바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.3
Citation Share

Paradox of Product Planning: Consumers’ Use of Alignable and Nonalignable Attributes in Decision Making

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2016, v.28 no.3, pp.431-443
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.3.003


& (2016). Paradox of Product Planning: Consumers’ Use of Alignable and Nonalignable Attributes in Decision Making. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 28(3), 431-443, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.3.003
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

When planning a new product, product planner tries to differentiate the product from old ones by adding new features or innovative properties. Ironically, when consumers are making decisions about purchasing the product, they do not always consider newly added nonalignable property, which can be referred to as paradox of product planning. To explain this phenomenon, this study conducted two studies based on structure alignment model from cognitive psychology. To conduct the study, we organized two imaginary smart televisions with 12 properties, which consist of commonalities, alignable properties, and nonalignable properties. In the study, participants were asked to make an imaginary purchasing decision between two made-up smart televisions. In the first study, survey questions were given to the participants to rate the importance of 20 television related properties, so that we could manipulate and organize two different televisions, one with better alignable property score and the other with better nonalignable property score. The overall scores of both televisions were not significantly different. In the second study, participants showed a tendency of having more preference towards the product with better alignable properties.

keywords
product planning, alignable property, nonalginable property, decision making, 상품기획, 정렬가능 특성, 비정렬 특성, 의사결정

Reference

1.

3D Touch. The Next Generation of Multi Touch. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/iphone-6s/3d-touch/

2.

Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454.

3.

Barnett, B. D., & Clark, K. B. (1996). Technological newness: an empirical study in the process industries. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13(3), 263-282.

4.

Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

5.

Clarke, K., & Belk, R. W. (1979). The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 313-318.

6.

Clement, C. A., & Gentner, D. (1991). Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 15(1), 89-132.

7.

Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). New products: what separates winners from losers?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(3), 169-184.

8.

Davidson, J. H. (1976). Why most new consumer brands fail. Harvard Business Review, 54(2), 117-122.

9.

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Journal of Accounting Research, 19(1), 1-31.

10.

FeldmanHall, O., Raio, C. M., Kubota, J. T., Seiler, M. G., & Phelps, E. A. (2015). The effects of social context and acute stress on decision making under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1918-1926.

11.

Fletcher, D. (2010, May 27). The 50 Worst Inventions. Time,. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1991915_1991909_1991900,00.html

12.

Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849-867.

13.

Gentner, D. (1983). The mechanisms of analogical transfer in similarity and analogical reasoning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Ed.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (pp. 99-124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45.

15.

Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer:Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 524-575.

16.

Gregan-Paxton, J., & John, D. R. (1997). Consumer learning by analogy: A model of internal knowledge transfer. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 266-284.

17.

Herrmann, A., Heitmann, M., Morgan, R., Henneberg, S. C., & Landwehr, J. (2009). Consumer decision making and variety of offerings: The effect of attribute alignability. Psychology & Marketing, 26(4), 333-358.

18.

Holak, S. L. (1988). Determinants of innovative durables adoption an empirical study with implications for early product screening. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5(1), 50-69.

19.

Holyoak, K., & Thagard, P. (1983). A computational model of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Ed.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (pp. 242-266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1989). The influence of unique features and direction of comparison of preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(2), 121-141.

21.

Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process:Predecision conflict and postdecision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(5), 411-430.

22.

Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis:An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247-257.

23.

Johnson, W., & Kieras, D. (1983). Representationsaving effects of prior knowledge in memory for simple technical prose. Memory & Cognition, 11(5), 456-466.

24.

Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Choice processing in emotionally difficult decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(2), 384-405.

25.

Markman, A. B., & Medin, D. L. (1995). Similarity and alignment in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 117-130.

26.

McKeithen, K. B., Reitman, J. S., Rueter, H. H., & Hirtle, S. C. (1981). Knowledge organization and skill differences in computer programmers. Cognitive Psychology, 13(3), 307-325.

27.

Michon, R., Chebat, J. C., & Turley, L. W. (2005). Mall atmospherics: the interaction effects of the mall environment on shopping behavior. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 576-583.

28.

Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Calantone, R. (1994). Determinants of new product performance: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(5), 397-417.

29.

Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 14-29.

30.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2009). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

31.

Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition, 1, 1-55.

32.

Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 510-520.

33.

Ordonez, L., & Benson, L. (1997). Decisions under time pressure: How time constraint affects risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(2), 121-140.

34.

Ostlund, L. E. (1973). Factor analysis applied to predictors of innovative behavior. Decision Sciences, 4(1), 92-108.

35.

Page, A. L. (1993). Assessing new product development practices and performance:establishing crucial norms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(4), 273-290.

36.

Porcelli, A. J., & Delgado, M. R. (2009). Acute stress modulates risk taking in financial decision making. Psychological Science, 20(3), 278-283.

37.

Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(3), 60-78.

38.

Ram, S., & Sheth, J. N. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 5-14.

39.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.

40.

Sheth, J. N. (1981). Psychology of innovation resistance: The less developed concept in diffusion research. Research in Marketing, 4, 273-282.

41.

Slovic, P., & MacPhillamy, D. (1974). Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11(2), 172-194.

42.

Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352.

43.

Zhang, S., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (1999). Choiceprocess satisfaction: The influence of attribute alignability and option limitation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(3), 192-214.

44.

Zhang, S., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 13-27.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy