THE PROTOTYPICALITY OF BRANDS: RELATIONSHIPS
WITH BRAND AWARENESS, PREFERENCE AND USAGE
Prakash Nedungadi, University of Florida
J. Wesley Hutchinson, University of Florida
Abstract
Although most theoretical accounts of market
definition, competition and brand choice entail the
assumption that consumers categorize products and
brands, explicit accounts of product categorization
have been lacking in the consumer research
literature. Categorization processes are
particularly relevant for constructs such as brand
awareness and the evoked set. Much recent
psychological research on categorization has
investigated the representativeness, or
"prototypicality," of category members. This paper
presents results from an exploratory study that
investigated various aspects of prototypicality for
brands in several product classes. The study also
examined the relationships between prototypicality
and other marketing related variables such as brand
name awareness, usage and liking.
Introduction
Awareness of a product or the ability to bring it to
mind has often been considered an important
determinant of choice. Practitioners and consumer
researchers alike have been interested in indicators
of memorability, since brand recall may play an
important role in determining whether a product is
considered for purchase at all. The notion of the
evoked set (Howard & Sheth, 1969; Campbell, 1969;
Narayana & Markin, 1975) posits that a set of brands
or products are retrieved by consumers and considered
for purchase. Various standard measures, such as
aided and unaided brand name recall and top-of-mind
awareness, rest on the assumption that the ability of
the consumer to remember a brand or product will
strongly affect the probability of its being
considered for purchase.
In an attempt to understand what drives product
awareness researchers have examined the relationship
between awareness and a wide variety of marketing and
consumer behavior variables (e.g., Axelrod, 1968;
Haley and Case, 1979). Important among these are
variables such as brand attitude, preference and
usage, and advertising recall. Each of these have
been found to be related to brand recall in
systematic ways.
Research in psychology and consumer behavior, within
the information processing paradigm, has examined the
"strength of association" between concepts and has
demonstrated the importance of variables such as
frequency and recency (of exposure) in determining
strength of association and thereby in affecting
retrievability of a certain concept given relevant
cues. Recent work on categories and categorization
processes has established the importance of
"prototypicality" as a determinant of the associative
strength between a category concept and members of
the category. Prototypicality (or simply
typicality), is a measure of how representative an
object is of a category. Operationally, the
prototypicality (of an object) is measured by
individuals' ratings of how "good an example" they
consider the object, of a category (Rosch, 1973).
498
Internal Structure
In classical concept formation experiments, categories
were thought of as composed of undifferentiated,
functionally equivalent instances. Any stimulus which
fit the definition of the concept (i.e., possessed the
necessary and sufficient criteria for membership) was
considered as good an example of the category as any
other. However, it has been subsequently established
in a number of naturally occurring^domaips^that all
members are not equally representcitive of the
categories to which they belong, and necessary and
sufficient conditions for category membership seldom
exist. More specifically, it has been established
that:
(1) Some instances are better examples of a
category than others (e.g., Rosch, 1973,
1975; Rips, Shoben & Smith, 1973).
(2) Items exist whose category membership is
uncertain (e.g., Labov, 1973; McCloskey S
Glucksberg, 1978).
(3) Non-members of a category vary in how
similar they are to the category concept
(e.g., Barsalou, 1983).
These findings have been considered indicative of the
fact that categories possess internal structure. To
quote Rosch (1973), "Categories are composed of a
'core meaning' which consists of the clearest cases
(best examples) of a category, surrounded by other
members of decreasing similarity to that core
meaning." Thus, objects in a category vary in their
typicality leading to graded, internal structure
within the category.
Determinants of Prototypicality
A number of explanations have been proposed for how
people assign or arrive at the clearest cases within
categories. In general, two distinct factors have
been identified. First, objects that are frequently
encountered as instances of the category are perceived
to be representative of the category. Second, objects
that possess attributes that occur frequently within
the category are also perceived to be representative.
Thus, it is possible for an item to have high
prototypicality even though it is rarely encountered
if its attributes are typical of the category.
