연구동향 분석
박사

소비자는 왜 “多多益善” 융합제품을 추구하는가? : 융합제품 평가에서 기능의 개수에 기반한 범주화 편향 효과와 미래 사용수준의 매개효과를 중심으로

이진휘 2015년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' 소비자는 왜 “多多益善” 융합제품을 추구하는가? : 융합제품 평가에서 기능의 개수에 기반한 범주화 편향 효과와 미래 사용수준의 매개효과를 중심으로' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • 기능의 개수 기반 범주화 편향효과
  • 다 범주
  • 미래 사용수준
  • 사용빈도
  • 사용상황
  • 스마트폰
  • 융합제품
  • 지지이론
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
1,052 0

0.0%

' 소비자는 왜 “多多益善” 융합제품을 추구하는가? : 융합제품 평가에서 기능의 개수에 기반한 범주화 편향 효과와 미래 사용수준의 매개효과를 중심으로' 의 참고문헌

  • 연구논문: 사용만족과 소비자 혁신성이 스마트폰 적극적 사용행동에 미치는 영향
    윤남희 추호정 마케팅관리연구, 16(4), 153-176 [2011]
  • 스마트폰이 열어가는 미래
    권기덕 박성배 오동현 임태윤 최우석 CEO information, (741), 1-22 [2010]
  • 소비자 목표와 제품 범주 친숙도가 융합제품 평가에 미치는 영향
    김문용 박세훈 마케팅연구, 25(4), 187-208 [2010]
  • 디지털 컨버전스 의미의 고찰과 e-Business의 미래 연구 방향
    조남재 e-비즈니스연구 10.4 : 105-127 [2009]
  • 공공분야 융합 서비스 개발 Framework에 대한 연구
    이석규 이진휘 한국IT서비스학회지 제12권 제2호, pp. 387~410 [2013]
  • 개념과 범주적 사고
    신현정 학지사 [2011]
  • Ziamou, P., & Ratneshwar, S. (2003). Innovations in product functionality: when and why are explicit comparisons effective?. Journal of Marketing, 67(2),
  • Ziamou, P. L., & Ratneshwar, S. (2002). Promoting consumer adoption of high-technology products: Is more information always better?. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), 341-351.
  • Ziamou, P. L. (2002). Commercializing new technologies: consumers' response to a new interface. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(5), 365-374.
  • Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Zauberman, G. (2007). Mental simulation and preference consistency over time: The role of process-versus outcome-focused thoughts. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 379-388.
  • Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Dahl, D. W. (2009). The role of imagination-focused visualization on new product evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 46-55.
  • Zhang, Y. C., & Schwarz, N. (2012). How and why 1 year differs from 365 days: A conversational logic analysis of inferences from the granularity of quantitative expressions. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 248-259.
  • Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 2-22.
  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer research, 341-352.
  • Young, S., & Feigin, B. (1975). Webster, F. E. (1994). Market-driven management: using the new marketing concept to create a customer-oriented company. for improved strategy formulation. The Journal of Marketing, 72-74.
  • Yoffie, D. B. (Ed.). (1997). Competing in the age of digital convergence. Harvard Business Press.
  • Yeung, C. W., & Soman, D. (2007). The duration heuristic. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 315-326.
  • Yager, Ronald R. "On the Dempster-Shafer framework and new combination rules." Information sciences 41.2 (1987): 93-137.
  • Woodruff, R. B., Clemons, D. S., Schumann, D. W., Gardial, S. F., & Burns, M. J. (1991). The standards issue in CS/D research: a historical perspective. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 4, 103-109.
  • Windschitl, P. D., Young, M. E., & Jenson, M. E. (2002). Likelihood judgment based on previously observed outcomes: The alternative-outcomes effect in a learning paradigm. Memory & cognition, 30(3), 469-477.
  • Windschitl, P. D., & Wells, G. L. (1998). The alternative-outcomes effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1411.
  • Windschitl, P. D., & Chambers, J. R. (2004). The dud-alternative effect in likelihood judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1), 198.
  • Webster, F. E. (1994). Market-driven management: using the new marketing concept to create a customer-oriented company.
  • Weber, R. H. (2010). Internet of Things–New security and privacy challenges.Computer Law & Security Review, 26(1), 23-30.
  • Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of marketing research, 40(3), 310-320.
