The curious case of the refrigerator-TV: Similarity and hybridization

Cognitive Science

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 992-1018

  Gibbert, Michael ^a   Hampton, James A ^b   Estes, Zachary ^c   Mazursky, David ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LUGANO   (Switzerland)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^d HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

Conceptual combination; Convergence; Feature addition; Feature integration; Hybrid products; Similarity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONSUMER; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

CONCEPT FORMATION; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 84864361633     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01247.x     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 364, 1281-1289.
3. Connell, L., & Keane, M. T. (2006). A model of plausibility. Cognitive Science, 30, 95-120.
4. Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299-349.
5. Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2001). Testing two theories of conceptual combination: Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 255-271.
6. Estes, Z. (2003a). A tale of two similarities: Comparison and integration in conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 27, 911-921.
7. Estes, Z. (2003b). Attributive and relational processes in nominal combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 304-319.
8. Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (2000). Interactive property attribution in concept combination. Memory & Cognition, 28, 28-34.
9. Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic thinking: The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 54 (pp. 249-294). Burlington, VT: Academic Press.
10. Estes, Z., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Integrative priming occurs rapidly and uncontrollably during lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 112-130.
11. Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The "good enough" approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71-83.
12. Fox News (2008). Verichip now chipping diabetics on Fox News., accessed May 26, 2011.
13. Gagné, 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.
14. Gibbert, M., & Mazursky, D. (2007). A recipe for creating new products. Wall Street Journal, October 26, p. B1.
15. Gibbert, M., & Mazursky, D. (2009). How successful would a phone-pillow be? Using dual process theory to predict the success of hybrids involving dissimilar products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 652-660.
16. Gill, T. (2008). Convergent products: What functionalities add more value to the base? Journal of Marketing, 72, 46-62.
17. Gill, T., & Dubé, L. (2007). What is a leather iron or a bird phone? Using conceptual combinations to generate and understand new product concepts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 202-217.
18. Gill, T., & Lei, J. (2009). Convergence in the high-technology consumer markets: Not all brands gain equally from adding new functionalities to products. Marketing Letters, 20, 91-103.
19. Goldenberg, J., & Mazursky, D. (2002), Creativity in Product Innovation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20. Golonka, S., & Estes, Z. (2009). Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1454-1464.
21. Goode, M. R., Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2010). The effect of experiential analogies on consumer perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 247-286.
22. Gregan-Paxton, J., Hoeffler, S., & Zhao, M. (2005). When categorization is ambiguous: Factors that facilitate the use of a multiple category inference strategy. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 127-140.
23. Hampton, J. A. (1987). Inheritance of attributes in natural concept conjunctions. Memory & Cognition, 15, 55-71.
24. Hampton, J. A. (1988). Overextension of integrative concepts: Evidence for a unitary model of concept typicality and class inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 12-32.
25. Hampton, J. A. (1997). Emergent attributes in conceptual combinations. In T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith, & J. Viad (Eds.). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 135-162). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
26. Hampton, J. A., Green, A, Lewis, D., & Estes, Z. (2001). Imagining the impossible. Poster presented at the joint meeting of the Cognitive Science Society and the Experimental Psychology Society, Edinburgh, July.
27. Hampton, J. A., & Jönsson, M. L. (2012). Typicality and compositionality: The logic of combining vague concepts. In M. Werning, W. Hintzen, & E. Machery (Eds). Oxford handbook of compositionality (pp. 385-402). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
28. Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 362-375.
29. Johar, G. V., Maheswaran, D., & Peracchio, L. A. (2006). Mapping the frontiers: Theoretical advances in consumer research on memory, affect, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 139-149.
30. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2010). Embodied conceptual combination. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1-14.
31. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431-467.
32. 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.
33. Markman, A. B., Wood, K. L., Linsey, J. S., Murphy, J. T., & Laux, J. (2009). Supporting innovation by promoting analogical reasoning. In A. B. Markman & K. L. Wood (Eds.), Tools for innovation (pp. 85-103). New York: Oxford University Press.
34. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100, 254-278.
35. Moreau, P., Markman, A., & Lehmann, D. (2001). "What is it?" Categorization flexibility and consumers' responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 489-498.
36. Nike (2011)., accessed May 26, 2011.
37. Rajagopal, P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (2009). Consumer evaluations of hybrid products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 232-241.
38. Ratneshwar, S., Barsalou, L. W., Pechman, C., & Moore, M. (2001). Goal-derived categories: The role of personal and situational goals in category representations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10, 147-157.
39. Rothenberg, A. (1979). The Emerging Goddess. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40. Simmons, S., & Estes, Z. (2008). Individual differences in the influence of thematic relations on similarity and difference. Cognition, 108, 781-795.
41. Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., & Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. Cognitive Science, 12, 485-527.
42. Stremersch, S., & Tellis, G. J. (2002). Strategic bundling of products and prices: A new synthesis for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 66, 55-72.
43. Thagard, P. (1997). Coherent and creative conceptual combinations. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Viad (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 129-141). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
44. Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35, 1-33.
45. The Telegraph (2011). Kitchen appliance to save space: Radio toaster., accessed May 26, 2011.
46. Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Rust, R. T. (2005). Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 431-442.
47. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
48. Wilkenfeld, M. J., & Ward, T. B. (2001). Similarity and emergence in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 21-38.
49. Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 434-453.
50. Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Pscychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 167-183.
51. Wisniewski, E. J. (2001). On the necessity of alignment: Reply to Costello and Keane (2001). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 272-277.
52. Wisniewski, E. J., & Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 208-238.
53. Wisniewski, E. J., & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 177-202.
54. Wu, L. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132, 173-189.