In research using artificial, statistically generated
categories, such as random dot patterns, the
'prototype' could be identified a priori as the
central, or average, member of the category. However
for most domains, prototypes do not precede the
category but appear to be formed through the
processing of relationships between items within the
categories. Rosch (1975) has argued that the majority
of objects encountered in nature possess attributes
that are highly correlated with one another. The
attributes "has feathers" and "lay eggs" are not
statistically independent properties; likewise, the
"curb weight" and "luxuriousness" of cars tend to be
correlated. This correlational attribute structure
leads to natural clusters of objects which get named
 in various ways so as to form categories. As a
result, objects within the same category tend to have
many attributes in common. Moreover, these
attributes occur infrequently in contrasting
categories. This high intra-category similarity is
referred to as family resemblance (Rosch & Mervis,
1975).
Cohen (1982) suggests that we should consider affect
as residing in the category itself and that we may
well categorize our world to reflect our evaluations
of it. This would be especially true for product
categories, where evaluation clearly serves an
important purpose. If consumer categories are to be
functional, they may well group products into
categories that incorporate affect (e.g., "affordable
cars" or "movies I would take the family to"). This
suggests that the prototypical ity of a brand could be
affected by such marketing variables as the
importance and determinance of attributes, brand
evaluations, preferences and levels of usage.
Effects of Prototypicality
Prototypicality has been found to affect a number of
major dependent variables used in psychological
research which carry clear implications for consumer
behavior. Speed of processing and response times for
verification of category membership were found to be
faster for representative members of a category.
Importantly the frequency and order of production of
members of a category (in response to free
elicitation tasks) was found to be significantly
correlated with degree of typicality (Mervis, Catlin
& Rosch, 1976). All of these measures are natural
indices of brand awareness and should be related to
the ease with which a brand is recalled when the need
for a particular product class arises.
Category membership is learned first for the most
representative exemplars and last for the least
representative ones. In addition, categories are
learned more easily if initial exposure is to
representative examplars only (Mervis & Pani, 1980)
There is no reason to believe that learning would be
any different for product categories. Thus, the
representativeness of a specific brand could have a
major impact on the acquisition of brand-related
knowledge, particularly for consumers with low
product familiarity.
Extensions of Prototypicality to Other Domains
The notion of representativeness in categorization
has recently spread to quite a few domains besides
object categories. While findings of typicality have
been quite robust, the explanations for the
development of internal structure have not always
been the same.
Barsalou (1983) studied prototypicality in ad hoc or
goal-derived categories - such as "things to take on
a camping trip", or "things not to eat on a diet".
His findings differ from those for natural object
categories in certain respects and are quite relevant
to consumer product categorization. Barsalou finds
that although the members of such categories are
quite heterogeneous they still give rise to
typicality effects. However, typicality was not
determined by family resemblance (i.e., its general
similarity to other members of the category) but by
(a) the value of the item on the goal-relevant
dimension and
499
(b) the frequency with which the item had been
used as an instance of the concept in the
past.
For example, "things not to eat on a diet" would have
high calories and edibility as goal-relevant
dimensions. Chocolate and butter, although they may
not normally belong to the same product category, are
thought of as highly typical of this ad hoc category.
The determinants of typicality hypothesized by
Barsalou may be quite related to usage, frequency of
exposure and liking, and further underscore the need
to conduct domain-specific research to establish the
locus of typicality effects.
Other interesting research has demonstrated how
representativeness could have an effect on processing
of information about categories.„.For,instance, in
the area of inductive reasoning Rips (ig/S) shows how
novel information about a category is often
generalized asymmetrically with respect to
typicality. New information about typical members is
more likely to be generalized to atypical members
than vice-versa. Ttiis type of generalization would
be especially important for consumer expectations
about pricing. In most circumstances, consumers do
not have access to price information for all brands
and all retail outlets. Since prices change on a
continuing basis, inferences about price are a
virtual necessity.
Finally, Kahnemann and Tversky (1973) and Tversky and
Kahnemann (1973) demonstrate how individuals use
various decision heuristics based purely on the
availability and representativeness of certain
events/items. This often leads to significant biases
in judgment.
An Exploratory Investigation of Brand Prototypicality
Objectives of the Study
Prototypicality appears to be an important product
related variable that deserves further study. It
could have effects on diverse consumer behaviors, such
as retrieval of product information, generalization
within product categories, making of inferences and
ultimately brand choice. It is quite surprising that
given the robustness of these findings in other
domains, no attempts have been made to verify its
importance in consumer behavior.
The objectives of this study were thus to:
(1) Verify the existence of "prototypical
products" and graded, internal structure in
consumer product categories.
(2) Examine the importance of typicality as a
determinant of product/brand awareness.