  • Voss, C. A., & Hsuan, J. (2009). Service architecture and modularity*. Decision Sciences, 40(3), 541-569.
  • Venkatesh, R., & Mahajan, V. (1993). A probabilistic approach to pricing a bundle of products or services. Journal of Marketing Research, 494-508.
  • Varian, H. R. (2000). Buying, sharing and renting information goods. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 48(4), 473-488.
  • Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm.Research policy, 24(3), 419-440.
  • Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101(4), 547.
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1039-1061.
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
  • Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An extension. Journal of marketing research, 204-212.
  • Tsai, Claire I., and Min Zhao (2011), “Predicting Consumption Time: The Role of Event Valence and Unpacking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (3), 459–73.
  • Toylor, S. E., & Phom, L. B. (1996). Mental Simulation, Mativation, and Action. The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior, 219.
  • 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, 42(4), 431-442.
  • Thompson, D. V., & Norton, M. I. (2011). The social utility of feature creep. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 555-565.
  • Taylor,S.E.,Schneider,S.K.,(1989).Coping and thesimulation ofevents.SocialCognition,7(2),174-194.
  • Tanner, R. J.. & Kurt A. Carlson (2009). Unrealistically Optimistic Consumers: A Selective Hypothesis Testing Account for Optimism in Predictions of Future Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 000-000.
  • Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgement. British Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 101-114.
  • Sun, J., Keh, H. T., & Lee, A. Y. (2012). The effect of attribute alignability on service evaluation: the moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 831-847.
  • Stremersch, S., Weiss, A. M., Dellaert, B. G., & Frambach, R. T. (2003). Buying modular systems in technology-intensive markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 335-350.
  • Stremersch, S., & Tellis, G. J. (2002). Strategic bundling of products and prices: a new synthesis for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 55-72.
  • Srivastava, R. K., Alpert, M. I., & Shocker, A. D. (1984). A customer-oriented approach for determining market structures. The Journal of Marketing, 32-45.
  • Srinivasan, V., Lovejoy, W. S., & Beach, D. (1997). Integrated product design for marketability and manufacturing. Journal of Marketing Research, 154-163.
  • Spreng, R. A., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1993). A desires congruency model of consumer satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(3), 169-177.
  • Smith, E. R., & Queller, S. (2001). Mental representations. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes, 111-133.
  • Smith, E. E., Patalano, A. L., & Jonides, J. (1998). Alternative strategies of categorization. Cognition, 65(2), 167-196.
  • Simonson, I., Bettman, J. R., Kramer, T., & Payne, J. W. (2013). Comparison selection: An approach to the study of consumer judgment and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 137-149.
  • Simonson, I. (2014). Mission Accomplished: What’s Next for Consumer BDT-JDM Researchers?.
  • Simonson, I. (1990). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 150-162.
  • Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, , 158-174.
  • Simonsohn, U., & Gino, F. (2013). Daily Horizons Evidence of Narrow Bracketing in Judgment From 10 Years of MBA Admissions Interviews. Psychological science, 0956797612459762.
  • Shiv, B., & Huber, J. (2000). The impact of anticipating satisfaction on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 202-216.
  • Shin, D. H. (2013). N-SCREEN: How multi-screen will impact diffusion and policy?. Information, Communication & Society, 16(6), 918-944.
  • Sheth, J. N., & Venkatesan, M. (1968). Risk-reduction processes in repetitive consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 307-310.
  • Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (2013). Information rules: a strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard Business Press.
  • Shafir, E., Simonson, I., &Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1), 11-36.
  • Seo, Y., & Kim, J. A. (2009) Study on Product Servitization Framework to Generate Servitization Business Opportunities based on Customer Experience Context Concept.
  • Sela, A., & Berger, J. (2012). How attribute quantity influences option choice.Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 942-953.
  • Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its applicationto interfirm product modularity, Academy of Management Review, 25(2): 312-334.
  • Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., & Gibson, B. D. (1991). The role of attribute knowledge and overall evaluations in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48(1), 131-146.
  • Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive psychology, 8(3), 382-439.
  • Rosch, E. (1999). Principles of categorization. Concepts: core readings, 189-206.
  • Ridgway, N. M., & Price, L. L. (1994). Exploration in product usage: A model of use innovativeness. Psychology & Marketing, 11(1), 69-84.
  • Ratneshwar, S., Warlop, L., Mick, D. G., & Seeger, G. (1997). Benefit salience and consumers' selective attention to product features. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(3), 245-259.
  • Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D., Cotte, J., & Srivastava, R. K. (1999). Product, person, and purpose: putting the consumer back into theories of dynamic market behaviour. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7(3), 191-208.
  • Ratneshwar, S., Pechmann, C., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Goal-derived categories and the antecedents of across-category consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, 240-250.
  • Ram, S., & Jung, H. S. (1990). The conceptualization and measurement of product usage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 67-76.
  • Rajagopal, P., & Montgomery, N. V. (2011). I imagine, I experience, I like: The false experience effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(3), 578-594.
  • Rajagopal, P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (2009). Consumer evaluations of hybrid products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 232-241.
  • Phillips, D. M. (1996). Anticipating the future: The role of consumption visions in consumer behavior. Advances in consumer research, 23, 70-75.
  • Peracchio, L. A., & Tybout, A. M. (1996). The moderating role of prior knowledge in schema-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 177-192.
  • Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 366-387.
  • Olson, J. C., & Reynolds, T. J. (1983). Understanding consumers’ cognitive structures: implications for advertising strategy. Advertising and consumer psychology, 1, 77-90.
  • Oliver,R.L.(1980).A Cognitive Modelof the Antecedents andConsequences ofSatisfaction Decisions.Journalofmarketingresearch,460-469.
  • Okada, E. M.(2005), “Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonicand utilitarian goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1),43-53.
  • Nunes, Joseph C. (2000), “A Cognitive Model of People’s Usage Estimations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (November),
  • Nunes, J. C. (2000). A cognitive model of people’s usage estimations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 397-409.
  • Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (1996). The effect of new product features on brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 36-46.
  • Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of experimental psychology: General,115(1), 39.
  • Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptualcoherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289.
  • Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2001). The effect of novel attributes on product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 462-472.
  • Moreau, C. P., Markman, A. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). “What is it?” Categorization flexibility and consumers' responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 489-498.
  • Mogilner, C., Rudnick, T., & Iyengar, S. S. (2008). The mere categorization effect: How the presence of categories increases choosers’ perceptions of assortment variety and outcome satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research,35(2), 202-215.
  • Mittal, V., Ross Jr, W. T., & Baldasare, P. M. (1998). The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. The Journal of Marketing, 33-47.
  • Mittal, V., Katrichis, J. M., Forkin, F., & Konkel, M. (1994). Does satisfaction with multi-attribute products vary over time? A performance based approach.Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 412-412.
  • Mishra, A., & Mishra, H. (2010). Border Bias The Belief That State Borders Can Protect Against Disasters. Psychological science.
  • Minda, J. P., & Smith, J. D. (2001). Prototypes in category learning: the effects of category size, category structure, and stimulus complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(3), 775.
  • Miller, K. M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., & Zhang, Z. J. (2011). How should consumers' willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 172-184.
  • Mikkola, J. H. (2006). Capturing the degree of modularity embedded in product architectures*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(2), 128-146.
  • Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of consumer research, 39-54.
  • Meyer, G. G., Fr mling, K., & Holmstr m, J. (2009). Intelligent products: A survey. Computers in Industry, 60(3), 137-148.
  • McGarty, C. (1999). Categorization in social psychology. Sage.
  • McFadden, D. (1986). The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing science, 5(4), 275-297.
  • Masuda, Y. (1980). The information society as post-industrial society. World Future Society.
  • Martin, B. A. (2004). Using the imagination: consumer evoking and thematizing of the fantastic imaginary. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 136-149.
  • Mantel, S. P., & Kardes, F. R. (1999). The role of direction of comparison, attribute-based processing, and attitude-based processing in consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 335-352.
  • MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of consumer research, 473-491.
  • Lukas, B. A., Whitwell, G. J., & Heide, J. B. (2013). Why do customers get more than they need? how organizational culture shapes product capability decisions.Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 1-12.
  • Lovelock, C. H., Patterson, P. G., & Walker, R. H. (1991). Services marketing(Vol. 3). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Loken, B., Barsalou, L. W., & Joiner, C. (2008). Categorization theory and research in consumer psychology. Handbook of consumer psychology, 133-65.
  • Loken, B. (2006). Consumer psychology: categorization, inferences, affect, and persuasion. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 453-485.
  • Loewenstein, G., & Sicherman, N. (1991). Do workers prefer increasing wage profiles?. Journal of Labor Economics, 67-84.
  • Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 573-597.
  • Lind, J. (2004). Convergence: History of term usage and lessons for firm strategists. Center for Information and Communications Research, Stockholm School of Economics, Working Paper.
  • Lin, J. S. C., & Wu, C. Y. (2011). The role of expected future use in relationship-based service retention. Managing Service Quality, 21(5), 535-551.
  • Levitt, T. (1986). Marketing Imagination: New. Simon and Schuster.
  • Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing myopia. Harvard business review, 38(4), 24-47.
  • Lemon, Katherine N., Tiffany Barnett White, and Russell S. Winer (2002b), “Dynamic Customer Relationship Management: Incorporating Future Considerations into the Service Retention Decision,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (January), 1–4.97–09.
  • Lemon, K. N., White, T. B., & Winer, R. S. (2002a). Dynamic customer relationship management: incorporating future considerations into the service retention decision. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 1-14.
  • Lehmann, D. W. I. S., & Buxmann, P. (2009). Pricing strategies of software vendors. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(6), 452-462.
  • Lee, S., Lee, J. H., & Garrett, T. C. (2013). A Study of the Attitude toward Convergent Products: A Focus on the Consumer Perception of Functionalities.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 123-135.
  • Leclerc, F., Hsee, C. K., & Nunes, J. C. (2005). Narrow focusing: Why the relative position of a good in its category matters more than it should. Marketing Science, 24(2), 194-205.
  • Laurie, D. L., Doz, Y. L., & Sheer, C. P. (2006). Creating new growth platforms. harvard business review, 84(5), 80.
  • Lau, A. K., Yam, R., & Tang, E. (2011). The impact of product modularity on new product performance: Mediation by product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2), 270-284.
  • Landon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (1991). Business lnformation Systems.
  • Lajos, J., Katona, Z., Chattopadhyay, A., & Sarvary, M. (2009). Category activation model: A spreading activation network model of subcategory positioning when categorization uncertainty is high. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 122-136.
  • Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1994). Memory-based judgments about multiple categories: A revision and extension of Tajfel's accentuation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 35.
  • Krishnamurthy, P., & Sujan, M. (1999). Retrospection versus anticipation: The role of the ad under retrospective and anticipatory self-referencing. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 55-69.
  • Koukova, N. T., Kannan, P. K., & Ratchford, B. T. (2008). Product form bundling: Implications for marketing digital products. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 181-194.
  • Koukova, N. T., Kannan, P. K., & Kirmani, A. (2012). Multiformat digital products: how design attributes interact with usage situations to determine choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(1), 100-114.
  • Keller, P. A., & McGill, A. L. (1994). Differences in the relative influence of product attributes under alternative processing conditions: Attribute importance versus attribute ease of imagability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(1), 29-49.
  • Keller, K. L., Sternthal, B., & Tybout, A. (2002). Three questions you need to ask about your brand. Harvard business review, 80(9), 80-89.
  • Kardes, F. R., & Sanbonmatsu, D. M. (1993). Direction of comparison, expected feature correlation, and the set-size effect in preference judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(1), 39-54.
  • Kardes, F. R. (2013). Selective versus comparative processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 150-153.
  • Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, , 263-291.
  • Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological review, 93(2), 136.
  • Kahn, B. E., & Wansink, B. (2004). The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer Research,30(4), 519-533.
  • Jacoby, J., Jaccard, J. J., Currim, I., Kuss, A., Ansari, A., & Troutman, T. (1994). Tracing the impact of item-by-item information accessing on uncertainty reduction. Journal of Consumer Research, 291-303.
  • Jacoby, J., &Kaplan, L. B. (1972). The components of perceived risk. Advances in Consumer Research, 3(3), 382-383.
  • Isaac, M. S., & Schindler, R. M. (2014). The Top-Ten Effect: Consumers’ Subjective Categorization of Ranked Lists. Journal of Consumer Research,40(6), 1181-1202.
  • Isaac, M. S., & Brough, A. R. (2014). Judging a Part by the Size of Its Whole: The Category Size Bias in Probability Judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 310-325.
  • Hsee, C. K., Zhang, J., Wang, L., & Zhang, S. (2013). Magnitude, Time, and Risk Differ Similarly between Joint and Single Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 172-184.
