Le concept de similarité est central dans la recherche en marketing. Ses domaines d’applications sont très variés. Pourtant, ce concept plus complexe qu’il ne paraît, reste encore méconnu. Il doit être distingué d’autres concepts très proches comme la similitude, la différence, le fit et la congruence. Cet article montre que le type de similarité utilisé (littérale ou relationnelle) a des conséquences différentes sur les processus cognitifs des consommateurs. Ceci peut modifier radicalement les résultats d’une expérimentation. Il en va de même du type de mesure utilisée.
AakerDKellerK (1990) Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing54(1): 27–41.
2.
AhluwaliaR (2008) How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal. Journal of Marketing Research337(45): 337–350.
3.
AlbaJHutchinsonW (1987) Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research13(4): 411–454.
4.
AurierP (1993) Analyse de la structure des marchés. Le point sur les modèles. Recherche et Applications en Marketing8(2): 79–104.
5.
BarsalouL (1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition11(3): 211–227.
6.
BarsalouL (1985) Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition11(4): 629–654.
7.
BassokMMedinD (1997) Birds of a feather flock together: similarity judgments with semantically rich stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language36(3): 311–336.
8.
BatraRLenkPWedelM (2010) Brand extension strategy planning: empirical estimation of brand–category personality fit and atypicality. Journal of Marketing Research47(2): 335–347.
9.
BèzesC (2010) Tout ce qui est congruent, est-il similaire ? Propositions de définition du concept de congruence en marketing. In: 26ème Congrès International de l’AFM, Le Mans, France, mai2010.
10.
BèzesC (2013) Effect of channel congruence on a retailer’s image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management41(4): 254–273.
11.
BèzesCDuboisP-L (2013) A conceptual and empirical distinction between the concepts of congruence and fit: the example of retailer extensions. In: La Londe Consumer Behavior Conference, La Londe les Maures, France, juin2013.
12.
Bourcier-BequaertBarnierV (2014) Les effets de l’âge du mannequin sur les consommateurs seniors et sur la marque présente dans la publicité: le rôle de la similarité. Décisions Marketing76: 77–92.
13.
BoushD (1997) Brand name effects on interproduct similarity judgments. Marketing Letters8(4): 419–427.
14.
BoushDShippSLokenBGencturkECrockettSKennedyEMinshallBMisurellDRochfordLStrobelJ (1987) Affect generalization to similar and dissimilar brand extensions. Psychology & Marketing4(3): 225–237.
15.
BridgesS (1989) A schema unification model of brand extensions. Advances in Consumer Research19(1): 257–258.
16.
BridgesSKellerKSoodS (2000) Communication strategies for brand extensions: enhancing perceived fit by establishing explanatory links. Journal of Advertising39(4): 1–11.
17.
BroniarczykSAlbaJ (1994) The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research31(2): 214–228.
18.
BrudvigSRamanP (2006) The impact of fit and goal congruency on consumers’ attitude to brand extensions. Marketing Management Journal16(2): 171–178.
19.
BrunerJPostmanL (1949) On the perception of incongruity: a paradigm. Journal of Personality18(2): 206–223.
20.
ByrneDGriffittW (1973) Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of Psychology24(1): 317–336.
21.
ByrneDGriffittWStefaniakD (1967) Attraction and similarity of personality characteristics. Journal of Personality and social Psychology5(1): 82–90.
22.
CechC (1989) Congruity and the expectancy hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition15(6): 1129–1133.
23.
CegarraJ-JMerunkaD (1993) Les extensions de marque: concepts et modèles. Recherche et Applications en Marketing8(1): 53–76.
24.
ChandonJ-LStrazziériA (1986) Une analyse de structure de marché sur la base de la mesure de l’ensemble évoqué. Recherche et Applications en Marketing1(1): 17–39.
25.
ChangC (2008) To donate or not to donate? Product characteristics and framing effects of cause-related marketing on consumer purchase behavior. Psychology & Marketing25(12): 1089–1110.
26.
CohenJBasuK (1987) Alternative models of categorization: toward a contingent processing framework. Journal of Consumer Research13(4): 455–472.
27.
CollangeV (2005) L’impact du changement de nom de marque sur l’attitude vis-à-vis du produit. Thèse de doctorat en sciences de gestion: Université Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille3.
28.
CorfmanK (1991) Comparability and comparison levels used in choices among consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research28(3): 368–374.
29.
CreusenMSchoormansJ (1997) The nature of differences between similarity and preference judgements: a replication with extension. International Journal of Research in Marketing14(1): 81–87.
30.
CunhaMLaranJ (2008) Asymmetries in the sequential learning of brand associations: implications for the early entrant advantage. Journal of Consumer Research35(5): 788–799.
31.
CzellarS (2003) Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: an integrative model and research propositions. International Journal of Research in Marketing20: 97–115.
32.
DacinPSmithD (1994) The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research31(2): 229–242.
33.
DamakL (1997) Corps du consommateur et design du produit: recherche d’une similarité ou d’une complémentarité? In: Cahier de Recherche257, Centre de Recherche DMSP, Paris Dauphine.
34.
David-IgnatieffA (2012) Détermination de l’âge idéal de l’avatar en fonction de l’âge de l’internaute cible du site Internet. Thèse de Doctorat, HEC Montréal, Canada.
35.
DerbaixCSjöbergL (1994) Movie stars in space: a comparison of preference and similarity judgments. International Journal of Research in Marketing11(3): 261–274.
36.
DimitriadisS (1993) L’extension des marques et des enseignes: cadre conceptuel et problématique managériale. Recherche et Applications en Marketing8(3): 21–44.
37.
DouglasSCraigS (1996) Executive insights: global portfolio planning and market interconnectedness. Journal of International Marketing4(1): 93–110.
38.
DrögeCDarmonR (1987) Associative positioning strategies through comparative advertising: attribute versus overall similarity approaches. Journal of Marketing Research24(4): 377–388.
39.
DubéLSchmittB (1999) The effect of a similarity versus dissimilarity focus in positioning strategy: the moderating role of consumer familiarity and product category. Psychology & Marketing16(3): 211–224.
40.
EstesZGibbertMGuestDMazurskyD (2012) A dual-process model of brand extension: taxonomic feature-based and thematic relation-based similarity independently drive brand extension evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology22(1): 86–101.
41.
FiskeSNeubergSBeattieAMilbergS (1987) Category-based and attribute-based reactions to others: some informational conditions of stereotyping and individuating process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology23(5): 399–427.
42.
FryJClaxtonJ (1971) Semantic differential and nonmetric multidimensional scaling descriptions of brand images. Journal of Marketing Research8(2): 238–240.
43.
GalanJ-P (2009) Musique et réponses à la publicité: effets des caractéristiques, de l’appréciation et de la congruence musicales. Recherche et Applications en Marketing24(4): 3–21.
44.
GefenDStraubD (1997) Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the Technology Acceptance Model. MIS Quarterly21(4): 389–400.
45.
GentnerD (1988) Metaphor as structure mapping: the relational shift. Child Development59: 47–59.
46.
GentnerDGunnV (2001) Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory & Cognition29(4): 565–577.
47.
GentnerDMarkmanA (1994) Structural alignment in comparison: no difference without similarity. Psychological Science5(3): 152–158.
48.
GentnerDMarkmanA (1997) Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist52(1): 45–56.
49.
GillTDubéL (2007) What is a leather iron or a bird phone? Using conceptual combinations to generate and understand new product concepts. Journal of Consumer Psychology17(3): 202–217.
50.
GoldstoneRMedinDGentnerD (1991) Relational similarity and the non-independence of features in similarity judgments. Cognitive Psychology23(2): 222–262.
51.
GoodmanN (1972) Seven strictures on similarity. Problems and Projects. New-York, Bobs-Merill.
52.
GreenPRaoVDesarboW (1978) Incorporating group-level similarity judgments in conjoint analysis. Journal of Consumer Research5(3): 187–193.
53.
Gregan-PaxtonJJohnR (1997) Consumer learning by analogy: a model of internal knowledge transfer. Journal of Consumer Research24 (3): 266–284.
54.
GreinA (2000) The impact of market similarity on international marketing strategies: the automobile industry in western Europe. International Business Review42(2): 167–186.
55.
GuiotD (2001) Antecedents of subjective age biases among senior women. Psychology & Marketing18(10): 1049–1071.
56.
HassaneinKHeadM (2006) The impact of infusing social presence in the web interface: an investigation across product types. International Journal of Electronic Commerce10(2): 31–55.
57.
HecklerSChildersT (1992) The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: what is incongruency?Journal of Consumer Research18: 475–492.
58.
HemLIversenN (2002) Decomposed similarity measures in brand extensions. Advances in Consumer Research29: 199–206.
59.
HemLIversenN (2009) Effects of different types of perceived similarity and subjective knowledge in evaluations of brand extensions. International Journal of Market Research51(6): 797–818.
60.
HerrPFarquharPFazioR (1996) Impact of dominance and relatedness on brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology5(2): 135–159.
61.
HirschmannE (1980) Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research7(3): 283–295.
62.
HofstedeFWedelMSteenkampJ-B (2002) Identifying spatial segments in international markets. Marketing Science21(2): 160–77.
63.
HollingworthH (1913) Judgments of similarity and difference. Psychological Review20(4): 271–289.
64.
HutchinsonJAlbaJ (1991) Ignoring irrelevant information: situational determinants of consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research18(3): 325–345.
65.
JainAPinsonC (1976) The effect of order of presentation of similarity judgments on multidimensional scaling results: an empirical examination. Journal of Marketing Research13(4): 435–439.
66.
JiangLHoeggJDahlDChattopadhyayA (2010) The persuasive role of incidental similarity on attitudes and purchase intentions in a sales context. Journal of Consumer Research36(5): 778–791.
67.
JohnsonM (1981) Context effects in product perception. Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1): 112–115.
68.
JohnsonM (1984) Consumer choice strategies for comparing non comparable alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research11(3): 741–753.
69.
JohnsonMHorneD (1987) Subject/referent positioning in comparative advertising: a pilot study. Advances in Consumer Research14(1): 164–167.
70.
JohnsonMHorneD (1988) The contrast model of similarity and comparative advertising. Psychology & Marketing5(3): 211–232.
71.
JohnsonMHudsonE (1996) On the perceived usefulness of scaling techniques in market analysis. Psychology & Marketing13(7): 653–675.
72.
KaminsMGuptaK (1984) Congruence between spokesperson and product type: a matchup hypothesis perspective. Psychology & Marketing11(6): 569–586.
73.
KellarisJCoxACoxD (1993) The effect of background music on ad processing: a contingency explanation. Journal of Marketing57: 114–125.
74.
KellerKAakerD (1992) The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research29(1): 35–50.
75.
KhanMPaivioA (1988) Memory for schematic and categorical information: a replication and extension of Rabinowitz and Mandler. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition14(3): 558–561.
76.
KimJParkheA (2009) Competing and cooperating similarity in global strategic alliances: an exploratory examination. British Journal of Management20(3): 363–376.
77.
KirmaniAShivB (1998) Effects of source congruity on brand attitudes and beliefs: the moderating role of issue-relevant elaboration. Journal of Consumer Psychology7(1): 25–47.
78.
KlinkRSmithD (2001) Threats to the external validity of brand extension research. Journal of Marketing Research38(3): 326–335.
79.
KruhmansC (1978) Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: the interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review85(5): 445–163.
80.
KwonHHaS (2013) The effects of perceived similarity with others on shopping mall satisfaction. Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings25: 249–250.
81.
LawS (2002) Can repeating a brand claim lead to memory confusion? The effects of claim similarity and concurrent repetition. Journal of Marketing Research39(3): 366–378.
82.
LazarsfeldPFMertonR (1954) Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: MorroeBAbelTPageC (eds) Freedom and control in modern society. New York: VanNostrand, 18–66.
83.
LehmannD (1972) Judged similarity and brand-switching data as similarity measures. 9(3): 331–334.
84.
LeibnizG (1995) La caractéristique géométrique. traduit par ParmentierM.Paris: Vrin.
85.
LemoineJ-FChérifE (2012) Comment générer de la confiance envers un agent virtuel à l’aide de ses caractéristiques? Une étude exploratoire. Management & Avenir58: 169–188.
86.
LokenB (2006) Consumer psychology: categorization, inferences, affect, and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology57: 453–485.
87.
MailleV (2007), L’intensité du goût et de la couleur de produits alimentaires: l’influence de l’incongruence perçue sur l’acceptabilité. Actes du 23ème Congrès International de l’AFM, Aix-les-Bains, France, mai2007, 1–25.
88.
MailleVFleckN (2011) Congruence perçue par le consommateur: vers une clarification du concept, de sa formation et de sa mesure. Recherche et Applications en Marketing26(2): 77–111.
89.
MandlerG (1982) The structure of value: accounting for taste. In: ClarkMSFiskeST (eds), Affect and Cognition: Annual Carnegie Symposium, 17, Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3–36.
90.
MaoHMariadossBEchambadiRChennamaneniP (2012) Brand extensions via complements or substitutes: the moderating role of manufacturing transferability. Marketing Letters23(1): 279–292.
91.
MarkmanAWisniewskiE (1997) Similar and different: the differentiation of basic-level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition23(1): 54–70.
92.
MartinIStewartD (2001) The differential impact of goal congruency on attitudes, intentions, and the transfer of brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research38(4): 471–484.
93.
McCroskeyJCRichmondVP (1990) Willingness to communicate: differing cultural perspectives. Southern Journal of Communication, 56(1): 72–77.
94.
McKirnanDSmithCHamayanE (1983) A sociolinguistic approach to the belief-similarity model of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology19(5): 434–447.
95.
MedinDSmithE (1984) Concepts and concept formation. Annual Review of Psychology, 35: 113–138.
96.
MedinDGoldstoneRGentnerD (1990) Similarity involving attributes and relations: judgments of similarity and difference are not inverses. Psychological Science1(1): 64–69.
97.
MedinDGoldstoneRGentnerD (1993) Respects for similarity. Psychological Review100(2): 254–278.
Mercanti-GuérinM (2010) L’écosystème des sites de vente en ligne: une analyse par le Web Analytics. In: 12ème Colloque Etienne Thil, La Rochelle, France, octobre2010.
100.
Meyers-LevyJLouieTCurrenM (1994) How does the congruity of brand names affect evaluations of brand name extensions?Journal of Applied Psychology79(1): 46–53.
101.
Meyers-LevyJTyboutA (1989) Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research16(1): 39–54.
102.
MongaABJohnDR (2010) What makes brands elastic? The influence of brand concept and styles of thinking on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing74(3): 80–92.
103.
MongaAGürhan-CanliZ (2012) The influence of mating mind-sets on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research49(4): 581–593.
104.
MonneretP, (2014) Motivation et analogie. Enjeux de la similarité en sciences du langage. Philologia, (56): 27–38.
105.
MoonY (2000) Intimate exchanges: using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. Journal of Consumer Research26(4): 323–339.
106.
MoriM (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy7: 33–35.
107.
MurphyGMedinD (1985) The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review92(3): 289–316.
108.
NassCMoonYFoggBReevesBDryerC (1995) Can computer personalities be human personalities?International Journal of Human-Computers Studies43(2): 223–239.
109.
NeidellL (1972) Procedures for obtaining similarities data. Journal of Marketing Research9(3): 335–337.
110.
NowakK (2004) The influence of anthropomorphism and agency on social judgment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication9(2).
OzanneJBrucksMGrewalD (1992) A study of information search behavior during the categorization of new products. Journal of Consumer Research18(4): 452–463.
113.
ParkCLawsonRMilbergS (1989) Memory structure of brand names. Advances in Consumer Research16: 726–731.
114.
ParkCMilbergSLawsonR (1991) Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research18(2): 185–193.
115.
PavelchakM (1989) Piecemeal and category-based evaluation: an idiographic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology56(3): 354–363.
116.
PhamM (1996) Heuristiques et biais décisionnels en marketing. Recherche et Applications en Marketing11(4): 53–69.
117.
PoncinIPietersRAmbayeM (2006) Cross-advertisement affectivity: the influence of similarity between commercials and processing modes of consumers on advertising processing. Journal of Business Research59(6): 745–754.
118.
RangaswamyABurkeROlivaT (1993) Brand equity and the extendibility of brand names. International Journal of Research in Marketing10(1): 61–75.
119.
RatneshwarSShockerA (1991) Substitution in use and the role of usage context in product category structures. Journal of Marketing Research28(3): 381–395.
120.