(3) Explore the relationships between
prototypicality and other important
variables such as brand preference and
usage.
(4) Examine the effects of the level of
generality at which the product class is
defined (i.e., the breadth of market
boundaries) on the above relationships.
Methodology
The principal manipulations in this study pertained to
the level of abstraction at which the product classes
were defined. Two superordinate level product
categories, magazines and beverages, and four counterbalanced as in the second questionnaire.
subordinate level categories, news magazines, Seventy-two undergraduates at the University of
business magazines, soft drinks and beers, were used Florida participated in this study in return for
in the study (see Figure 1 ) . A target set of brands course credit.
was defined for each subordinate category based on
estimated market penetration (Simmons, 1982). The Results and Discussion
principal dependent measures were unaided brand name
recall, rated prototypicality, rated liking and Typicality effects. Subjects found the task of rating
self-reported rate of usage. prototypicality readily understandable and appeared to
have no problem in rating representativeness of brands
within a product class. Table 1 shows the the mean
FIGURE 1 ratings on typicality obtained by each brand for both
subordinate and superordinate levels. Mere
Levels of Abstraction for Product Categories examination of the results indicate quite a few points
of interest.
Superordinate MAGAZINES BEVERAGES
Level The phenomenon of graded structure is readily
apparent. Subjects consistently rated some brands as
being more typical than others. An analysis of
Subordinate NEWS BUSINESS BEER SOFT variance found significant main effects of Brand and
Level MAGAZINES MAGAZINES i DRINKS Level (F[37,1796] = 14.94, p < .00001, and F[1,1796J =
25.92, p < .00001, respectively). The interaction was
also significant F[37,1796] = 3.83, p < .00001).
Brand Level 10 Brands 8 Brands 10 Brands 10 Brands Subjects was included as a random factor and was
significant (F[71,1796] = 6.31, p < .00001). Mean
prototypicality ratings are presented in Table 1. The
Each subject completed three questionnaires during obtained values appear to be consistent with intuitive
the experimental session. The order in which the expectations about brand prototypicality. For
questionnaires were given was the same for each instance. Time and Coca Cola received high
subject. In the first questionnaire, unaided brand prototypicality ratings at both the subordinate and
name recall was measured. Subjects were given five the superordinate levels, while New Republic and R.C.
minutes to recall as many brands as possible Cola received low ratings for both. Quite in line
belonging to a particular product class. This task with research in other domains, the phenomenon of
was performed twice, once for each product class typicality appears relevant to product categorization.
(i.e., magazines or beverages). The three levels of
generality for each product class (i.e., the TABLE 1
superordinate or one of the two subordinates) were
varied randomly across subjects. Thus, each subject Mean Prototypicality Ratings By Brand
was assigned to one of nine (3 x 3) possible and Level of Abstraction
conditions. The order in which product classes
occurred (i.e., magazines first vs. beverages first) Magazine Brands Prototypicality
was also varied randomly across subjects. Unaided
brand recall yielded three empirical measures. Brand Subordinate Superordinate
Recall was defined as one if the brand was listed, Category Cateqory
zero otherwise. Top-of-Mind Awareness was defined as News Magazines
one if the brand was the first listed, zero
otherwise. Finally, Conditional Awareness was the U.S. News & World Report 8.30 7.33
rank of a brand in the list, given that it was Time 8.22 8.50
recalled. That is, the first brand listed had rank Newsweek 7.70 8.25
1, the second listed had rank 2, etc. All measures Life 5.74 7.46
were computed only for those brands that were in the New Yorker 4.92 6.30
target set. If a target brand was not recalled. National Geographic 4.91 6.79
Conditional Awareness was treated as a missing Reader's Digest 4.71
observation. 5.96
People 4.26 7.25
Us 3.89 4.36
The second questionnaire asked subjects to rate the New Republic 3.83 3.43
prototypicality of each brand on a nine point scale.
Prototypicality was defined and given examples in a Mean Rating 5.65 6.56
manner very similar to that used by Rosch (1973).
The distinction between prototypicality and Business Magazines
preference were specifically noted. Two randomly
constructed orderings of the brands, and their Business Week 7.70 6.92
corresponding reverse orderings were used, one Forbes 7.23 5.30
ordering per subject. These four orderings were Fortune 6.85 6.52
counter-balanced across subjects. The category level Money 6.60 5.93
to be used in making the prototypicality judgment Barrons 5.80 4.70
(i.e., superordinate vs. subordinate) was varied Changing Times 5.66 4.80
randomly within subjects on a brand-by-brand basis Harvard Business Review 5.40 5.63
and counterbalanced across subjects. Industry Week 5.10 4.81
The third questionnaire asked subjects to rate each Mean Rating 6.29 5.58
brand on a nine point scale indicating their liking
for the brand and to indicate the approximate number
of times that they had used the brand in the last
month. Note that no particular level of generality
was specified in this task. The order of
presentation of brands was randomized anew and
500
 TABLE 1 (continued) Barsalou (1983) shows how typicality in ad hoc
categories could be affected by frequency of prior
Beverage Brands exposure and goal-relevant evaluation.
Subordinate Superordinate
Category Category As Cohen (1982) points out, product categories could
Soft Drinks function quite differently from the more "passive"
object categories that have been the traditional
Coca Cola 8.55 7.92 domain of research. Consumers are constantly exposed
Pepsi Cola 8.41 7.56 to advertising, point-of-purchase displays and
Sunkist 7.52 6.27 messages that proclaim benefits of specific brands,
Diet Pepsi 7.52 6.50 often forcing them to make evaluations prior to
Seven Up 7.52 7.18 purchase. In such a scenario one would expect to see
Sprite 7.14 7.28 quite different and systematic effects of affect and
Mountain Dew 6.60 5.90 frequency. While we do not take a position as strong
Dr. Pepper 6.50 6.04 as Cohen's — that "affect resides at the category
Tab 6.50 6.80 level" -- it does seem plausible that affect would
R.C. Cola 6.04 5.45 play a more influential role in the semantics of
consumer products than in other natural categories.
Mean Rating 7.23 6.69 For instance, attitudes toward a given brand and
personal experience with that brand might become part
Beer of the meaning of the brand concept.
Michel ob 8.04 6.74 In order to examine the relationship between
Budweiser 7.63 6.70 prototypicality, brand awareness and brand preference,
Miller High Life 7.61 5.42 the mean values of each variable were computed across
Coors 7.46 6.61 subjects for each brand. Prototypicality was measured
Michelob Light 7.46 6.96 at two levels of generality (i.e., Superordinate and
Strohs 7.46 6.61 Subordinate). Similarily, Brand Recall, Top-of-Mind
Miller Light 6.88 6.51 Awareness and Conditional Awareness were measured at
Schlitz 6.30 3.70 two levels of generality. Note that means for each
Old Milwaukee 5.78 3.88 level of Prototypicality were computed across both
Pabst Blue Ribbon 5.78 3.92 levels of generality for the memory variables, and
vice versa. This aspect of the design counterbalances
Mean Rating 7.03 5.70 certain task artifacts that could generate spurious
correlations between the prototypicality and memory
An examination of the prototypicality ratings for measures. The reported usage rates were used to
different category levels reveals expected changes in generate individual usage shares defined at the
typicality. Brands thought of as poor examples of superordinate and subordinate levels. Specifically,
their subordinate category are thought of as poor if superordinate usage shares were computed as the brand
not worse examples of their superordinate category. usage rate divided by the total usage rate for the
An interesting reversal is seen for many brands superordinate product category. Subordinate usage
listed as News Magazines. In fact, only U.S. News & shares were computed in the same way, except the total
World Report and New Republic were rated higher at usage rate was defined at the subordinate level. Since
the subordinate level. This illustrates one effect the task did not specify a level of generality for
of misclassifying brands in "ill-fitting" product liking, and ratings are not generally thought to be a
classes. It also provides evidence that the two ratio scale measure, there was no natural way in which
measures of prototypicality are distinguishable and two levels of liking could be specified. The
do not simply measure the same underlying construct. intercorrelations between all of these variables are
given for Magazines in Table 2 and Beverages in Table
This finding is relevant to the establishment of
product-market boundaries in line with consumer
perceptions of product-usage (Day, Shocker, and TABLE 2
Srivastava, 1979). If products are classified into
categories where they do not fit "naturally" they MAGAZINES (N = 18)
will have more in common with contrasting categories
and will be far less typical, resulting in poor 1.0 P =
Prototypicality
associations with the category concept and poor R =
Brand Recall
recall. Some of the results discussed in the next .61 1.0 T =
Top-of-Mind Awareness
section suggest further implications of product A =
Conditional Awareness
misclassification. .80 .41 1.0 U =
Usage Share
L =
Liking
Relationships Between Variables. Prior work on .81 .83 .75 1.0 B =
Superordinate Level
typicality effects using natural object categories, (subscript)
has attempted to separate the effects of typicality .43 .39 .58 .51 1.0 S = Subordinate Level
on dependent measures (such as speed of processing or (subscript)
production) from the effects of other variables such .59 .67 .67 .75 .92 1.0
as liking, frequency and familiarity.
