Narrow Focusing: Why the Relative Position of a Good in Its Category Matters More Than It Should

References

• Aaker D. A.Building Strong Brands (1996) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Aaker D. A., Joachimsthaler E.Brand Leadership (2000) (Simon & Schuster Inc., New York) 98Google Scholar
• Aaker D. A., Keller K. L. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. J. Marketing (1990) 54(1):27–42Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abele A. E., Petzold P. Pragmatic use of categorical information in impression formation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1998) 75(2):347–358Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell D. R., Chiang J., Padmanabhan V. The decomposition of promotional response: An empirical generalization. Marketing Sci. (1999) 18(4):504–526Link, Google Scholar
• Biernat M., Manis M., Nelson T. E. Stereotypes and standards of judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1991) 60:485–499Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boush D. M., Loken B. A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. J. Marketing Res. (1991) 28(1):16–22Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E. The need for cognition. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1982) 42:116–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E., Feinstein J. A., Jarvis W. B. G. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psych. Bull. (1996) 119(2):197–253Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cremer H., Thisse J.-F. Location models of horizontal differentiation: A special case of vertical differentiation models. J. Indust. Econom. (1991) 39(4):383–390Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frank M. VW buffs up. Forbes (2002) online ed.Vehicle Feature, http://www.forbes.com/2002/05/13/0513feat.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Helson H.Adaptation-Level Theory (1964) (Harper and Row, New York) Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K. The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1996) 67:247–257Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K. Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. J. Behavioral Decision-Making (1998) 11:107–121Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K., Leclerc F. Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together? J. Consumer Res. (1998) 25:175–186Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K., Loewenstein G. F., Blount S., Bazerman M. H. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psych. Bull. (1999) 125(5):576–590Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K., You F., Zhang J., Zhang Y. Medium maximization. J. Consumer Res. (2003) 30(1):1–15Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Miller D. T. Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternative. Psych. Rev. (1986) 93(2):136–153Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Ritov I. Determinants of willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. J. Risk Uncertainty (1994) 9:5–38Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Ritov I., Schkade D., Kahneman D., Tversky A. Economists have preferences; psychologists have attitudes: An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Choices, Values and Frames (2000) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Kahneman Daniel, Tversky Amos. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica (1979) 47:263–292Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keller K. L.Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity (2003) ed. 2(Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Kirmani A., Sood S., Bridges S. The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches. J. Marketing (1999) 63(1):88–100Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loken B., John D. Roedder. Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact? J. Marketing (1993) 57(July):71–84Crossref, Google Scholar
• Randall T., Ulrich K., Reibstein D. Brand equity and vertical product line extent. Marketing Sci. (1998) 17(4):356–379Link, Google Scholar
• Read D., Loewenstein G. Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety between combined and separate choices. J. Experiment. Psych.: Appl. (1995) 1(March):34–49Crossref, Google Scholar
• Read D., Loewenstein G., Rabin M. Choice bracketing. J. Risk Uncertainty (1999) 19:171–197Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shafir E., Diamond P., Tversky A. Money illusions. Quart. J. Econom. (1997) 112(May):341–373Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I., Tversky A. Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Marketing Res. (1992) 29(August):281–295Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I., Nowlis S., Lemon K. The effect of local consideration sets on global choice between lower price and higher quality. Marketing Sci. (1993) 12(4):357–378Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science (1981) 211:453–458Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Osselaer S. M. J., Alba J. W., Manchanda P. Irrelevant information and mediated intertemporal choice. J. Consumer Psych. (2004) 14(3):257–270Crossref, Google Scholar