Skip to main content
Log in

Differences in consumer perceptions of similarity and dissimilarity

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Researchers have usually treated similarity ratings as the simple inverse of dissimilarity ratings. Tversky's theory of perception of similarity and dissimilarity (1977), however, explicitly recognizes that the attributes used in the perception of similarity and the attributes used in the perception of dissimilarity are decidedly different. In fact, the weights assigned to common and distinctive features changes according to the task at hand (i.e., when similarity is to be rated the common features are weighted more, and when dissimilarity is to be rated the distinctive features are weighted more). This study demonstrates these differences in a judgment task of rating similarity and dissimilarity on the basis of data that is external to the subjects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Consumer Reports, April (1989).

  • Donthu, Naveen, and Roland T. Rust. (1989). “Review of Multidimensional Scaling.” In Glazer and Batra (eds),Cable Television: In Search of the Right Formula, New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E. (1970). “Measurement and Data Analysis,”Journal of Marketing 34, 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., and F. J. Carmone. (1972). “Marketing Research Applications of Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling Methods,” In A. K. Romney, R. N. Shepard, and S. B. Nerlove (eds.),Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 2), New York: Seminar Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. D. (1986). “Consumer Similarity Judgements: A Test of the Contrast Model,”Psychology and Marketing 3, 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. D., and Claes Fornell. (1987). “The Nature and Methodological Implications of Cognitive Representation of Products,”Journal of Consumer Research 14, 214–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. D., Donald R. Lehmann, Claes Fornell, and Daniel R. Horne. (1992). “Attribute Abstraction, Feature Dimensionality, and the Scaling of Product Similarities,”International Journal of Research in Marketing 9, 131–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, Joan, and Alice M. Tybout. (1989). “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,”Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 16 (June), 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, Ilana, Itamar Gati, and Amos Tversky. (1990). “Differential Weighting of Common and Distinctive Components,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Vol 119, No 1, 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sujan, Mita. (1985). “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgements,”Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 12 (June), 31–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1977). “Features of Similarity,”Psychological Review 84, 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, F. W., and R. Lewyckyi. (1980).ALSCAL: User's Guide, Chapel Hill, NC: Institute for Research in Social Sciences, UNC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Donthu, N., Cherian, J. Differences in consumer perceptions of similarity and dissimilarity. Marketing Letters 4, 31–38 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994185

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994185

Key words

Navigation