Prototypicality is posited as a pure 'cognitive' .71 .27 .66 .49 .44 .52 1.0
construct unaffected by more attitudinal or
evaluative measures. Rosch (1973) detected low .30 .67 .19 .55 .32 .51 .14 1.0
correlations between the typicality of members in
most object categories and liking for these members. .76 .50 .87 .73 .83 .86 .53 .27 1.0
Notable exceptions were "crime" and "disease" where
degree of typicality was seen as being tied to .65 .64 .59 .72 .57 .67 .16 .37 .79 1.0
negative affect for the category. McCloskey (1980)
and Malt & Smith (1982) show that while typicality is .95 .61 .86 .87 .47 .62 .64 .29 .80 .69 1.0
affected by familiarity, variations in typicality do
exist independent of variations in familiarity.
501
 TABLE 3
BEVERAGES (N = 20)
1.0 P =
Prototypicality
R =
Brand Recall
,76 1,0 T =
Top-of-Mind Awareness
A =
Conditional Awareness
,67 ,45 1,0 U =
Usage Share
L =
Liking
,54 ,74 ,48 1,0 B =
Superordinate Level
(subscript)
,35 ,40 ,45 ,29 1,0 S = Subordinate Level
(subscript)
,35 .61 ,34 ,57 ,80 1,0
,33 ,27 ,77 ,31 ,47 ,34 1,0
,53 ,66 ,55 ,69 ,55 ,80 ,41 1,0
,66 ,67 ,38 ,45 .73 ,68 ,32 ,48 1,0
.64 ,69 ,21 ,49 ,62 .64 ,11 ,45 ,96 1,0
,92 ,89 ,67 ,64 .37 .45 ,31 ,60 ,60 ,60 1,0
Prototypicality
The most obvious result is that most of the
correlations of other variables with Prototypicality
are in the expected directions and are significant.
In particular, both levels of Prototypicality were
found to be highly correlated with Liking for both
Magazines and Beverages, This is consistent with our
earlier discussion of the role of affect in
determining the internal structure of product
categories. Specifically, this result suggests that
the semantic importance and the evaluative importance
of attributes are similar for these product
categories. It is likely that these correlations have
been inflated by method variance attributed to the
fact that Prototypicality and Liking are the only
rating scale measures. If this were the sole
determinant of the correlations, however. Liking and
the two levels of Prototypicality would be expected
to exhibit the same patterns of correlation with the
other variables. It will become evident from the
discussion that follows that this is not the case,
A second interesting aspect of the relationship
between the two levels of Prototypicality and Liking
is that it interacts with product class. For
Beverages, Liking is equally correlated with both
levels of Prototypicality, For Magazines, however,
the correlation is higher with Superordinate
Prototypicality, This pattern is also present for the
correlations between the two levels of
Prototypicality and Superordinate Usage share. Given
our earlier discussion of the missclassification of
News Magazines, this result suggests that Liking will
be strongly related to Prototypicality only when
"natural" product categories are used. An interesting
area for future research will be to examine the
relationship between cognitive and evaluative
determinants of naturally occurring market
boundaries.
Brand Awareness Measures
The various brand awareness measures exhibited
differential sensitivity to the other variables. In
general, Top-of-Mind Awareness was most highly
correlated with Usage Share, Conditional Awareness,
on the other hand, was most correlated with
502
Prototypicality and Liking, Brand Recall did not
consistently differentiate between Prototypicality,
Liking, and Usage Share, This suggests that consumers
access a product category first through brands they
use and then retrieve brands based on structural
aspects of memory such as product attributes.
Interestingly, Usage Share is the variable that is
most sensitive to the frequency with which a brand is
encountered in the external environment. Conversely,
Prototypicality and Liking are more related to
internal, cognitive representations.
