Analogies and Mental Simulations in Learning for Really
New Products (RNPs): Is a Picture Always Worth a
Thousand Words? The Impact of Presentation Formats in
Consumers’ Early Evaluation of Really New Products
(RNPs)
Research Presentation
Veronica Wong
Professor of Marketing, Kent Business School
STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Background
Objectives
Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
Methodology
Key Findings
Implications and Future research
RNP RESEARCH: WHY IMPORTANT?
• RNPs “create, or at least substantially expand a category rather than
reallocate shares within an existing one” (Marketing Science Institute,
1994)
They lead to major shifts in market shares (Lehmann, 1997)
• Without Really New Products (RNPs) market shares ultimately drop off
(PLC concept)
• BUT 40% to 90% of new products fail (Cierpicki et al., 2000)
• Issues:
- Consumers’ difficulty in understanding RNPs
(Gregan-Paxton et al., 2002)
- Burden placed on consumer to learn about product
benefits (Gourville, 2005)
- Analogies and mental simulation useful framing
strategies to deal with uncertainty
- May differ for RNPs and vary with types of RNP
- Impact of presentation format (words vs pictures) and RNP
type on comprehension of and attitude to, the product
RECENT EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL
REALLY NEW PRODUCTS (RNPs)
EXAMPLES OF REALLY NEW PRODUCTS (RNPs)
THAT FAILED OR STRUGGLED IN THE
MARKETPLACE
TIVO
SEGWAY
SCOOTER
KEY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
• Determine which
a. learning strategy (analogy vs. mental simulation) and
b. presentation format (words vs. pictures)
are more effective in enhancing product comprehension and attitude
to the product for RNPs.
• Examine these impacts for each type of RNP: utilitarian vs, hedonic
vs hybrid
KEY RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS
• Extend prior work in
a. Consumer responses to RNPs (Feiereisen, Wong, Broderick,
2008)
b. Congruity theory (Johar and Sirgy, 1991)
c. Rhetorical works (McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005)
d. Resource-matching perspective (Arnand and Sternthal, 1990)
• Linkages to underdeveloped research on ‘hybrid’ new products
(Leclerc, Schmitt, and Dubé-Rioux, 1989) and broader stream of
utilitarian and hedonic products (Gll, 2008)
•  Provide guidance on communicating benefits of RNPs
Categorization vs Analogy
•  Theoretical boundary between the two concepts
are blurred
•  Distinct processes involved
•  Categorization paradigm based on organizing
new stimulus in memory - useful for transfer of
beliefs among similar products (Gregan-Paxton
& John, 1997)
•  Analogical transfer paradigm relies on use of
knowledge structure to enable new learning
about novel stimulus (Lehmann, 1994)
CONCEPTUAL BASES
►Analogical learning: Structure mapping theory –
mapping of knowledge from one familiar domain onto
an unfamiliar, unknown domain
(Gentner, 1989)
• Information from a familiar domain (base) is used to
understand a new domain (target)
• 3 stages: 1) Access 2) Mapping 3) Transfer
E.g.: analogy between a PDA and a secretary
• Common relations are essential but physical similarities
are not (the base and the target do not look alike)
http://www.apple.com/ipod/nike/
ANALOGY WITH WORDS
ANALOGY WITH
PICTURES
CONCEPTUAL BASES
►Mental simulation - defined as the imitative mental
representation of some event or series of events (Taylor et al.,
American Psychologist, Vol 53, 1998)
• Form of cognitive processing in which visual information is
represented in working memory (MacInnis and Price, 1987):
‘‘thinking in pictures’’
• Helps deal with knowledge development (Sujan et al. 1997) and
uncertainty (Taylor et al. 1998)
• Mental simulations for RNPs likely to stimulate understanding of the
RNP fit with existing usage habits (Taylor et al. 1998)
• Provide “experience value” (Kahneman and Tversky 1984) when
product trial is impossible
http://www.samsung.com
MENTAL SIMULATION
WITH WORDS
MENTAL SIMULATION WITH PICTURES
CONCEPTUAL BASES
►Analogy vs. mental simulation
• Analogies “go beyond the given information” (Fishbein and Ajzen
1975) : risk of misconceptions (Spiro et al., 1989)
• Mental simulation in preference measurement exercise for RNPs
enabled respondents to develop more accurate estimate of the
product’s utility than analogies (Hoeffler, 2003)
►Pictorials vs. words
• Pictorials: Implicit, various interpretations (Sperber and Wilson
1986).