  • Hsee, C. K., Yang, Y., Gu, Y., & Chen, J. (2009). Specification seeking: how product specifications influence consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 952-966.
  • Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576.
  • Hsee, C. K., &Leclerc, F. (1998). Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together? Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 175-186.
  • Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(2), 107-121.
  • 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.
  • Houston, D. A., & Sherman, S. J. (1995). Cancellation and focus: The role of shared and unique features in the choice process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(4), 357-378.
  • Hoeffler, S., &Herzenstein, M. (2011). Optimal Marketing for Really New Products: Using a Consumer Perspective to Improve Communications. CRACKING THE CODE, Steve Posavac, ed.
  • Herrmann, A., Hildebrand, C., Sprott, D. E., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2013). Option Framing and Product Feature Recommendations: Product Configuration and Choice. Psychology & Marketing, 30(12), 1053-1061.
  • Hawes, D. K. (1987). The Role of Marketing in Facilitating the Diffusion of Microcomputers and" The Information Society". Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(2), 83-90.
  • Han, J. K., Chung, S. W., & Sohn, Y. S. (2009). Technology convergence: when do consumers prefer converged products to dedicated products?. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 97-108.
  • Hamilton, Rebecca W., Rebecca K. Ratner, and Debora V. Thompson(2011), “Outpacing Others: When Consumers Value Products Based on Relative Usage Frequency,” Journal of Consumer Research, electronically published January 6.
  • Halstead, D. (1999). The use of comparison standards in customer satisfaction research and management: a review and proposed typology. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13-26.
  • H fer, C. N., & Karagiannis, G. (2011). Cloud computing services: taxonomy and comparison. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 2(2), 81-94.
  • Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. The Journal of Marketing, 60-72.
  • 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(2), 127-140.
  • Goodman, J. K., & Irmak, C. (2013). Having Versus Consuming: Failure to Estimate Usage Frequency Makes Consumers Prefer Multifeature Products. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(1), 44-54.
  • Glazer, R. (1999). Winning in smart markets. Journal of interactive Marketing,13(1), 2-4.
  • Glazer, R. (1995). Consumer behavior in high technology markets. ADVANCES IN CONSUMER RESEARCH, VOL XXII, 22, 224-224.
  • 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(1), 91-103.
  • Gill, T. (2008). Convergent products: What functionalities add more value to the base?. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 46-62.
  • Gershoff, A. D., Kivetz, R., & Keinan, A. (2012). Consumer response to versioning: how brands’ production methods affect perceptions of unfairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 382-398.
  • Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of consumer research, 849-867.
  • Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (2001). Effects of consumer goals on attribute weighting, overall satisfaction, and product usage. Psychology & Marketing,18(9), 929-949.
  • Froehlich, J. K., Hoegl, M., & Weiss, M. (2014). Thematic Thinking and Individual Performance in Research and Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management.
  • Freiden, J., Goldsmith, R., Takacs, S., & Hofacker, C. (1998). Information as a product: not goods, not services. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 16(3), 210-220.
  • Franke, G. R., Huhmann, B. A., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2004). Information content and consumer readership of print ads: a comparison of search and experience products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 20-31.
  • Fox, Craig R., and Robert T. Clemen (2005), “Subjective Probability Assessment in Decision Analysis: Partition Dependence and Bias toward the Ignorance Prior,” Management Science, 51 (9), 1417–32.
  • Fox, C. R., & Clemen, R. T. (2005). Subjective probability assessment in decision analysis: Partition dependence and bias toward the ignorance prior. Management Science, 51(9), 1417-1432.
  • Folkes, V. S. (1988). The availability heuristic and perceived risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 13-23.
  • Fisk, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in experimental social psychology, 23, 1-74.
  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: Anintroduction to theory and research.
  • Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human relations.
  • Falk, Ruma, and Avital Lann (2008), “The Allure of Equality Uniformity in Probabilistic and Statistical Judgment,” Cognitive Psychology, 57 (4), 293.334.
  • Etkin, J., & Sela, A. (2014). How Experience Similarity Shapes Product Evaluation. Available at SSRN 2467780.
  • Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). 8 Thematic Thinking: The Apprehension and Consequences of Thematic Relations. Psychology of Learning and Motivation-Advances in Research and Theory, 54, 249.
  • Escalas, J. E. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37-48.
  • Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2012). The “visual depiction effect” in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 988-1003.
