Is smartwatch perceived as a wristwatch or a wearable device?: the experimental study for examining the categorization and the perceived fit with manufacturer on consumer evaluations

Recent researches demonstrated that when facing a really new product, consumers would learn about it through knowledge transfer from the base domains (existing familiar categories) to a new product category. This paper applied this theoretical background to the smartwatch category. Smartwatch can be categorized as another variant of a wristwatch or a wearable device, so we expected that consumers' responses would vary depending on the category frame and the manufacturer. We manipulated the category frame with the message on the ad and the manufacturer with the instruction. Specifically, we found that consumers' perceived fit varied depending on the category frame and the manufacturer, and consumers formed more expectation when the watch company launched a smartwatch framed as a wearable device than it framed was a wristwatch. In Experiment 2, we observed that consumers' affective response, perceived quality, and attitude were different depending upon the number of features on the ad and the category frame. Based on these findings, we presented discussions and implications about the smartwatch.

[1]  Mary W. Sullivan,et al.  The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial Approach , 1993 .

[2]  R. Eric Reidenbach,et al.  How concept knowledge affects concept evaluation , 1984 .

[3]  Kevin Lane Keller,et al.  Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions , 1990 .

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

[5]  A. Markman,et al.  “What Is It?” Categorization Flexibility and Consumers' Responses to Really New Products , 2001 .

[6]  Susan Fournier,et al.  Brands matter: An empirical demonstration of the creation of shareholder value through branding , 2006 .

[7]  W. O'NAN What is it? , 1952, The Journal of the Kentucky State Medical Association.

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

[9]  S. Levy Stalking the Amphisbaena , 1996 .

[10]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Mechanisms of Analogical Learning. , 1987 .

[11]  Susan M. Broniarczyk,et al.  The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension , 1994 .

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

[13]  Susan Spiggle,et al.  More than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity , 2012 .

[14]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product Evaluation , 1996 .

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

[16]  Sandra J. Milberg,et al.  Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency , 1991 .

[17]  P. Herr,et al.  Impact of Dominance and Relatedness on Brand Extensions , 1996 .

[18]  B. Ross,et al.  Category-based predictions: influence of uncertainty and feature associations. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.