Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
L9 Categorisation and Context (Felcher et al 2001 Taxonomic…
L9 Categorisation and Context
Means end chains approach to categorisation
Object properties determine classification by construct
● Concrete similarity
● Physical substitutes
Consequences determine classification by construct
● Abstract similarity
● Functional substitutes
Value based categorisation is most abstract classification
Situational context
Consumers try to achieve desired (valued) consequences
A consumption situation allows different consequences
Consumers evaluate situations in terms of consequences
● But situations may ‘trigger’ consequences
● And the evaluation of situations is itself situational
‘Evaluative category’ is between attributes and consequences
● Personal functional grouping of attributes by consequences
Ratneshwar & Shocker (1991)
supplimentary
‘Substitution in use’ analysis (pragmatism)
● Usage predicts (instrumental) similarity
● Usage implies Functional Categorisation
Goal derived categorisation
● note the differences between feature based grouping and usage based grouping
Similarity versus typicality
Research Question:
● How similar are products within a category ?
● How typical are products for a category ?
● How are similarity and typicality related ?
● Remember the Roest & Rindfleisch (2010) paper
● And reread it with this lecture in mind
Structural representation of similarity in tree diagram
● Might be more clearly in CPM (see this afternoon)
Felcher et al 2001
Taxonomic categorisation & Goal derived categorisation
Taxonomic
categorisation
● Based on natural relationships between objects and features
● “Natural Groups” of similar objects [natural and manmade]
● E.g. Dogs, Birds, houses, cars, cameras, beverages
Taxonomic categories exist at different levels of abstraction:
● E.g., Animals, Mammals, Dogs, Shepherd dogs
● E.g., Beverages, Alcoholic beverages, Wines, Red Wines
Market Shares are calculated in terms of taxonomic categories
Goal derived
categorisation
● Based on f
unctional consequences
(benefits)
● Groups of products that
fulfil the same goal
Goal derived categorisation =
context dependent
● Similarity/dissimilarity are determined by situation
● Relational product features (linking products to ....)
Goal derived market shares
● ‘share of stomach’, ‘share of voice’
Categorisation
Cross-categorisation
● Single object belongs to multiple goal derived categories
● But only to a single taxonomic category
Functional categorisation
● Representation, inductive reasoning, explanation,
problem solving, understanding
Consideration set formation
● Situational goal triggers relevant functional category
● Unfamiliar goal facilitates acceptance of new product
Influence of Situational Context
Familiarity / unfamiliarity of consumption situations
● Unfamiliar situations trigger multiple goals
● Unfamiliar situations trigger cross-category choice sets
● Familiar situations trigger narrowly defined within
category choice sets
● [familiar situations allow for ready available goal derived
categories]
Implication:
● Unfamiliar situations provide opportunities for new
products from other taxonomic categories
Categorisation and choice
Consumers usually choose within a category
● Compare alternatives on attributes
● Preferred set of attributes = preferred alternative
Consumers also choose between categories
● Compare alternatives on benefits or value
● Different breakfasts, different leisure activities
ANY choice implies comparison and some similarity
Level of comparability vs level of comparison
Products can be comparable at different levels:
Feature based = taxonomic
Function based = relational goal derived
Value = (personal) goal derived
Utility = otherwise incomparable (?)
How do people USE those levels?
Evaluation of similarity
Similarity is based on the evaluation of
● Common elements (+) and distinct elements (-)
Evaluated elements can be
● Context independent (taxonomic)
● or Context dependent (goal derived)
Shared (common) elements can be
Attributional (object) or Relational (linked to object/person)
Elements may vary in salience (top-of-mind)
Goal derived similarity more important than taxonomic similarity
Notes
Experts tend to use relational features to make goal derived
categories
Familiar situations limit the evoked set to a functional
category
Similarity and dissimilarity are NOT opposites
Context influences similarity
● Context independent similarity = ‘just’ taxonomic
Reading: Ratneshwar et al, 2001
Authors distinguish two types of goal derived categories
● Personal goals
● Situational goals
Both increase perceived similarity of goal-congruent products
Both types of goal derived categorisation determine
● Perceived product similarity
● Perceived substitutability of products
● Competition between products:
competition is contextual
Personal vs. situational goals
Personal goals have ‘chronic accessibility’
● Personality characteristics / identity
● TRAITS
Cf. ‘health consciousness’, ‘convenience orientation’
Situational goals are context dependent
● Triggered by consumption setting
● STATES
● Can be manipulated in experimental setting
Categorisation and representation
Categorisation based on taxonomy or physical appearance is context independent and goal independent
Personal and situational goals change perceived similarity or ‘substitutability’
● Goal independent categorisation does not predict choice
Situational goals have stronger effect than personal goals
● Maybe because they imply:
..... more flexible perception (?)
..... more uniform perception (?)
..... more concrete and immediate goals (?)