Same or different? How distance and variation affect similarity judgments

Abstract

The effects of distance and variation on product-category similarity judgments are examined in two studies. Distance between product categories is characterized as the mean difference in the average scores of all brands in one category with all brands in another on a comparison attribute. Variation is characterized as a degree of spread of brands along that comparison attribute. Study 1 finds that both distance and variation influence the perceived similarity of two product categories. An interaction between distance and variation is also observed. Study 2 is designed to replicate and extend these results, determining if distance and variation also affect similarity judgments when brands in the two product categories are not described by the same attribute -but instead where a comparison attribute must be abstracted. The results confirm the main effects of distance and variation. However, the interaction effects between distance and variation disappear, suggesting that subjects lose some information about distribution knowledge in the abstraction process. Both studies support consumers' use of distribution knowledge about brands (distance and variation) in productcategory similarly judgment tasks. ᭧ 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. YOO AND MACINNISConsiderable research has supported the effect of similarity between brands and product categories on consumers' brand judgments (Johnson & Horne, 1992). Similarity among brands within a product category, for example, has been found to affect the perceived positioning of products (Aaker & Shansby, 1982;Arabie, Carroll, DeSarbo & Wind, 1981;Dube & Schmitt, 1999;Viswanathan & Childers, 1999) and the extent to which brands are perceived as close to or far from a prototypical brand (Loken & Ward, 1990). Similarity of brands across categories has been found to affect cross-category competition (Ratneshwar & Shocker, 1991), the extent to which brands are regarded as "comparable" (Bettman & Sujan, 1987;Johnson, 1984Johnson, , 1988Johnson, , 1989Park & Smith, 1989), and the extent to which brand extensions are judged as favorable (e.g., Aaker & Keller, 1990;Boush, 1993;Boush & Loken, 1991;Dacin & Smith, 1993;Keller & Aaker, 1992;Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991). Distance and Variation under Product-Category Similarity Judgment TaskDespite the importance of similarity judgments to marketing and consumer behavior, theoretical models about the factors that drive similarity judgments are scarce. A common assumption of research in this area has been that the closer two brands are in terms of a common attribute or a set of common attributes, the more similar they are perceived to be. As such, the distance between two brands drives similarity judgments. Although distance might be conceptualized as interpoint distance between two brands on a similar attribute, similarity judgments could also be affected by context (Tversky, 1977). A different conceptualization of distance could be conceived when consumers compare two different product categories. In this situation, context could be ...

Consumer evaluations of brand extension: The roles of case-based reminding on brand-to-brand similarity

“…Second, case-based reminding is a form of analogical reasoning that depends on the perceived similarity between the case brand and the target brand. In the present setting, there are various bases of similarity (Yoo & MacInnis, 2004) responsible for the observed brand extension evaluations, such as productto-product similarity (see Aaker & Keller, 1990), brand-to-product similarity (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994;Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991), and brand-to-brand similarity (Bei & Shen, 2007;Walchli, 2007). Brand-to-brand similarity through case-based reminding can be viewed as a complementary source to the productto-product and brand-to-product similarity in prior research.…”

From a commodity to an experience: The moderating role of thematic positioning on congruity‐based product judgment

“…Recent literature has come to support the idea that taxonomic and thematic categories differ with respect to the ease in which common features, whether concrete or abstract, can be generated from memory (Blaye & Bonthoux, 2001; Chaffin, 1997; Osborne & Koppel, 2001; Whitmore, Shore, & Smith, 2004). Products that are evaluated taxonomically tend to share concrete features and as a result are noted as being stable across individuals and situations (Barsalou, 1983; Felcher, Malaviya, & McGill, 2001; Osborne & Koppel, 2001; Yoo & MacInnis, 2004). Barsalou (1983) proposed that members of taxonomic categories are context independent and thus highly resilient to increased abstraction because they are accessible irrespective of the context in which they are evaluated.…”

“…By contrast, when a product is positioned in terms of abstract, higher‐level conceptualizations, it can lack contextual detail and as a result have less direct implications for action (Kardes, Cronley, & Kim, 2006). Along this line of reasoning, Yoo and MacInnis (2004) cautioned that not all products within a consideration set have comparable attributes, and thus some products can only be compared in an abstract, higher‐level manner. Thus, when a positioning strategy is characterized by a conceptual representation such that the tangible features of the product are not emphasized, it becomes important to contextualize the relationship.…”

“…In practice, marketers typically adjust and promote the concrete attributes of their product as a means of eliciting interest. Consumers then respond by incorporating the resulting novelty into their consideration sets (Yoo & MacInnis, 2004). If successful in differentiating and market share increases, competitors then respond by adjusting their product accordingly.…”

“…Consider the similarities between a bottle of soda and a bottle of juice. The common characteristics that the two products share are attributional and processed perceptually based on concrete features (Yoo & MacInnis, 2004). Marketers develop and manipulate such features in brand positioning as a means of differentiating from their competitors within a product category.…”