• Words: Explicit, one main interpretation
TYPES OF REALLY NEW
PRODUCTS
•  Utilitarian
- possesses functional, instrumental, and practical
benefits (Batra and Ahtola, 1990)
•  Hedonic
- possesses aesthetic, experiential, and enjoymentrelated benefits (Bahtra and Ahtola, 1990)
•  Hybrid
- possesses both utilitarian and hedonic characteristics
(Leclerc, Schmitt, and Dubé-Rioux, 1989)
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
HYPOTHESES for RNP LEARNING [1]
Hypothesis 1 relating to analogy and comprehension
•  Analogical learning reliance on inferences (Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975)
•  Analogical transfer are guesses open to inaccurate
representation of target (Gentner, 1989)
•  Run risk of misinforming (Hoeffler, 2003)
•  Syntactic properties of words vs pictures differ (Messaris, 1997)
•  Higher risk of erroneous inferences due to wider range of
inferences induced by pictures (McQuarrie and Philips, 2005)
•  Comprehension calls for extensive cognitive thinking
independent of RNP type
•  Cognitive load increased by visual analogy (humans as
“cognitive miser” (Fiske and Taylor, 1991) and reliance on
shared knowledge between sender and receiver
H1: When the framing strategy is an analogy, the use of words
triggers higher product comprehension than the use of
pictures for H1 (a): Utilitarian product; H1 (b): Hedonic
product; H1 (c): Hybrid product
HYPOTHESES for RNP LEARNING [2]
Hypothesis 2 relating to analogy and attitude to RNP
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Analogies as rhetorical figures enhance attitudes via indirect persuasion (McQuarrie
and Philips, 2005)
Indirect persuasion relies on spontaneous generation of inferences (holds well for welldeveloped knowledge structure)
Indirect persuasion effective due to self-generated implicit claim, by nature more
accessible and less subject to counter-arguing (Lee and Olshavsky, 1995)
Demanding cognitive process hinders indirect persuasive effect
Understanding new product benefits relies on elaboration of relational information
Analogical incongruity more effortful to solve using pictures by nature implicit
(Lehmann, 1994)
Estimation of personal usefulness of new benefits influences development of positive
attitudes
Relational mapping-demands on consumer resources to process persuasive message
greater for pictorial analogies (Roehm and Stemthal, 2001), and
Difficulties in conducting relational mapping reduces development of positive attitude
H2: When the framing strategy is an analogy, the use of words
triggers a more positive attitude to the product than use of
pictures for H2 (a): Utilitarian product; H2 (b): Hedonic
Product; H2 (c): Hybrid product
HYPOTHESES for RNP LEARNING [3]
Hypothesis 3 relating to mental simulation and comprehension
of utilitarian and hedonic RNPs
• 
• 
• 
Mental simulation does not rely on inferences, but on mental
representation
Congruity theory for ad appeal-product type may apply (Sirgy, 1982)
- Self-congruity refers to match between product image characteristics
and self-concept (hedonic appeals)
- Functional congruity refers to match between perceived and desired
product functional characteristics (utilitarian appeals)
Words regarded more ‘utilitarian’ than pictures
-Cultural norms (language, hence, use of words equated with rationality,
Polanyi and Prosch, 1976)
- Hemispheral lateralization theory (semantic data activate rational left
cerebral hemisphere leading to perceived heightened utility, Hansen,
1981)
- Pictures regarded more aesthetic and hedonic than words (Polanyi and
Prosch, 1976)
H3: (a): When framing strategy is a mental simulation, use of
words will trigger a higher product comprehension than the
use of pictures for a utilitarian product
(b): When framing strategy is a mental simulation, use of
pictures will trigger a higher product comprehension than
the use of words for a hedonic product
HYPOTHESES for RNP LEARNING [4]
Hypotheses relating to mental simulation and attitude to
utilitarian and hedonic RNPs
•  Deep comprehension of self-relevant product consequences
enhances post-exposure attitude (Levels of subjective
comprehension [LSC] model, Mick, 1992)
