Modulation of taxonomic (versus thematic) similarity judgments and product choices by inducing local and global processing

References

• Burgoon, E. M., Henderson, M. D., & Markman, A. B. (2013). There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: A tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 501–520. doi: 10.1177/1745691613497964
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In P. M. Niedenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.), Heart’s eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp. 167–196). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dijkstra, K. A., van der Pligt, J., van Kleef, G. A., & Kerstholt, J. H. (2012). Deliberation versus intuition: Global versus local processing in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1156–1161. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estes, Z. (2003). A tale of two similarities: Comparison and integration in conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 27, 911–921. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2706_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estes, Z., Gibbert, M., Guest, D., & Mazursky, D. (2012). A dual-process model of brand extension: Taxonomic feature-based and thematic relation-based similarity independently drive brand extension evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 86–101. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic thinking: The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 54, 249–294. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felcher, E. M., Malaviya, P., & McGill, A. L. (2001). The role of taxonomic and goal-derived product categorization in, within, and across category judgments. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 865–887. doi:10.1002/mar.1033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Förster, J., & Dannenberg, L. (2010). Glomosys: A systems account of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 175–197. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2010.487849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita, K., & Roberts, J. (2010). Promoting prospective self-control through abstraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1049–1054. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Brem, S. (1999). Is snow really like a shovel? Distinguishing similarity from thematic relatedness. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 179–184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. (2001). Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory & Cognition, 29, 565–577. doi:10.3758/BF03200458
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56. doi:10.3758/BF03200458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golonka, S., & Estes, Z. (2009). Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1454–1464. doi:10.1037/a0017397
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest, D., & Lamberts, K. (2011). The time course of similarity effects in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1667–1688. doi:10.1037/a0025640
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell, D. C. (2016). Fundamental statistics for the behavioural sciences (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Huntsinger, J. R., Clore, G. L., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2010). Mood and global–local focus: Priming a local focus reverses the link between mood and global–local processing. Emotion, 10, 722–726. doi:10.1037/a001935
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalénine, S., Peyrin, C., Pichat, C., Segebarth, C., Bonthoux, F., & Baciu, M. (2009). The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study. Neuroimage, 44, 1152–1162. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maguire, M. J., Brier, M. R., & Ferree, T. C. (2010). EEG theta and alpha responses reveal qualitative differences in processing taxonomic versus thematic semantic relationships. Brain & Language, 114, 16–25. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2010.03.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markman, A. B., & Loewenstein, J. (2010). Structural comparison and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 126–137. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markman, A. B., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic-level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 54–70. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.54
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrea, S. M., Wieber, F., & Myers, A. L. (2012). Construal level mind-sets moderate self- and social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 51–68. doi:10.1037/a0026108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirman, D., & Graziano, K. M. (2012a). Damage to temporo-parietal cortex decreases incidental activation of thematic relations during spoken word comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 50, 1990–1997. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirman, D., & Graziano, K. M. (2012b). Individual differences in the strength of taxonomic versus thematic relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 601–609. doi:10.1037/a0026451
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullen, B., Pizzuto, C., & Foels, R. (2002). Altering intergroup perceptions by altering prevailing mode of cognitive representation: “They look like people”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1333–1343. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1333
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noseworthy, T. J., Finlay, K. F., & Islam, T. (2010). From a commodity to an experience: The moderating role of thematic positioning on congruity-based product judgment. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 465–486. doi:10.1002/mar.20339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratneshwar, S., Pechmann, C., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Goal-derived categories and the antecedents of across-category consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 240–250. doi:10.1086/209480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, M. F., Kimberg, D. Y., Walker, G. M., Brecher, A., Faseyitan, O. K., Dell, G. S., … Coslett, H. B. (2011). Neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 8520–8524. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014935108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons, S., & Estes, Z. (2008). Individual differences in the perception of similarity and difference. Cognition, 108, 781–795. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisniewski, E. J., & Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 208–238. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0723
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar