What is a Leather Iron or a Bird Phone? Using Conceptual Combinations to Generate and Understand New Product Concepts

This article introduces the framework of conceptual combinations, which underlies the creative ability to combine existing concepts to create new ones. Using this framework, two creative processes are identified, namely, (a) property mapping (PM), which entails combining concepts by transferring a property from one concept to another (e.g., shape in the case of notebook computers); and (b) relation linking (RL), which entails linking the two combining concepts by a thematic relation (e.g., the “locative” relation in desktop computers). The effect of these processes on the comprehension of new product concepts is investigated in two experimental studies. In Study 1 it is shown that novel products created by RL are easier to interpret than the ones created by PM. In Study 2 it is found that new products combining concepts from different super-ordinate categories are more likely interpreted by RL, and are easier to comprehend than the ones from the same super-ordinate category, which use PM. The theoretical and managerial implications of using conceptual combinations in the context of new product ideation are discussed.

[1]  D. Gentner Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[2]  Jyotsna Vaid,et al.  Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes , 2001 .

[3]  D. Medin,et al.  Context and structure in conceptual combination , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[5]  A. A. Mitchell,et al.  The Assessment of Alternative Measures of Consumer Expertise , 1996 .

[6]  C. Whan Park,et al.  Composite Branding Alliances: An Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects , 1996 .

[7]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[8]  Christina L. Gagné,et al.  Influence of Thematic Relations on the Comprehension of Modifier–noun Combinations , 1997 .

[9]  Darren W. Dahl,et al.  Designing the Solution: The Impact of Constraints on Consumers' Creativity , 2005 .

[10]  D. Gentner,et al.  Chapter 10 On the Combinatorial Semantics of Noun Pairs: Minor and Major Adjustments to Meaning , 1991 .

[11]  M. Barone The Interactive Effects of Mood and Involvement on Brand Extension Evaluations , 2005 .

[12]  Deborah Roedder John,et al.  Consumer Learning by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer , 1997 .

[13]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. , 1990 .

[15]  David W. Beach,et al.  Integrated Product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing , 1997 .

[16]  M. Sujan,et al.  Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments , 1985 .

[17]  Zachary Estes,et al.  Attributive and relational processes in nominal combination , 2003 .

[18]  John R. Doyle,et al.  Dressed for the Occasion: Font-Product Congruity in the Perception of Logotype , 2006 .

[19]  Min Zhao,et al.  When Categorization is Ambiguous: Factors that Facilitate the Use of a Multiple Category Inference Strategy , 2005 .

[20]  E. Wisniewski Construal and Similarity in Conceptual Combination , 1996 .

[21]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation , 1989 .

[22]  Thomas A. Brunner,et al.  The reduced and enhanced impact of shared features on individual brand evaluations , 2006 .

[23]  F. Keil Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development , 1989 .

[24]  D. Dahl,et al.  The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking during New Product Ideation , 2002 .

[25]  Jennifer Gregan-Paxton,et al.  How Do Consumers Transfer Existing Knowledge? A Comparison of Analogy and Categorization Effects , 2003 .

[26]  E. Wisniewski When concepts combine , 1997, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies , 2001 .

[28]  H. Kim Evaluations of Moderately Typical Products: The Role of Within- Versus Cross-Manufacturer Comparisons , 2006 .

[29]  E. Wisniewski,et al.  Property instantiation in conceptual combination , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[30]  Ashesh Mukherjee,et al.  The Effect of Novel Attributes on Product Evaluation : Explaining Consumer Resistance to Technological Innovation , 2001 .

[31]  Edward J. Wisniewski,et al.  Conceptual combination: Possibilities and esthetics. , 1997 .

[32]  L. Rips Similarity, typicality, and categorization , 1989 .

[33]  T. S. Robertson,et al.  Handbook of Consumer Behavior , 1990 .

[34]  David Luna,et al.  Integrating Ad Information: A Text-Processing Perspective , 2005 .

[35]  Mark T. Keane,et al.  Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. , 2000 .

[36]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Similar and Different: The Differentiation of Basic-Level Categories , 1997 .

[37]  Bernd H. Schmitt,et al.  Contextualized representations of brand extensions: Are feature lists or frames the basic components of consumer cognition? , 1992 .

[38]  Richard F. Yalch,et al.  The SMAART Scale: A Measure of Individuals’ Automatic Access to Secondary Meanings in Polysemous Statements , 2007 .

[39]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  Feature Centrality and Conceptual Coherence , 1998, Cogn. Sci..

[40]  Pablo Azar,et al.  “So that's what that is”: Examining the impact of analogy on consumers' knowledge development for really new products , 2002 .

[41]  Bradley C. Love,et al.  Relations versus Properties in Conceptual Combination , 1998 .

[42]  A. Markman,et al.  Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response to New Products , 2001 .

[43]  Jongwon Park,et al.  Effects of Parent-Extension Similarity and Self Regulatory Focus on Evaluations of Brand Extensions , 2006 .

[44]  D. Gentner,et al.  The analogical mind : perspectives from cognitive science , 2001 .

[45]  Christina L. Gagné,et al.  Relation-Based Combinations Versus Property-Based Combinations: A Test of the CARIN Theory and the Dual-Process Theory of Conceptual Combination , 2000 .

[46]  A. Markman,et al.  Inference using categories. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  Gregory B. Simpson,et al.  Understanding word and sentence , 1991 .

[48]  A. Ortony,et al.  Similarity and Analogical Reasoning , 1991 .