•  Mental simulation help consumers understand product attributebenefit link by merging new product with existing usage pattern
(Taylor et al., 1998)
•  Cultural norm – words more “utilitarian”; pictures more
“hedonic”
•  Hemispheral lateralization- words increase perception of
heightened utility; pictures regarded more hedonic than words
H4: (a): When the framing strategy is a mental simulation, use
of words will trigger a more positive attitude to the product
than the use of pictures for a utilitarian product
(b): When the framing strategy is a mental simulation, use
of pictures will trigger a more positive attitude to the
product than the use of words for a hedonic product
HYPOTHESES for RNP LEARNING [5]
Hypotheses relating to mental simulation and attitude to hybrid
RNP
•  Duality of utilitarian and hedonic characteristics
•  Congruity effect operates between:
- use of words and utilitarian product characteristics
- use of pictures and hedonic product characteristics
H5:
(a): When the framing strategy is a mental simulation, there
will be no significant difference in product comprehension
when conveyed with words vs with pictures for a hybrid
product
(b): When the framing strategy is a mental simulation, there
will be no significant difference in attitude to the product
when conveyed with words vs with pictures for a hybrid
product
HYPOTHESES for RNP LEARNING
• 
H1: When framing strategy is an analogy, use of words triggers higher product
comprehension than use of pictures for H1 (a): Utilitarian product;
H1 (b): Hedonic product; H1 (c): Hybrid product
• 
H2:When framing strategy is an analogy, use of words triggers a more positive
attitude to the product than use of pictures for H2 (a): Utilitarain product; H2 (b):
Hedonic Product; H2 (c): Hybrid product
• 
H3:
(a): When framing strategy is a mental simulation, use of words will trigger a
higher product comprehension than the use of pictures for a utilitarian product
(b): When framing strategy is a mental simulation, use of pictures will trigger a
higher product comprehension than the use of words for a hedonic product
• 
H4:
(a): When the framing strategy is a mental simulation, use of words will trigger a
more positive attitude to the product than the use of pictures for a utilitarian
product
(b):When the framing strategy is a mental simulation, use of pictures will trigger
a more positive attitude to the product than the use of words for a hedonic
product
• 
H5:
(a): When the framing strategy is a mental simulation, there will be no significant
difference in product comprehension when conveyed with words vs with
pictures for a hybrid product
(b): When the framing strategy is a mental simulation, there will be no significant
difference in attitude to the product when conveyed with words vs with pictures
for a hybrid product
METHODOLOGY: MEASURES
► Product comprehension
- Subjective comprehension
6 items (adapted from Moreau et al., 2001 and Hoeffler, 2003)
α= 0.911
I found the product description: (i) Difficult to understand/ Easy to understand;
(ii) Confusing/ Straightforward (7-point scale)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following
statements (1= strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree)
(iii) After reading the advert, I have a very strong understanding of how this
product works.
(iv) After reading the advert, I would be able to use the product.
(v) After reading the advert, I understand the main features of this product
(vi) After reading the advert, I understand the main benefits of this product
- Open-ended question (Gregan-Paxton et al., 2002)
‘A friend of yours has just come to you and said “Hey I just heard about this new
product. I don't understand what it is. Can you explain it to me?" Please describe the
product as you would if you were speaking to your confused friend’
METHODOLOGY: MEASURES
► Attitude to Product
- 4 items (adapted from Moreau et al., 2001)
α= 0.972
How would you describe your attitude toward the product?
(i) Bad/ Good
(ii) Unfavourable/ Favourable
(iii) Dislike/ Like
(iv) Negative/ Positive (7 point scale)
- Open-ended question (Gregan-Paxton et al., 2002):
‘Please write down any thoughts, perceptions and opinions you might have
concerning the product that was just presented’.