  • Elberse, A. (2010). Bye-bye bundles: The unbundling of music in digital channels. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 107-123.
  • Dutton, W., Kovaric, P., & Steinfield, C. (1983). Computing in the home: A research paradigm. Social Science Computer Review, 1(1), 5-18.
  • Dr ge, C., & Halstead, D. (1991). Postpurchase hierarchies of effects: the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction for complainers versus non-complainers. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 315-328.
  • Dhar,R.,& Wertenbroch,K.(2000).Consumerchoicebetween hedonicandutilitariangoods.JournalofMarketingResearch,37(1),60?71.
  • Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (1992). The effect of the focus of comparison on consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 430-440.
  • Dellaert, B. G., & Stremersch, S. (2005). Marketing mass-customized products: striking a balance between utility and complexity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 219-227.
  • DellaVigna, S., & Malmendier, U. (2006). Paying not to go to the gym. The American Economic Review, 694-719.
  • Day, G. S., Shocker, A. D., & Srivastava, R. K. (1979). Customer-oriented approaches to identifying product-markets. The Journal of Marketing, 8-19.
  • Darden, W. R., & Reynolds, F. D. (1971). Shopping orientations and product usage rates. Journal of Marketing Research, 505-508.
  • Dahl,D.W.,& Hoeffler,S.(2004).Visualizingtheself:Exploringthepotentialbenefits and drawbacks fornew productevaluation.JournalofProductInnovationManagement,21(4),259?267.
  • Dahl, D. W., Chattopadhyay, A., & Gorn, G. J. (1999). The use of visual mental imagery in new product design. Journal of Marketing Research, 18-28.
  • Cusumano, M. A. (2008). The changing software business: Moving from products to services. Computer, 41(1), 20-27.
  • Cusumano, M. A. (2004). The business of software. Cambridge/Mass.
  • Corneille, O., & Judd, C. M. (1999). Accentuation and sensitization effects in the categorization of multifaceted stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 927.
  • Cohen, J. B., & Basu, K. (1987). Alternative models of categorization: toward a contingent processing framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 455-472.
  • Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
  • Chin, John P., Virginia A. Diehl, and Kent L. Norman (1988), “Development of an Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction of the Human-Computer Interface,” in Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’88 Conference Proceedings. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 213–18.
  • Chernev, A., & Gal, D. (2010). Categorization effects in value judgments: Averaging bias in evaluating combinations of vices and virtues. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 738-747.
  • Cheema, A., & Soman, D. (2008). The effect of partitions on controlling consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 665-675.
  • Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 339-350.
  • Brown, C. L., & Carpenter, G. S. (2000). Why is the trivial important? A reasons-based account for the effects of trivial attributes on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 372-385.
  • Brough, A. R., & Chernev, A. (2012). When opposites detract: Categorical reasoning and subtractive valuations of product combinations. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 399-414.
  • Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & ZElTHAML, V. A. (1993). A Dynamic Process Model of Sevice Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions. Journal of marketing research.
  • Bolton, R. N., &Lemon, K. N. (1999). A dynamic model of customers' usage of services: Usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, , 171-186.
  • Bolton, R. N.(1998), "A dynamic model of the duration of the customer'srelationship with a continuous service provider: the role ofsatisfaction," Marketing Science, 17(1), 45-65.
  • Bolton, L. E., & Alba, J. W. (2012). When less is more: Consumer aversion to unused utility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 369-383.
  • Bloom, P. N., & Pailin, J. E. (1995). Using information situations to guide marketing strategy. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(2), 19-27.
  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of consumer research, 25(3), 187-217.
  • Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing letters, 2(2), 159-170.
  • Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & cognition, 11(3),211-227.
  • Bakos, Y., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1999). Bundling information goods: Pricing, profits, and efficiency. Management Science, 45(12), 1613-1630.
  • Andaleeb, S. S., & Basu, A. K. (1995). Technical complexity and consumer knowledge as moderators of service quality evaluation in the automobile service industry. Journal of retailing, 70(4), 367-381.
  • Agarwal, S., & Teas, R. K. (2001). Perceived value: mediating role of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 1-14.
  • Adaval, R., & Wyer Jr, R. S. (1998). The role of narratives in consumer information processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(3), 207-245.
  • Abernethy, A. M., & Franke, G. R. (1996). The information content of advertising: a meta-analysis. Journal of advertising, 25(2), 1-17.