Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41 (2018) 70–78

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Curiosity motivated vacation destination choice in a reward and variety- T

seeking perspective
Rita Martenson
School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Box 610, SE40530 Gothenburg, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Most research in marketing and consumer behavior is focused on inexpensive products and customer loyalty,
Variety-seeking behavior rather than on experience-centric services and variety-seeking behavior. This paper aims to address that gap by
Experience-centric services focusing on what drives European consumers’ variety-seeking vacation behavior. Europeans maximize their
Vacations utility (happiness) through leisure (Okulics-Kozaryn, 2011). It is therefore reasonable to assume that rewards
Tourism
drive variety-seeking vacation-behavior in Europe. The proposed and tested model integrates neuro-research
Rewards
Neuro-research
with research in marketing to provide new ways of thinking about the variety-seeking phenomenon.

1. Introduction and purpose experience-centric services as it is for products. Variety-seeking beha-

Consumers are constantly tempted by new products and services
that could give them new experiences. Digital platform firms make it
easy to buy whatever they want from anywhere in the world. That
phenomenon is part of what is called a switching economy. Higher
disposable incomes make it easier to do more, often for much less
money than before. For example, Europeans don’t go on vacation one
time per year but several times with an EU-28 average of 4 trips per
year (Eurostat, 2017). There are however big differences within the EU
with the Finns (8.2) and Danes (8.0) making the most trips and the
Greek (1.6) and Bulgarians (1.7) making the least number of vacation
trips. All these new developments promote variety-seeking among
consumers. But all consumers are not equally tempted to choose
variety. They must want to experience new things. Without wanting
there is no desire for new experiences, no approach behavior towards
new opportunities. This study is about such differences between people,
and what makes them more prone to choose variety as opposed to
consistency when they choose vacation destinations.
Consumers’ vacation destinations offer a complex combination of
multiple experience-centric services. Experience-centric services are
different not only from products but also from traditional services (see
Voss et al. (2008) for more details). Traditional services may have no or
little experiential content, whereas destinations have a strong experi-
ential positioning. Most experiences are characterized by a relatively
short duration involving one major activity or visit (e.g., a meal, a
movie, a ball game), but tourist destinations are designed around many
attractions and for longer durations over extended periods. There are
several reasons to investigate whether variety-seeking is the same for
vior seems at least partially to be a product category specific phe-
nomenon, in which consumers may seek variety in one product cate-
gory but not in another (Van Trijp et al., 1996). A vacation destination
offers a package of different experience-centric services with far more
diversity and stimulation capability than homogeneous supermarket
products with no experiential content. Consumers may thus look for-
ward to their repeat visits, as they never know exactly what to expect
the next time. Vacations are important to European consumers. They
maximize their utility through leisure as opposed to work, and working
less makes them happy (Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2011). The major motivation
for EU-consumers’ choice of their main holiday was ‘rest and recreation’
(37%), 19% wanted a ‘sun and beach’ vacation, and for 17% the main
objective was to visit friends or relatives (Eurobarometer, 2010). That
indicates that vacations are rewarding in a number of ways.
Consumers’ choice of where to go on their vacations is a substantive
phenomenon, both in a social and economic sense. Many countries,
regions and places depend on the tourism sector for their economies.
Tourism is the third largest socio-economic activity in the EU. As a
consequence it is a real theoretical contribution to put structure on such
a phenomenon (Lynch, 2012). With a better understanding of what
motivates variety-seeking we will know when it is possible to persuade
variety-seekers to return and what would make them willing to return
again. Variety-seeking could be either intrinsically or extrinsically
motivated (van Trijp et al., 1996). This study is limited to intrinsically
motivated behavior tendencies, which are curiosity-motivated (e.g.,
Kashdan et al., 2004). Curiosity-motivated behaviors are exploratory
because consumers engage in them primarily for the pleasure (reward)
inherent in changing the stimulus field by for example going to different

E-mail address: rita.martenson@handels.gu.se.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.009
Received 26 June 2017; Received in revised form 20 November 2017; Accepted 21 November 2017
Available online 08 December 2017
0969-6989/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Martenson
places for vacations (see Raju, 1980; Baumgartner and Steenkamp,
1996 for a review). What is rewarding to different consumers varies.