METHODOLOGY: SELECTED
PRODUCTS
3 RNPs chosen:
• Video Glasses: a head set which gives the impression to the
viewer to be watching videos downloaded on a mobile on a large
screen (analogical base: cinema projector)
• Intelligent Oven: an oven which also works as a fridge and can
be programmed remotely to start cooking
(analogical base: cook)
• Digipen: a pen which transforms handwritten notes into
electronic documents (analogical base: secretary)
METHODOLOGY: RNP SELECTION CRITERIA
AND PROCESS
•  From a large range a RNPs identified in high-tech consumer
magazines and websites 5 RNPs were selected as they all had
appropriate analogue bases
•  From these 5 RNPs, 2 RNPs were removed from the research
due to 1/ excessive familiarity, 2/ difficulty to understand the
analogy (issues identified in a pre-test involving 53 respondents)
•  All technological and consumer innovations
•  Products qualified as RNP - required "both the consumer and the
organization to think differently in producing and using the new
product" (Lehmann 1994)
•  Each RNP pertaining to new product type ascertained (pre-test,
N=15)
METHODOLOGY: PRE-TEST1a TO ASCERTAIN
ALIGNMENT WITH RNP TYPE
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
15 respondents interviewed to ascertain selected products pertained to
RNP type identified (100% agreement)
Additional 37 respondents rated each of the 3 RNPs as follows:
- Utilitarian: effective/ineffective; unhelpful/helpful; not functional/
functional;’ not useful/useful; impractical/practical; met a goal/did not meet
a goal (Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann, 2003)
- Hedonic: product was not fun/fun; dull/not exciting; not delightful/
delightful; unenjoyable/enjoyable; not appealing to the sense/appealing to
the sense; not pleasant/pleasant ( adapted from Voss et al., 2003)
Utilitarian = Meanutilitarian> Meanhedonic
(Digipen: M.utilpen=5.50; M.hedopen=4.25; t=4.258, df=33, p=0.000)
Hedonic = Meanhedonic > Meanutilitarian
(Video glasses: M.utilglasses=4.09; M.hedoglasses=5.28; t=-4.935,
df=34, p=0.000)
Hybrid = Insignificant difference bet. Meanhedonic and Meanutilitarian
(Intelligent oven: M.utiloven=5.20; M.hedooven=4.97; t=0.692, df=36,
p=0.493)
STIMULI DEVELOPMENT
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
18 stimuli developed (6 for each RNP)
Size of the elements held constant for each condition across
products: ensure effects on consumers’ responses to stimuli due
to the learning process either in the text or in the picture and not
to the size of these elements (Rosbergen, Pieters and Wedel,
1997).
Similar number of words across products for each condition
Stimulate imagery:
- instructions to imagine (Babin and Burns, 1992)
- consumer presented as ‘you” in MS condition, vs “the owner”
in analogy to limit amount of imagery (Escales and Luce, 2003)
Fictitious brand name - equal appropriateness to all products
Same argument conveyed using words vs. pictures
Pictures in visual conditions extracted from http://www.tmio.com/,
http://www.logitech.com/,
http://www.agence-revolutions.com/
orange_lunettes_video_mobile_revolutions.html)
METHODOLOGY: Stimuli
Verbal mental simulation: Hedonic product
Verbal analogy: Hedonic product
METHODOLOGY: Stimuli
Visual mental simulation: Hedonic product
Visual analogy:Hedonic product
METHODOLOGY: STIMULI
Visual no analogy/no mental simulation
Hybrid product
Verbal no analogy/no mental simulation
Hybrid product
METHODOLOGY: STIMULI
Verbal mental simulation:
Utilitarian product
Verbal analogy:
Utilitarian product
JUSTIFICATION OF ANALOGIES
•  Only analogies from far domains as opposed to near
domains (Ait El Houssi et al., 2005)
•  Example: analogy between digipen and a ballpoint pen
(near domain) vs. analogy between digipen and a
secretary (far-domain)
•  Pre-test to check that all analogical bases were familiar
to the respondents and that the analogies were easy to
understand. No significant differences were found
across products.
