure of individuals' automatic access to secondary meanings in polysemous statements. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 49-58.
6. Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2006). Dressed for the occasion: Fontproduct congruity in the perception of logotype. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 112-123.
7. Estes, Z. (2003). Attributive and relational processes in nominal combinations. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 304-319.
8. Fazio, R. H. ( 1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 11. Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 74-97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Gagne, C. L. (2000). Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: A test of the CARIN theory and the dual-process theory of conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 365-389.
10. Gagne, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 71-87.
11. Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1991). Innovative decision processes. In T. S. Robertson & H. H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 316-348). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
13. Gregan-Paxton, J., Hibbard, J. D., Brunel, F. F., & Azar, P. (2002). "So that's-what it is": Examining the impact of analogy on consumers' knowledge development for really new products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 533-550.
14. Gregan-Paxton, J., Hoeffler, S., & Zhao, M. (2005). When categorization is ambiguous: Factors that facilitate the use of multiple category influence strategy. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 127-140.
15. Gregan-Paxton, J., & John, D. R. (1997). Consumer learning by analogy: A model of internal knowledge transfer. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 266-284.
16. Gregan-Paxton, J., & Moreau, P. (2003). How do consumers transfer existing knowledge? A comparison of analogy and categorization effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 422-430.
17. Keane, M. T., & Costello, F. (2001 ). Setting limits of analogy: Why conceptual combination is not structural alignment. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.). The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 287-312). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge: MA: Bradford.
19. Luna, D. (2005). Integrating ad information: A text-processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 38-51.
20. Markman, A. B., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 54-70.
21. Medin, D. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1988). Context and structure in conceptual combination. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 158-190.
22. Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39-54.
23. Min Kim, H. (2006). Evaluations of moderately typical products: The role of within-versus cross-manufacturer comparisons. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 70-78.
24. Mitchell, A. A., & Dacin, P. A. (1996). The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 219-239.
25. Moreau, C. P., & Dahl, D. W. (2005). Designing the solution: The impact of constraints on consumers' creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 13-22.
26. Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 14-29.
27. Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. H. (2001). The effect of novel attributes on product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 462-472.
28. Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances: An investigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 453-466.
29. Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21-59). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univeristy Press.
30. Roehm, M. L., & Sternthal, B. (2001). The moderating effect of knowledge and resources on the persuasive impact of analogies. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 257-272.
31. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
32. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
33. Schmitt, B. H., & Dubé, L. (1992). Contextualized representations of brand extensions: Are feature lists or frames the basic components of consumer cognition. Marketing Letters, 3, 115-126.
34. Siegel, S., & Castellan, J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
35. Sloman, S. A., Love, B. C., & Ahn, W.-K. (1998). Feature centrality and conceptual coherence, Cognitive Science, 22, 189-228.
36. Srinivasan, V., Lovejoy, W. S., & Beach, D. (1997). Integrated product design for marketability and manufacturing. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 154-163.
37. Sujan, M. (1985). Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 31-46.
38. Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1989). The effect of positioning strategies on consumers' brand and category perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 454-467.
39. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. B., & Vaid, J. (1997). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
40. Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 434-453.
41. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997a). Conceptual combination: Possibilities and esthetics. In T. B. Ward, S. B. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 51-81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
42. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997b). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 167-183.
43. Wisniewski, E. J. (1998). Property instantiation and conceptual combination. Memory and Cognition, 26, 1330-1347.
44. Wisniewski, E. J., & Gentner, D. (1991). On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 241-284). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
45. Wisniewski, E. J., & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 177-202.
46. Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 776-795.
47. Yeo, J., & Park, J. (2006). Effects of parent-extension similarity and self regulatory focus on evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 272-282.