Research on mindsets (Dweck, 2008; Murphy and Dweck, 2016) help to
clarify the difference between variety-seekers and consistency-seekers.
The willingness to put effort into learning something new varies be-
tween individuals. Variety-seekers who have a growth mindset are
positive to effort and learning, while consistency-seekers who have a
fixed mindset are less eager to make an effort to learn new things.
Consumers with a growth mind-set view effort as the fuel that makes
the engine run, and they want to stretch and develop themselves
(Murphy and Dweck, 2016). They want a lot, and they are process or-
iented. Consumers with a fixed mindset believe that human traits are
relatively fixed. They don’t believe that people develop and change in
significant ways. They have a lower level of wanting than the growth-
minded. These two groups differ in the information they attend to and
the benefits they seek from different products and services. Thus, their
outlook on life is quite different. Variety-seekers are assumed to have a
higher level of intensity in their need for stimulation. Their optimum
stimulation level (OSL) is higher than that for consistency-seekers.
Current arousal can be greater, equal or less than OSL, and the dis-
crepancy results in attempts to reduce or augment stimulation
(Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992; Wahlers and Etzel, 1985). Con-
sumers’ needs for stimulation may also be met by providing variety in a
different product category or in other aspects of the choice context
(Menon and Kahn, 1995). They may for example choose the same place
for their vacation, but choose different hotels restaurants, excursions,
etc. This study deals only with their choice of destination (place).
The purpose of this study is to propose new ways of thinking about
the variety-seeking phenomenon in relation to consumers’ choice of
experience-centric services in general and in particular their choice of
destination (place) for their vacations. The revised view is based on an
integration of research findings in marketing and neuro-research by for
example Berridge and Kringelbach respectively Litman (see references).
Neuro-researchers have worked extensively with curiosity-motivated
exploratory behavior as well as with rewards, and the integration of
such studies provides different and deeper insights into curiosity-mo-
tivated exploratory behavior in a reward perspective. Integration pro-
vides a simple and parsimonious perspective that accommodates com-
plexity, and draws on literature from multiple sciences (see MacInnis,
2011, for details). The need for conceptual and theoretical contribu-
tions has never been greater in the fields of marketing and consumer
research (Belk et al., 2017). Such contributions have dramatically de-
creased, making our thinking narrower, and as a consequence our re-
search has become impoverished (Belk et al., 2017). The new holistic
view is presented in a model that is tested on a non-student sample. The
theoretical frame of reference suggests several reasons why there are
differences between variety-seekers and consistency-seekers in terms of
what they like and what is rewarding to them. It is likely that variety-
seekers prefer an anticipated reward rather than an instant reward. An
anticipated reward requires more effort and could be a collectible ex-
perience (climbing a mountain, preparing for and visit museums or art
exhibitions). An instant reward could be for example a hedonic ex-
perience from a charter trip to a beach hotel. That could be further
developed in future studies. The analysis in this study is limited to the
differences between these groups in terms of the intensity of their
wanting new experiences and the relative importance of different dri-
vers of variety-seeking.
This study makes several contributions to the marketing literature.
It puts structure on a substantive phenomenon, variety-seeking for ex-
perience-centric services such as vacation destinations (Lynch, 2012). It
gives a conceptual contribution by integrating the marketing literature
on variety-seeking as well as the mind-set theory with neuro-research
literature, which gives a much deeper understanding of what drives
variety-seekers versus consistency-seekers to behave as they do (see
MacInnis, 2011). It is an advantage to look at exploratory experience
seeking as a process with the components wanting-liking-reward
71
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41 (2018) 70–78
learning from studies in neuro-science. That makes it possible to
quantify the differences between variety-seekers and consistency-see-
kers, which hasn’t been done before. The intensity of desires (wanting)
is higher for variety-seekers than for consistency-seekers. They are more
curious, more novelty seeking, and more adventurous and risk willing.
Prior studies on supermarket products may not be relevant for con-
clusions about more complex and expensive products and experience-
centric services. The latter have a high stimulation capability which
consumers enjoy during an extensive time period when they plan, ex-
perience, and later remember them. Finally, as a by-product rather than
the focus of the study, the main analysis is on a theory-based sample
rather than the total sample. Results for both are reported, but theories
(e.g., the Elaboration Likelihood Model by Petty and Cacioppo (1986))
are based on the most typical individuals despite the fact that the real
world isn’t as polarized as the theories indicate. That is in line with the
parsimony and the holistic perspective characteristic of integrative
frameworks (see MacInnis, 2011). This research consists of two parts.
First, a theoretical framework on exploratory experience seeking ten-
dencies (EEST) is proposed. Then a model based on the theoretical
framework is tested with structural equation modeling on a re-
presentative sample of consumers from a European country.
2. Theoretical frame of reference
Prior studies have suggested that there are two major reasons for
variety-seeking behavior: consumers’ exploratory experience seeking
and their productivity orientation. The majority of studies in the mar-
keting literature are based on student samples and experimental design.
That homogeneity creates large gaps in our understanding of the field.
Consequently, it comes as no surprise that the focus in almost all studies
is on very simple supermarket products such as snacks, soft drinks, etc.
Quantitative market studies (Feinberg et al., 1992; Inman, 2001; Kahn
et al., 1986; Seetharaman and Che, 2009; Simonson and Winer, 1992),
don’t distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Such stu-
dies are therefore less useful in the present study. Vacations differ from
supermarket products in many ways. Their stimulation capability is
high to very high (vs. very low for simple supermarket products such as
cookies, sweets, and soda), which makes it less likely that variety-
seeking is driven by boredom and satiation (escaping from). Rather, in a
vacation situation variety-seeking and the stimulation it brings is a
result of curiosity-motivated behavior tendencies (van Trijp et al.,
1996) and expectations of different kinds of rewards (Kringelbach and
Berridge, 2009) such as looking forward to the next vacation based on
the memories of rewarding experiences from earlier ones. Consumers’
choice of supermarket products may depend more on their pre-
decessors, which leads to preference for items rich in different attri-
butes at different points in time (McAlister, 1982). Thus, they may es-
cape from the satiation of the daily vanilla yoghurt for breakfast but
escape to new vacation experiences. A vacation could provide as much
enjoyment during the planning phase as during and after the con-
sumption phase. Consumers are highly involved in vacations, whereas
supermarket products are low-involvement products. Consumers may
buy supermarket products on impulse, whereas most vacations have a
longer planning horizon. The frequency of consumption is fairly low for
vacations (vs. very high for supermarket products). As an example,
when time passes, the stimulation capability of a familiar vacation
provider may increase again, and in the end variety-seekers may not
always try new providers (Sánchez-García et al., 2012).
A number of studies have manipulated the internal desire for change
by changing consumers’ mood states or by inducing positive affect and
by changing the frequency or intensity with which they approach the
product decision (Kahn, 1995). Consumers prefer variety when they are
in a good mood (Kahn and Isen, 1993), when thoughts about loyalty (as
opposed to boredom) are activated (Fishbach et al., 2011), when their
progress toward goal attainment is low (as opposed to high), (Etkin and
Ratner, 2012), when high (as opposed to low) self-monitors but also
R. Martenson
consumers in general are subject to public scrutiny (Choi et al., 2006;
Ratner and Kahn, 2002), when they make choices for others rather than
themselves (Choi et al., 2006; Etkin, 2016), and if they are chronically
indecisive consumers (Jeon and Drolet, 2016).
Other studies have looked at what happens with a change in fre-
quency or intensity, i.e. how decisions are influenced for example by
different time frames. The offer framing effect shows that different
framing of the choice affect variety seeking, and that consumers seek
more variety when they choose from single than from bundled offerings
(Kahn et al., 1997; Mittelman et al., 2014). Such results raise the pos-
sibility that the tendency to seek variety can be partially explained by
the way consumers are asked to make their choices (Mittelman et al.,
2014). For example, when individuals heard their favorite song 11–15
times they switched to less-preferred options (repeating their favorite
song 11 times and another song 4 times) even though they enjoyed
those items less than the more preferred option where their favorite
song was repeated 15 times (Ratner et al., 1999). Another study showed
that consumers distribute their choices over several alternatives when
they make multiple purchases to use over a period of time (Shen and
Wyer, 2010). Variety increases happiness for time periods like a day
(long), but decreases happiness for short time periods like an hour
(Etkin and Mogilner, 2016). These results are difficult to apply to va-
cations as well as many other product and service categories, for ex-
ample cars, furniture, having a haircut, shoes and other non-frequently
purchased and more expensive product categories. Consumers buy one
vacation at a time, and they may keep their car 10–15 years before
making a new choice. Vacations differ from supermarket products in
other ways as well. Products have search attributes and can be eval-
uated before purchase and use, whereas experience-centric services
have experience attributes and can be evaluated only after they have
been used (Berry and Yadav, 1996). Experience-centric services con-
sequently have a higher risk level than products in general and super-
market products in particular. Well-managed destinations change over
time and may not be the same this year as last year. Consumers don’t
know exactly what they will get, and adding variety-seeking to those
intangible characteristics increase the risk-level.
Only a few studies have focused on vacations and consumers’
variety-seeking tendencies (Bigné et al., 2009; Goukens et al., 2007;
Sánchez-García et al., 2012), and all of these are based on non-student
samples. One theme was the difference between short-term and long-
term revisit intentions for consumers’ main holiday. Short term was
defined as revisit intentions for the next vacation trip, and long term
revisit intention was defined as in the distant future. Both those with
high and low variety-seeking tendencies had the same long-term revisit
intentions when they were satisfied and non-regretful about their de-
cision (Sánchez-García et al., 2012). The high variety-seekers had lower
intentions to revisit in the short-term. Satisfaction was the most im-
portant antecedent of revisit intention in the long-term, with variety-
seeking being the second most important (Bigné et al., 2009). Another
study found that consumers who are eager to go on vacation consider a
larger number of alternatives, and when they are less eager they prefer
their favorites (Goukens et al., 2007). Keinan and Kivetz (2011) focused
on two major types of vacation experiences: collectible experiences
such as going to an ice-hotel, city weekends, culture vacations, and
adventure trips, and hedonic experiences such as going to a beach re-
sort. Collectible experiences, are often unusual, unconventional, and
might be uncomfortable, less pleasurable than familiar options, and
even extreme or aversive (Keinan and Kivetz, 2011). They are chosen
not for the immediate pleasure but for additional utility from acquiring
a new experience, e.g., special memories which provide or stimulate
thought experiences. In the Keinan and Kivetz study of 141 online
participants who were asked to choose between a weekend vacation
either in Florida or at an ice hotel in Quebec, 41% of participants who
selected a Florida vacation specifically used the words ‘fun, enjoyable
or pleasant’, whereas only 8% of participants who selected the ice hotel
vacation mentioned words related to immediate pleasure. None of the
72
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41 (2018) 70–78
participants who chose a Florida vacation indicated that the experience
would be memorable, whereas 27% of participants who chose a visit to
an ice hotel viewed that vacation as an opportunity to purposely ac-
quire memorable experiences and stories or described that vacation as a
“memory maker” or a memorable experience.
To summarize, prior findings are only partially relevant for the
present study. They are based on inexpensive products with no ex-
periential content, and they don’t focus on the relative importance of
different drivers and the differences between variety-seekers and con-
sistency-seekers. A major problem is that prior findings haven’t been
validated on non-student samples and on other product and service
categories, and in particular experience-centric services. Prior studies
held background factors constant (e.g., by using student samples) which
could be an advantage or disadvantage. It is a threat to external validity
if some background factors are held constant at an unrealistic level and
if varying those background factors would have revealed a strong
treatment x background factor interaction (Lynch, 1999). In his re-
search on curiosity, Litman (2006, 2010) argued that it is a major
limitation that his findings are based on responses from only students;
students typically have greater information-seeking resources available
to them than non-students. Information-seeking resources play a major
role in curiosity-motivated behavior. As a whole, prior studies are very
limited as they haven’t used a mix of research approaches which would
have offered an opportunity to get the best of each approach while
avoiding the weaknesses of the same.
3. Towards a theory of curiosity-motivated exploratory
experience seeking tendencies
Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1992) categorized exploratory con-
sumer behavior tendencies as curiosity-motivated behavior, variety-
seeking, and risk taking and innovative behavior based on Raju (1980).
This categorization wasn’t tested in any model to predict variety-
seeking tendencies, or to show the relative importance of different
antecedents on variety-seeking consequences. There is consequently no
guidance from prior studies in the marketing literature that could be
used to develop a model. The proposed model is therefore developed
based on an integration of findings in neuro-research and marketing. At
the same time this lack of guidance leaves numerous opportunities for
future studies to refine, develop or even refute the proposed model.
In a research perspective, the choice of a pleasant experience such
as a vacation destination is a complex set of processes containing at
least the three dissociable psychological components of reward:
wanting, liking and reward learning, each with both conscious and non-
conscious sub-components (Berridge and Kringelbach, 2011), see Fig. 1.
Both wanting something and liking something reflect the core compo-
nents of subjectively felt desires and pleasures that we experience, and
both systems mediate reward learning in general (Litman, 2005).
Wanting is a type of incentive motivation that promotes
Rewards
Reward
Wanting Liking Learning
Variety-
seekers Medium Eudaimonic Delayed*
Consistency-
seekers Low Hedonic Immediate*
Fig. 1. The components of rewards. *E.g., Mischel et al., 1989.
R. Martenson
consumption of rewards, and attributes incentive value to stimuli as-
sociated with reward (Berridge et al., 2009; Litman, 2005; Walter et al.,
2005). As wanting increases, so does subjective discomfort until the
appetite is satisfied. Consistency-seekers are assumed to be less driven
by wanting than variety-seekers. They are therefore assumed to have
lower scores on all variables in the proposed model discussed in the
next section, e.g., they are curious but less so than variety-seekers.
Hedonic happiness may be conceived as ‘liking’ without ‘wanting’, i.e.,
a state of pleasure without disruptive desires, a state of contentment
(Kringelbach and Berridge, 2009). We may get pleasure from basic
sensory pleasures (hedonia) as well as from higher order, abstract or
cultural pleasures (eudaimonia). Food, sex and social interaction with
conspecifics are pleasures which involve some of the same brain circuits
(Berridge and Kringelbach, 2011). Variety-seekers may like collectible
experiences from more abstract or cultural pleasures, while con-
sistency-seekers may like hedonic experiences from basic sensory
pleasures. Liking is the actual pleasure component or hedonic impact of
a reward (Berridge et al., 2009; Walter et al., 2005). Liking reflects
opiate activity implicated in both the anticipation and experience of
pleasure due to satiation. Stimuli that are able to activate the hedonic
brain systems responsible for manufacturing and applying the gloss to a
sensation will be liked by the individual. Without the additional ‘he-
donic gloss’ painted on the sensation it will not be liked and perceived
as pleasurable. Liking handles the evaluation of stimuli in terms of
immediate or anticipated hedonic impact and corresponding affective
value (Litman, 2005). Reward learning in neuro-research includes the
associations, representations and predictions about future rewards
based on past experiences - the cognitive representations and memories
of reward.