METHODOLOGY: PRE-TEST1b – FAMILIARITY WITH
RNPS AND ANALOG BASE
- Pre Test 1 (N=53)*
Video glasses
Intelligent oven
Digipen
Sign.
Limited
familiarity with
product
2.68
2.22
2.92
p>0.05
High familiarity
with base domain
4.78
5.66
5.08
p>0.05
Similar ability to
understand
analogy across
products
4.12
4.71
4.92
p>0.05
*On a 7-point scale
PRE-TEST 2: JUSTIFICATION OF BASE DOMAINS &
WORDS VS PICTURES MANIPULATION
•  Panel of 10 marketing expert-judges asked to describe picture in
visual analogy to ascertain that the analogical base was easy to
identify
- Pictures of analog base domains used in visual analogies easily
identifiable and viewed positively (100% agreement)
•  Judges given the assignment of conveying message of pictorial
element into words: aim is to increase visual-verbal similarity
•  Judges answered the following questions:
- Whether the pictorial element conveyed the same message as
the text (3 items).
- Attractiveness of the advert (4 items)
- Easy to understand, easy to relate to, meaningful, informative (1
item each)
- Feelings toward the pictorial element (3 items)
•  Feedback solicited to improve similarity between message conveyed
in words and pictures
PRE-TEST 2: RESULTS CONFIRMING
VALIDITY OF WORDS VS PICTURES
MANIPULAITON
•  Similarity of message conveyed in mental
simulation conditions rated highly:
(M.video glasses=5.9; M.digipen=5.5;
M.intelligent oven=5.6, p>0.05)
•  Similarity of message conveyed in analogy
conditions rated highly:
(M.video glasses=5.1; M.digipen=4.9;
M.intelligent oven=5.0, p>0.05)
•  Difference across conditions statistically
insignificant
METHODOLOGY: PARTICIPANTS &
DATA COLLECTION
•  853 participants from UK university
•  40.8% male and 59.2% Female, aged from 18 to 56
years old
•  3 within-subjects (framing: mental simulation vs analogy
vs no analogy/no mental simulation) X 2 betweensubjects (presentation format: words vs pictures) X 3
between-subjects (RNP type: utilitarian vs hedonic vs
hybrid) design
•  Online instrument
•  RNP type and advert type presented in balanced order
reducing carry-over effects
TABLE 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:
PRODUCT COMPREHENSION
Visual
Mental
Simulation
Visual
Analogy
No
Verbal
analogy/no Mental
mental
Simulation
simulation
Verbal
Analogy
No
analogy/no
mental
simulation
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Digipen
4.39(1.54)
(Utilitarian)
3.01(1.72)
2.69(1.30)
5.08(1.050
5.21(1.15)
4.76(1.17)
Video
Glasses
(Hedonic)
4.44(1.33)
3.00(1.35)
4.33(1.57)
4.28(1.40)
4.38(1.21)
4.56(1.13)
Intelligent
Oven
(Hybrid)
4.05(1.46)
3.46(1.50)
4.01(1.43)
4.69(1.12)
4.39(1.30)
4.92(1.13)
TABLE 2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:
PRODUCT ATTITUDE
Visual
Mental
Simulation
Visual
Analogy
No
analogy/
no mental
simulation
Verbal
Mental
Simulation
Visual
Analogy
No analogy/
no mental
simulation
Mean (SD)
Mean
(SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Digipen
(Utilitarian)
4.48(1.66)
3.58(1.75)
3.48(1.40)
4.84(1.74)
4.77(1.58)
4.27(1.60)
Video
Glasses
(Hedonic)
4.80(1.53)
3.61(1.49)
4.66(1.63)
3.56(1.68)
3.87(1.60)
3.91(1.81)
Intelligent
Oven
(Hybrid)
3.65(1.56)
3.19(1.60)
3.97(1.64)
3.74(1.63)
3.29(1.93)
4.08(1.85)
TABLE 3 ANOVA RESULTS
Product Comprehension
F
p
Product Attitude
Partial η2
F
p
Partial η2
Presentation Format x Framing Strategy x Product Type
Presentation
x Framing
34.592
p<0.001
0.051
8.247
p<0.001
0.013
Utilitarian product
Framing
34.824
p<0.001
0.089
13.899
p<0.001
0.037
Presentation
275.856
p<0.001
0.278
40.318
p<0.001
0.053
Framing x
Presentation
24.533
p<0.001
0.064
4.002
p<0.05
0.011
Hedonic product
Framing
24.271
p<0.001
0.062
8.382
p<0.001
0.022
Presentation
21.464
p<0.001
0.028
21.424
p<0.001
0.028
Framing x
Presentation
21.516
p<0.001
0.055
13.676
p<0.001
0.036
Hybrid product
Framing
10.014
p<0.001
0.026
11.178
p<0.001
0.030
Presentation
70.333
p<0.001
0.087
0.649
p>0.05
0.001
Framing x
Presentation
0.941
p>0.05
0.003
0.002
p>0.05
0.000
PRODUCT COMPREHENSION for EACH
PRESENTATION FORMAT/FRAMING STRATEGY
COMBINATION (UTILITARIAN PRODUCT: DIGIPEN)
5.5
5
Mental Simulation
4.5
Analogy
4
No Analogy/ No Mental
Simulation
3.5
3
2.5
Visual
Verbal
H 1a: Comprehension: analogy: words> pictures (utilitarian). Supported (p<0.001).
H 3a: Comprehension: mental simulation: words>pictures (utilitarian). Supported (p<0.001).
PRODUCT COMPREHENSION for EACH
PRESENTATION FORMAT/FRAMING STRATEGY
COMBINATION (HEDONIC PRODUCT:
VIDEOGLASSES)
5
4.5
Mental Simulation
4
Analogy
3.5
No Analogy/ No Mental
Simulation
3
2.5
Visual
Verbal
H 1b: Comprehension: analogy: words> pictures (hedonic). Supported (p<.001).
H 3b: Comprehension: mental simulation: pictures> words (hedonic). Rejected (p>.05).
PRODUCT ATTITUDE FOR EACH PRESENTATION
FORMAT/FRAMING STRATEGY COMBINATION
(UTILITARIAN PRODUCT:DIGIPEN)
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
mental simulation
4.2
analogy
4
3.8
no analogy/ no mental
simulation
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
visual
verbal
H 2a: Attitude: analogy: words> pictures (utilitarian). Supported (p<.001)
H 4a: Attitude: mental simulation: words> pictures (utilitarian). Marginally reject, p<0.077
PRODUCT ATTITUDE for EACH PRESENTATION
FORMAT/ FRAMING STRATEGY COMBINAITON
(HEDONIC PRODUCT:VIDEO GLASSES)
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
mental simulation
4.2
analogy
4
3.8
no analogy/ no mental
simulation
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
visual
verbal
H 2b: Attitude: analogy: words> pictures (hedonic). Rejected (p=.159).
H 4b: Attitude: mental simulation: pictures> words (hedonic). Supported (p>.001).
PRODUCT COMPREHENSION for EACH PRESENTATION
FORMAT/FRAMING STRATEGY COMBINATION (HYBRID
PRODUCT: INTELLIGENT OVEN)
5.5
5
Mental Simulation
4.5
Analogy
4
No Analogy/ No Mental
Simulation
3.5
3
2.5
Visual
Verbal
H1c: Comprehension: analogy: words>pictures (hybrid). Supported (p<.001).
H5a: Comprehension: mental simulation: words=pictures (hybrid). Not supported;
instead words>pictures (p<.001).
PRODUCT ATTITUDE for EACH PRESENTATION
FORMAT/FRAMING STRATEGY COMBINATION
(HYBRID PRODUCT: INTELLIGENT OVEN)
4.2
4
mental simulation
3.8
analogy
3.6
no analogy/ no mental
simulation
3.4
3.2
3
visual
verbal
H 2c: Attitude: analogy: words> pictures (hybrid). Not Supported (p=.583).
H 5b: Attitude: mental simulation: words=pictures. Supported (p=.643).