Finally, the internal validity of the distinction
between superordinate and subordinate levels of
generality was supported by a consistent interactive
pattern of correlations. Variables measured at the
same level of generality were consistently correlated
more highly than the variables measured at different
levels of generality. This was true for both product
classes.
Conclusions
In this paper we have outlined several ways in which
prototypicality is likely to be of interest to
consumer researchers. Although the reported results
must be considered exploratory, there are several
clear implications. First, there appear to be
significant differences between brands with respect to
judged prototypicality. Second, contrary to the trend
for ordinary object categories (Rosch, 1973), the
prototypicality of brands appears to be significantly
related to personal preference. Finally, different
memory-based measures of brand awareness appear to be
differentially sensitive to internal and environmental
aspects of product familiarity. In particular.
Conditional Awareness was found to be strongly related
to Prototypicality and Liking, but not to Usage Share,
Top-of-Mind Awareness exhibited the opposite trend.
Issues regarding the reliability and validity of the
brand prototypicality construct and its casual
relationships with other theoretical constructs are
important areas of future research.
References
Axelrod, J, N, (1968), "Advertising Measures that
Predict Purchase," Journal of Advertising Research, 8,
3-17,
Barsalou, L. W. (1983), "Ad-Hoc Categories," Memory &
Cognition, JJ_(3), 211-227,
Campbell, B, H, (1969), "The Existence of Evoked Set
and Determinants of its Magnitude in Brand Choice
Behavior," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia
University.
Cohen, J, B, (1982), "The Role of Affect in
Categorization: Toward a Reconsideration of the
Concept of Attitude," in Andrew A. Mitchell (ed).
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 9, 94-100,
Day, G, S,, A, D. Shocker, and R, K, Srivastava
(1979), "Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying
Product-Markets," Journal of Marketing, 43, (Fall),
8-19,
Haley, R, I,, & P, B, Case (1979), "Testing Thirteen
Attitude Scales for Agreement and Brand
Discrimination," Journal of Marketing, 43, 20-32.
Heider, E. R, (1972), "Universals in Color Naming and
Memory," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93,
10-20,
Howard, J. A., and J. Sheth (1969), The Theory of
Buyer Behavior, New York, Wiley.
Kahnemann, D., and A. Tversky (1973), "Subjective
Probability: A Judgement of Representativeness,"
Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454.
Labov, W. (1973), "The Boundaries of Words and Their
Meanings." in C. J. N. Bailey & R. W. Shuy (eds.).
New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, Vol. 1,
Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Malt, B. C , and E. E. Smith (1982), "The Role of
Familiarity in Determining Typicality," Memory and
Cognition, 10(1), 69-75.
McCloskey, M. E. (1980), "The Stimulus Familiarity
Problem in Semantic Memory Research," Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 485-502.
,& S. Glucksberg (1978), "Natural
Categories: Well Defined or Fuzzy Sets?," Memory &
Cognition, j6, 462-72.
Mervis, C. B., J. Catlin, and E. Rosch (1976),
"Relationship Among Goodness-of-Example, Category
Norms, and Word Frequency," Bulletin of The
Psychonomic Society, 7, 2 8 3 - M ;
, & J. R. Pani (1980), "Acquisition of
Basic Object Categories," Cognitive Psychology, 12.
Narayana, L. L., and R. T. Markin (1975), "Consumer
Behavior and Product Performance: An Alternative
Conceptualization," Journal of Marketing, 39, 1-6.
Rips, L. J. (1975), "Inductive Judgements About
Natural Categories," Journal of Verba! Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 14, 665-681.
, E. J. Shoben, and E. E. Smith (1973),
"Semantic Distance and the Verification of Semantic
Relations," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 12, 1-20.
Rosch, E. (1973), "On the internal Structure of
Perceptual and Semantic Categories," in T. E. Moore
(ed) Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of
Language, 111-44, New York, Academic Press.
(1975), "Cognitive Representations of
Semantic Categories," Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 104, 192-233.
(1978), "Principles of Categorization,"
in E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (ed) Cognition and
Categorization, 27-48.
Rosch, E. & C. B. Mervis (1975), "Family Resemblance
Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories,"
Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
Simmons Market Research Bureau, Inc. (1982), Simmons
1982 Study of Media and Markets, Vols. 1, 17,~T8^
Tversky, A., and D. Kanhmann (1973), "Availability: A
Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,"
Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-32.

503
Copyright of Advances in Consumer Research is the property of Association for Consumer Research and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.