The Difference of User Perception between Similarity and Dissimilarity Judgments

The similarity and dissimilarity is a corresponding relationship which is the base of cognitive judgments. The main purpose of this paper is to study the user perception by using similarity judgments. In this study, fifteen innovative products are used as the stimuli which divided into three groups: global, creative and local products. A total of 139 student volunteers participated in the various phases of the study. The feature measures are used to collect data under three different experiments: similarity judgment by random, similarity judgment by order, and dissimilarity judgment by random. In addition, the paper proposed an approach to confirm the effectiveness of collecting data. Then, MDS analysis was used to explore the difference of user perception between similarity and dissimilarity judgments. The results provide designers with a valuable reference for designing innovative products.

[1]  J D Carroll,et al.  MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING , 2002 .

[2]  Rungtai Lin,et al.  A Design Strategy for Turning Local Culture into Global Market Products , 2012 .

[3]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition , 1998 .

[4]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Processes of Similarity Judgment , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Michael D. Johnson.  Consumer Similarity Judgments: A Test of the Contrast Model , 1986 .

[6]  Thomas V. Bonoma,et al.  Review of marketing , 1978 .

[7]  Michael D Lee,et al.  Finding the features that represent stimuli. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[8]  D E Meyer,et al.  Meaning, memory structure, and mental processes. , 1976, Science.

[9]  Donald R. Lehmann,et al.  The effects of fatigue on judgments of interproduct similarity , 1990 .

[10]  E. Rosch,et al.  Cognition and Categorization , 1980 .

[11]  T. Love,et al.  Path-dependent Foundation of Global Design-driven Outdoor Trade in the Northwest of England , 2007 .

[12]  Rung-Tai Lin,et al.  Transforming Taiwan Aboriginal Cultural Features into Modern Product Design: A Case Study of a Cross-cultural Product Design Model , 2007 .

[13]  Roger N. Shepard,et al.  Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties. , 1979 .

[14]  G. Clore,et al.  How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Adding Small Differences Can Increase Similarity and Choice , 2013, Psychological science.

[16]  Ralph Katz,et al.  Alternative Multidimensional Scaling Methods for Large Stimulus Sets , 1971 .

[17]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Comparison and Choice: Relations between Similarity Processes and Decision Processes , 1995 .

[18]  Patrick J. F. Groenen,et al.  Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications , 2003 .

[19]  Rungtai Lin,et al.  From digital archives to E-business: A case study on turning “art” into “business” , 2010, 2010 International Conference on e-Business (ICE-B).

[20]  Amos Tversky,et al.  Studies of similarity , 1978 .

[21]  D L Medin,et al.  Concepts and conceptual structure. , 1989, The American psychologist.

[22]  R Singh,et al.  Attitudes and attraction: a new test of the attraction, repulsion and similarity-dissimilarity asymmetry hypotheses. , 2000, The British journal of social psychology.

[23]  Daniel J Navarro,et al.  Similarity, feature discovery, and the size principle. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[24]  C. Fornell,et al.  A Framework for Comparing Customer Satisfaction across Individuals and Product Categories , 1991 .

[25]  R. Shepard.  The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II , 1962 .

[26]  Robert L. Goldstone.  Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping , 1994 .

[27]  Rungtai Lin,et al.  A Discourse on the Construction of a Service Innovation Model: Focus on the Cultural and Creative Industry Park , 2012 .

[28]  N. Chater,et al.  Similarity as transformation , 2003, Cognition.

[29]  Rungtai Lin,et al.  An application of multidimensional scaling in product semantics , 1996 .

[30]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  Priming Effects on Product Judgments: A Hemispheric Interpretation , 1989 .

[31]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Similarity Involving Attributes and Relations: Judgments of Similarity and Difference Are Not Inverses , 1990 .

[32]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  A Review of Consumer Judgment and Choice , 1987 .

[33]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[34]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Applied multidimensional scaling : a comparison of approaches and algorithms , 1972 .

[35]  P. Desmet,et al.  Framework of product experience , 2007 .

[36]  P. Groenen,et al.  Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications , 1999 .

[37]  P. Beynon-Davies.  E-Business , 2004 .

[38]  W. Vanpaemel,et al.  Geometric and featural representations in semantic concepts , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[39]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[40]  Suzan Boztepe,et al.  User Value: Competing Theories and Models , 2007 .

[41]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Latent Features in Similarity Judgments: A Nonparametric Bayesian Approach , 2008, Neural Computation.

[42]  D. Gentner,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article STRUCTURAL ALIGNMENT IN COMPARISON: No Difference Without Similarity , 2022 .

[43]  R. Shepard.  Representation of structure in similarity data: Problems and prospects , 1974 .

[44]  Evan Heit,et al.  Features of Similarity and Category-Based Induction , 2000 .

[45]  Rungtai Lin,et al.  A study of cognitive human factors in mascot design , 1999 .

[46]  Michael D. Lee,et al.  Combining Dimensions and Features in Similarity-Based Representations , 2002, NIPS.

[47]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The Structure of Human Memory , 1976 .

[48]  D. Norman.  Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things , 2004 .

[49]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.