Revisiting attribute diagnosticity in the context of product typicality

The influence of quality cues and typicality cues on restaurant purchase intention

“…We feel that this approach is reasonable, as prior research suggests that the individual items that comprise these scales display a high degree of inter-correlation (Loken and Ward, 1990;Yi and Gray, 1996). 6 The correlation between the predictive overall quality value and predictive bistro restaurant typicality value is r =.18, p o.01.…”

“…cues that indicate subcategory membership) also allow consumers to draw inferences about an offering's expected quality performance, based upon their experience with typical products within that subcategory. For example, while type of product user is an important cue for distinguishing a suitcase (businessperson) from a backpack (student), suitcases are generally believed to perform higher in terms of storage space whereas backpacks are typically inferred to perform higher in terms of comfort and convenience (Yi and Gray, 1996). Since subcategories are often based on similarities in performances, quality is a relative measure of product performance, and both perceived quality and category membership may be inferred by using cues, there should be a positive association between these two types of inferences.…”

Design Affordance Does Matter: A Spotlight on Categorization and Evaluation of Hybrid Innovations by Consumers

“…In this case, the design dimension can be advantageously deployed as a means of expressing and anticipating how products may be classified and used. Even with their complexity and induced uncertainty [5,7], the design of NHPs can reveal their potential uses and thus support their categorization by consumers.…”

“…Design offers a means of differentiation or comparison insofar as it is an easily perceived external attribute that can be used as a diagnostic tool [7], capable of generating a set of associations related to perceived novelty, quality, and intended uses of the hybrid product. The more complex the hybridization (i.e.…”

“…These hybrids [5], combined [6] or ambiguous [7] products in turn widen the choice and use options available to consumers and grant more flexibility and latitude to producers and retailers in terms of positioning, such that they can redefine the contours of their markets. However, they also generate uncertainty and perceived risky arbitrations for consumers, which may lead to antagonistic consumer attitudes toward them, unexpected forms of appropriation, unanticipated or approximate estimates of performance, and unintended uses.…”