3.1. The proposed model
The proposed model of variety-seeking as a curiosity-motivated
behavior, see Fig. 2, shows the links from curiosity to components re-
flecting novelty and challenge with growth opportunities from new
experiences and thus variety-seeking. Curiosity prompts proactive, in-
tentional behavior (exploration) in response to stimuli and activities
with the aim to increase knowledge of and experience with the target of
interest (Kashdan et al., 2004; Litman and Silvia, 2006). At the ex-
periential level the interested person has a feeling of wanting to in-
vestigate, wanting to extend or expand the self by incorporating new
information and having new experiences even at a risk with what the
place that has stimulated the interest may offer. Exploratory experience
seeking is perceived to be intrinsically rewarding, and such behavior
can be motivated by the prospect of exciting and novel experiences, the
desire for variation and change, and the urge to satisfy one's curiosity
(Berlyne, 1978).
3.2. Curiosity (curious)
Curiosity is defined as the intrinsic desire or intrinsic motivation, to
Novel
H1
H4
Curious Advent Variety
H5
H2
H3
H6
Trips
Fig. 2. The proposed model.
73
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41 (2018) 70–78
seek out and acquire new information (Litman, 2010). In Litman's
(2005) view, experiences of curiosity involve an interplay between
desire (i.e., wanting new information) and expected pleasure (i.e.,
liking the information once acquired). Litman theorized that a combi-
nation of relatively low wanting but moderately high liking is con-
sistent with curiosity, which involves information-seeking motivated
purely by the anticipation of increased enjoyment. Curiosity, what
Litman called I-type curiosity, has the goal to obtain information ex-
pected to stimulate positive feelings of interest, and is activated when
individuals recognize opportunities to discover something entirely new.
Litman described curiosity as a relaxed and pleasant feeling towards
new knowledge, also new information that isn’t a necessity. Curiosity is
associated with approach behavior and experiences of reward (Litman,
2005) which varies between people. Curious people are attracted to
new opportunities and to consolidate their knowledge and skills. It is
likely that very curious consumers who are eager to learn and experi-
ence more are variety-seekers, as they won’t reach their goal by going
to the same place every time (Etkin and Ratner, 2012).
H1:. Consumers who are very curious have a higher desire to
acquire new information than consumers who are less curious
(Novelty)
H2:. Consumers who are very curious have a higher adventure and
risk proneness than consumers who are less curious (Advent)
H3:. Consumers who are very curious go on more trips than less
curious consumers (Trips)
3.3. Novelty-seeking (novel)
Need for cognition and information seeking, innovative behavior
(the individual is relatively earlier in adopting an innovation than other
individuals), and exploration through shopping (Raju, 1980;
Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1995) are all examples of exploratory
behavior, where particularly innovativeness is important (Raju, 1980).
Learning new information is rewarding because it induces positive
feelings of enjoyment from engagement, entertainment or aesthetic
pleasure associated with such information (Litman, 2005). Dopami-
nergic processing of novelty might be important in driving exploration
of new environments, and the same area in the midbrain is activated
both in reward processing and by novel stimuli (Wittmann et al., 2007).
Dopamine promotes wanting rather than liking, as dopamine neurons
respond only to unpredictable stimuli (Schultz, 1997). Novel stimuli
represent salient learning signals that can motivate exploration in
search for potential rewards, the exploration bonus for rewards (Krebs
et al., 2009). An explanation is that novelty can act as a bonus for re-
wards under conditions when rewards are explicitly attended, thus
biasing the individual towards reward anticipation and providing a
motivational signal for exploration (Krebs et al., 2009).
H4:. Consumers who seek a lot of novelty are more prone to choose
variety than consumers who are less interested in novelty
3.4. Adventure and risk proneness (advent)
Risk-taking is a behavior that is particularly important in curiosity
motivated behavior (Raju, 1980; Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1996).
When curiosity is stimulated situations characterized by uncertainty are
viewed positively, and opportunities to resolve that uncertainty are
regarded as potentially enjoyable (Litman, 2010). Preference for the
status quo is a function of the security it provides (Langer, 1975), but
variety-seekers don’t seek security but risk. Based on that reasoning,
new places will be more persuasive to consistency-seekers if perceived
familiarity is increased. Places featured in TV-series, films, etc., are
more familiar than non-exposed and/or remote places. Variety-seekers
are more favorable to uncertainty, as they have a risk-taking mindset
R. Martenson Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41 (2018) 70–78

with a willingness to try new brands whose performance is uncertain
(Kim, 2013; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1995). Vacations are often
promoted as adventure trips of all kinds. An adventure is defined as an
undertaking usually involving danger and unknown risk (Merriam-
Webster). Thus, an adventure could be anything from a romantic ad-
venture to a more dangerous adventure for example among wild ani-
mals. An adventure is risky because the individual doesn’t know exactly
what will happen.
H5:. Consumers who are very adventure and risk proneness seek
more variety than consumers who are less adventure and risk
prone
3.5. Reward learning effect from past experiences (Trips)
Wanting (incentive salience) is influenced by the presence of
learned incentives for rewards, and the anticipated potential for a given
stimulus to satisfy one's desire based on past experience, and a variation
in real or perceived deprivation states (see Litman, 2005 for review).
Rewards induce learning as they make subjects come back for more
(positive reinforcement), and can serve as goals of behavior (Schultz,
1997, 2004). Berridge et al. (2009) concluded that once reward-related
cues are learned, those cues predict their associated rewards and in
addition trigger motivational ‘wanting’ to obtain the rewards. Thus,
rewards reinforce the frequency or intensity of a behavior pattern and
will induce subjective feelings of pleasure and contribute to positive
emotions (Schultz, 1997, 2000, 2004; Walter et al., 2005). This may be
one of the major explanations why there is a trend to take more than
one holiday per year (Nawjin et al., 2010). In Europe, it is particularly
the 65+ age-segment that travels more (Eurostat, 43/2012). As an
example, more than half (53%) of the Germans and 7% of the British
who visited the Balearic Islands in 2003 had made 4+ trips the last
twelve months (Alegre and Juaneda, 2006), and the EU-28 average
2015 was 4 trips per tourist 15+ years (Eurostat, 2017). Logically,
variety-seeking behavior is likely to increase with an increase in the
number of vacations per year. Consumers with a growth mind need new
challenges to develop. Based on the fact that many people in the EU
take several vacations yearly, the following hypothesis was formulated:
H6:. Consumers who travel a lot seek more variety than consumers
who travel less (Trips)
4. Methodology
The principle of parsimony or Occam's Razor was the guiding light
when the model was developed and the variables chosen. Integrative
frameworks are simplified and holistic, and our understanding of the
proposed model is still vague and intuitive at this point in time. The
data was collected through a mail survey by a professional research
organization as a nationally representative sample was desired. This
sample consists of 9 050 consumers aged 20–69 years old in a European
country, who had made at least one vacation trip the previous year.
Non-response on some questions reduced the number to 8,8121 re-
spondents. Consumers’ variety-seeking preferences for vacations was
measured on a 5 grade scale, where those who “do not agree at all” with
the statement that they want a different place every time they go on
vacation were classified as consistency seekers (n = 531, 19%) and
those who “agree completely” were classified as variety seekers (n =
2253, 81%). Thus, the main part of the empirical analysis is based on a
subsample (n = 2784 respondents, 43% men and 57% women) of the
total sample described above. The simplified, holistic perspective in the
study supports that choice of a theory-based data analysis. In theories
there is no place for people who are neither variety-seekers nor con-
sistency-seekers. Theories are based on the poles of the scales. That
resembles the situation in the ELM model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986)
with high and low elaboration of persuasive messages. It was therefore
logical to include only respondents mentioned in the theory (n = 2784)
in the main analysis, i.e., those classified as either consistency-seekers
or variety-seekers. A theory-based analysis of a subsample selected
based on theory avoids the problems inherent in a dichotomization of a
continuous variable for example by median split (e.g., as discussed by
Fitzsimons, 2008). The proposed model is however tested on the total
sample as well, although that isn’t the main focus in the paper. The
majority of respondents in the total sample were variety seekers with a
less strict definition of the concept. On a 5 grade scale 55% agreed
somewhat or completely that they wanted different places for their
vacations every time, versus 24% who disagreed partly or totally with
the same statement. 21% had no preference for either variety or con-
sistency. Common Method Bias (CMB) was tested with Harman's single
factor test. The result showed that the instrument is free from sig-
nificant CMB. 27% of the variance is explained by the first component,
which is well below the 50% cut-off point.
