Understanding how Product Attributes Influence Product Categorization: Development and Validation of Fuzzy Set-Based Measures of Gradedness in Product Categories
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 1999
Understanding how Product Attributes Influence Product Categorization: Development and Validation of Fuzzy Set-Based Measures of Gradedness in Product Categories
Products vary in the degree to which they are members of product categories. Understanding how product attributes influence product categorization is important for marketing decisions about product development, brand extension, and product positioning. Existing attribute-level measures of product attitude emphasize evaluation rather than categorization. Measures of category membership either are at the overall product level or emphasize feature-based attributes, whereas product attributes are often continuous in nature. A comprehensive approach for conceptualizing product categorization is provided by fuzzy set theory, with its basic postulate that no clear boundaries exist between members and nonmembers of a fuzzy set. The authors conceptualize product categories as fuzzy sets in which products have degrees of membership along specific attributes, argued to arise as a result of the degree to which a product possesses an attribute. Two fuzzy set-based measures of category membership are developed that assess gradedness of category membership at the attribute level, which is then combined across attributes to reach overall measures of gradedness for a product. The results of a study demonstrate the validity of these measures and illustrate important attribute-level analyses that are not possible with existing approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AakerDavid, and KellerKevin (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 27–41.
2.
BarsalouLawrence (1983), “Ad-Hoc Categories,”Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 211–27.
3.
BarsalouLawrence (1985), “Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 629–54.
4.
BezdekJames C. (1994), ‘The Thirsty Traveler Visits Gamont: A Rejoinder to ‘Comments on Fuzzy Sets—What Are They and Why?'”IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2(1), 43.
5.
BoushDavid, and LokenBarbara (1991), “A Process Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28(February), 16–28.
6.
BrahamJames (1997), “Sport-Utes on the Upgrade,”Machine Design, 69(22), 58–62.
7.
BroniarczykSusan M., and AlbaJoseph W. (1994), “The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), 214–28.
BussDavid M., and CraikKenneth H. (1983), “The Act Frequency Approach to Personality,”Psychological Review, 90(2), 105–26.
10.
CantorNancy, and MischelWalter (1979), “Prototypes in Person Perception,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 12, BerkowitzL., ed. New York: Academic Press,301–15.
11.
ChaplinWilliam F., JohnOliver P., and GoldbergLewis R. (1988), “Conceptions of State and Traits: Dimensional Attributes with Ideals as Prototypes,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 541–57.
12.
FishbeinMartin, and AjzenIcek (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
13.
HairJoseph F., AndersonRolph E., TathamRonald L., and BlackWilliam C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
HamptonJohn, and GardnerMargaret (1983), “Measures of Internal Category Structure: A Correlational Analysis of Normative Data,”British Journal of Psychology, 74(November), 491–516.
15.
HershHarry M., and CaramazzaAlfonso (1976), “A Fuzzy Set Approach to Modifiers and Vagueness in Natural Language,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105(3), 254–76.
16.
HruschkaH. (1986), “Market Definition and Segmentation Using Fuzzy Clustering Methods,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 3(2), 117–34.
17.
HuttenlocherJanellen, and HedgesLarry V. (1994), “Combining Graded Categories: Membership and Typicality,”Psychological Review, 101(1), 157–65.
18.
JensenJeff, and CuneoAlice Z. (1996), “Keds, Puma Pick Up Pace in Shoe Marketing Efforts,”Advertising Age, 67(November 11), 4.
19.
KaufmannArnold (1976), Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.
20.
KellerKevin Lane, and AakerDavid A. (1992), “The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 29(February), 35–50.
21.
LavioletteMichael (1995), “Fuzzy Logic: Great Hope or Grating Hype?”Chance, 8(4), 15–19.
22.
LehmannD.R. (1971), “Television Show Preference: Application of a Choice Model,”Journal of Marketing Research, 8(February), 47–55.
23.
LiHong Xing, and YenVincent C. (1995), Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Decision-Making.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
24.
LokenBarbara, and JohnDeborah Roedder (1993), “Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact?”Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 71–84.
25.
LokenBarbara, and WardJames (1987), “Measures of Attribute Structure Underlying Product Typicality,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, WallendorfMelanie, and AndersonPaul, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,22–26.
26.
LokenBarbara, and WardJames (1990), “Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality,”Journal of Consumer Research, 17(September), 111–26.
27.
LutzRichard J., and BettmanJames R. (1977), “Multiattribute Models in Marketing: A Bicentennial Review,” in Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, WoodsideArch G., ShethJagdish N., and BennettPeter D., eds. New York: North Holland.
28.
MassaroDominic W. (1994), “A Pattern Recognition Account of Decision Making,”Memory and Cognition, 22(5), 616–27.
29.
McCloskyMichael, and GlucksbergSam (1978), “Natural Categories: Well Defined or Fuzzy Sets?”Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 462–72.
30.
McCloskyMichael, and GlucksbergSam (1979), “Decision Processes in Verifying Category Membership Statements: Implications for Models of Semantic Memory,”Cognitive Psychology, 11(1), 1–37.
31.
MedinDouglas, and SmithEdward E. (1984), “Concepts and Concept Formation,”Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 113–38.
32.
MelaC.F., and LehmannD.R. (1995), “Using Fuzzy Set Theoretic Techniques to Identify Preference Rules from Interactions in the Linear Model: An Empirical Study,”Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 71(2), 165.
33.
Meyers-LevyJoan, and TyboutAlice M. (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16(June), 39–54.
34.
NedungadiPrakash (1990), “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 17(December), 263–76.
35.
NedungadiPrakash, and Wesley HutchinsonJ. (1985), “The Prototypicality of Brands: Relationships with Brand Awareness, Preference, and Usage,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, HirschmanElizabeth C., and HolbrookMorris B., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,498–503.
36.
NeterJohn, KutnerMichael H., NachsteimChristopher J., and WassermanWilliam (1996), Applied Linear Statistical Models, 4th ed.Burr Ridge, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
37.
OzanneJulie L., BrucksMerrie, and GrewalDhruv (1992), “A Study of Information Search Behavior During the Categorization of New Products,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 452–63.
38.
ParkC. Whan, MilbergSandra, and LawsonRobert (1991), “Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Level Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(September), 185–93.
39.
RobertsJohn H., and LilienGary L. (1993), “Explanatory and Predictive Models of Consumer Behavior,” in Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, Vol. 5 (Marketing), EliashbergJ., and LilienG.L., eds. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,27–82.
40.
RoschEleanor, and MervisCarolyn (1975), “Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories,”Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605.
41.
RussellJames A., and FehrBeverly (1994), “Fuzzy Concepts in a Fuzzy Hierarchy: Varieties of Anger,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 186–205.
42.
SmithBrett C. (1997), “SUVs: Hot and Getting Hotter,”Automotive Manufacture and Production, 109(1), 20–22.
43.
SmithDaniel C., and Whan ParkC. (1992), ‘The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency,”Journal of Marketing Research, 29(August), 296–313.
44.
SmithsonMichael (1982a), “Applications of Fuzzy Set Concepts to Behavioral Sciences,”Mathematical Social Sciences, 2(3), 257–74.
45.
SmithsonMichael (1982b), “Models for Fuzzy Nominal Data,”Theory and Decision, 14(1), 51–74.
46.
SmithsonMichael (1987), Fuzzy Set Analysis for Behavioral and Social Sciences.New York: Springer-Verlag.
47.
StaymanDouglas M., AldenDana L., and SmithKaren H. (1992), “Some Effects of Schematic Processing on Consumer Expectations and Disconfirmation Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 240–55.
48.
SujanMita (1985), “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Research, 12(June), 31–46.
49.
TeahenJohn K.Jr. (1997), “Ford Doubles Customer Rebates on Five Models,”Automotive News, (July 14), 6.
50.
TverskyAmos (1977), “Features of Similarity,”Psychological Review, 84(July), 327–52.
51.
VarkiSajeev, CooilBruce, and RustRoland T. (1997), “Modeling Fuzzy Data in Qualitative Marketing Research,” working paper, Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University.
52.
ViswanathanMadhubalan, BergenMark, DuttaShantanu, and ChildersTerry (1996), “Does a Single Response Category in a Scale Completely Capture a Response?”Psychology and Marketing, 13(5), 457–79.
53.
WedelMichel, and SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M. (1989), “A Fuzzy Clusterwise Regression Approach to Benefit Segmentation,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6(4), 241–58.
54.
WedelMichel, and SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M. (1991), “A Clusterwise Regression Method for Simultaneous Fuzzy Market Structuring and Benefit Segmentation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28(November), 385–96.
55.
WilkieWilliam L., and PessemierEdgar A. (1973), “Issues in Marketing's Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 10(November), 428–41.
56.
ZadehLofti (1965), “Fuzzy Sets,”Information and Control, 8(3), 338–53.