SUMMARY RESULTS
Hypothesis
Outcome
Comprehension: analogy: words> pictures (utilitarian)
1a
√
Comprehension: analogy: words> pictures (hedonic)
1b
√
Comprehension: analogy: words> pictures (hybrid)
1c
√
Attitude: analogy: words> pictures (utilitarian)
2a
√
Attitude: analogy: words> pictures (hedonic)
2b
×
Attitude: analogy: words> pictures (hybrid)
2c
×
Comprehension: mental simulation: words>pictures (utilitarian)
3a
√
Comprehension: mental simulation: pictures> words (hedonic)
3b
× (pic=w)
Attitude: mental simulation: words> pictures (utilitarian)
4a
√ (marginal)
Attitude: mental simulation: pictures> words (hedonic)
4b
√
Comprehension: mental simulation: words=pictures (hybrid)
5a
× (w>pic)
Attitude: mental simulation: words=pictures (hybrid)
5b
√
SUMMARY: MOST EFFECTIVE COMBINATION OF
LEARNING STRATEGIES AND PRESENTAITON
FORMATS PER RNP TYPE AND OUTCOME
Digipen
(Utilitarian)
Intelligent
Oven
(Hybrid)
Video glasses
(Hedonic)
Product
Verbal mental
Comprehension simulation &
Verbal analogy
Verbal mental
simulation* &
Verbal analogy
Visual mental
simulation* =
Verbal mental
simulation* or
Verbal analogy
Attitude to
Product
Verbal mental
simulation &
Visual mental
simulation
Visual mental
simulation
Verbal mental
simulation &
Verbal analogy
followed by
Visual mental
simulation
KEY CONTRIBUTIONS
•  Match framing strategies and presentation formats to RNP type
•  For analogies, words more effective than pictures in increasing
product comprehension, regardless of RNP type, but words only
effective in enhancing attitude to utilitarian RNP.
•  Prior work focused solely on verbal mental simulation. This work
confirms role of words in mental simulation for increasing product
comprehension across RNP types, but also provides new evidence
for visual mental simulations in enhancing comprehension of
hedonic RNPs, and attitude towards all RNP types.
•  For a given framing strategy, triple congruity exists between
presentation format, product type and dependent variable
•  Deeper understanding of consumer responses to HYBRID RNP
THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
• Power of framing (learning) strategies such as analogy and
mental simulation differ in preparing consumers’ cognitive
resources for new product acceptance
•  Words generate meaning (cognitive response)
•  Pictures activate cognitive and affective responses
• 4-way congruity between category of new product, framing
strategy, presentation format and communication response
(i.e., cognition, affective)
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
•  Align presentation format and message frame to RNP
and desired response
- hedonic: visual mental simulation
- utilitarian: verbal analogy and verbal mental simulation
- hybrid: verbal and visual mental simulation
•  Visual analogies inappropriate for RNPs regardless the
type
•  Opportunity to influence consumers’ evaluation of
RNPs with marketing communications: facilitate better
product introductions/ improve new product success
rates
STUDY LIMITATIONS
•  Experimental setting - limits generalization
beyond study sample
•  Differences related to consumer demographics
may exist - may not be as severe due to large
sample size
•  Stimuli not ‘purely’ visual (verbal) – but mix of
words and pictures increases external validity
FUTURE RESEARCH
•  How consumers use of different visual images to learn
about, and form preferences (e.g., others-related vs selfrelated visualization [Dahl & Hoeffler, 2004])
•  Moderating role of RNP type in relationship between
visualization (self-related vs others-related) strategy and
product evaluation outcomes
•  Examine strategies to improve effectiveness of analogies
(e.g., use of experiential vs rational analogies for
hedonic vs utilitarian RNPs respectivley)
A Picture paints a thousand words………
Or
Why paint when one WORD says it all?
Analogies and Mental Simulations in Learning for Really
New Products (RNPs): Is a Picture Always Worth a
Thousand Words? The Impact of Presentation Formats in
Consumers’ Early Evaluation of Really New Products
(RNPs)
Research Presentation
Veronica Wong
Professor of Marketing, Kent Business School
Journal of Product Innovation Management (forthcoming 2013)
with S. Feiereisen, Cass Business School, A. J. Broderick, Salford Business School
Thank you.