RatneshwarSBarsalouLPechmannCMooreM (2001) Goal-derived categories: the role of personal and situational goals in category representations. Journal of Consumer Psychology10(3): 147–157.
121.
ReedH (1927) The essential laws of learning or association. Psychological Review34(2): 107–115.
122.
RipsLCollinsA (1993) Categories and resemblance. Journal of Experimental Psychology General122(4): 468–486.
123.
RipsLShobenESmithE (1973) Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior12(1): 1–20.
124.
RoschEMervisCGrayWJohnsonDBoyes-BraemP (1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology8: 382–439.
125.
SaaksjarviMPulkkinenE (2009) The category label and overall similarity in hybrid products: matches/mismatches and categorization asymmetry in consumer preferences. Advances in Consumer Research36: 795–796.
126.
SarSDuffBAnghelcevG (2011) If you feel it now you will think it later: the interactive effects of mood over time on brand extension evaluations. Psychology & Marketing28(6): 561–583.
127.
SchmittBDubéL (1992) Contextualized representations of brand extensions: are feature lists or frames the basic components of consumer cognition?Marketing Letters3(2): 115–126.
128.
SchützwohlA (1998) Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition24(5): 1182–1199.
129.
SchweidelDBradlowEWilliamsP (2006) A feature-based approach to assessing advertisement similarity. Journal of Marketing Research43(2): 237–243.
130.
SeltèneM (2004) Processus d’évaluation de l’extension de marque par le consommateur: conception et validation d’un modèle de décomposition. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 19(1): 3–24.
131.
ShanonB (1988) On similarity of features. New Ideas in Psychology6(3): 307–321.
132.
ShepardR (1962) The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Psychometrika27(2): 125–140.
133.
SirgyJ (1982) Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research9: 287–300.
134.
SmithDCParkCW (1992) The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research29: 296–313.
135.
StaymanDAldenDSmithK (1992) Some effects of schematic processing on consumer expectations and disconfirmation judgments. Journal of Consumer Research19(2): 240–255.
136.
SujanM (1985) Consumer knowledge: effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research12(1): 31–46.
137.
SujanMBettmanJSujanH (1986) Effects of consumer expectations on information processing in selling encounters. Journal of Marketing Research23(4): 346–353.
138.
SummersJMacKayD (1976) On the validity and reliability of direct similarity judgments. Journal of Marketing Research13(3): 289–295.
139.
SwartzT (1984) Relationship between source expertise and source similarity in an advertising context. Journal of Advertising13(2): 49–55.
140.
TauberE (1988) Brand leverage strategy for growth in a cost-control world. Journal of Advertising Research28(4): 26–30.
141.
TaylorVBeardenW (2002) The effects of price on brand extension evaluations: the moderating role of extension similarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science30(2): 131–140.
142.
ThibautJ-P (1997) Similarité et catégorisation. L’année psychologique97(4): 701–736.
143.
ThompsonDMalaviyaP (2013) Consumer-generated ads: does awareness of advertising co-creation help or hurt persuasion?Journal of Marketing77(3): 33–47.
144.
ThompsonMZannaM (1995) The conflicted individual: personality-based and domain-specific antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes. Journal of Personality63(2): 259–288.
145.
TverskyA (1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review84(4): 327–352.
146.
TverskyAGatiI (1982) Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality. Psychological Review89(2): 123–154.
147.
Van AukenSBarryTBagozziR (2006) A cross-country construct validation of cognitive age. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Scienc, 34(3): 439–455.
148.
VölcknerFSattlerH (2006) Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing70(2):18–34.
149.
WatchravesringkanKYanR-NYurchisinJ (2008) Cross-cultural invariance of consumers’ price perception measures: Eastern Asian perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management36(10): 759–779.
150.
WilkesRWilcoxJ (1977) On the validity and reliability of direct similarity judgements: a comment. Journal of Marketing Research14(2): 261–262.
151.
WilkieWFarrisP (1975) Comparison advertising: problems and potential. Journal of Marketing39(4): 7–15.
152.
ZajoncR (1980) Feelings and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist35(2): 151–175.
153.
ZhangXLiSBurkeRLeykinA (2014) An examination of social influence on shopper behavior using video tracking data. Journal of Marketing78(5): 24–41.