The approach in this study has several similarities with the OSL
approach, and there are several scales that measure OSL (see Raju,
1980). A major problem with those scales is however the large number
of variables (40–95) used. The Change Seeker Image, CSI, has for ex-
ample 95 items. Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1995) developed a 7-
item version from the CSI scale, but its predictive validity hasn’t been
tested on non-student samples. That makes the OSL approach less useful
in this research with a non-student sample. The concepts in the model
were measured by the variables shown in Table 1. All scales were 5-
grade Likert scales, with the exception of the number of leisure trips

Table 1
Correlations between variables (Spearman).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Curious
1. One should say yes to opportunities in life when they come. 1 .45 .16 .10 .13 .31 .23 .09 .09 .11
2. It is important to continue to learn new things all through life. .45 1 .17 .10 .12 .28 .16 .09 .11 .17
Novel .16 .17 1 .45 .40 .24 .27 .12 .13 .18
3. I often try new things earlier than my friends.
4. I like to buy the first issue of new magazines to see if it fits me. .10 .10 .45 1 .34 .12 .13 .09 .06 .14
5. I often go to shops to look for news. .13 .12 .40 .34 1 .10 .08 .08 .08 .16
Risk
6. I appreciate adventures. .31 .28 .24 .12 .10 1 .62 .10 .10 .23
7. I am a risk taker. .23 .16 .27 .13 .08 .62 1 .09 .07 .17
Reward learning
8. Total number of leisure trips within the EU the last year. .09 .09 .12 .09 .08 .10 .09 1 .29 .09
9. Total number of leisure trips in home country the last year. .09 .10 .13 .06 .08 .09 .07 .29 1 .10
Variety seeking
10. When I go on vacation I try to go to different places every time. .11 .17 .18 .14 .16 .23 .17 .09 .10 1
Mean 4.42 4.72 2.60 1.80 2.88 3.76 2.84 3.30 5.63 4.24
SD .73 .58 1.23 1.12 1.13 1.10 1.20 1.63 1.73 1.57

74
R. Martenson Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41 (2018) 70–78

Novel .17
.48 t=6.99
t=11.41

Curious Advent Variety

.66 .18
t=11.45 t=7.67

.38 .09
t=7.37 t=3.10
Trips

Fig. 4. Empirical results.

Fig. 3. The intensity of wanting for variety-seekers and consistency-seekers. diagnosis of sources of model misspecification for the total sample only.
In addition, the χ2 goodness-of-fit test was used, along with established
fit indices such as RMR, GFI, AGFI, NFI, NNFI, CFI, IFI (see, e.g., Byrne,
within respectively outside the EU the last year. The latter were mea-
2001; Hu and Bentler, 1995).
sured on a 7 grade scale from 1 = no trip to 7 = more than 20 trips.
The variables were chosen based on the literature reviewed (e.g., Raju,
1980; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992, 1995), and were kept at a 5. Results
minimum (see also Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007). The scales are from
the research company. Several methods can be used in construct vali- The test of the proposed theoretical framework is based on a simple
dations (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Hair et al., 2006), for example model that relates the four latent variables to the dependent manifest
group differences. If our understanding of a construct leads us to expect variable variety-seeking, see Fig. 4. The proposed model with a cov-
that variety-seekers and consistency-seekers will differ in the scores, ariance between the residuals of the variables in Curious was fitted
then we can test that directly (Cronbach and Mehl, 1955). We can re- against the data and the following results were generated: χ2 = 161.91,
tain our belief that the test measures the constructs if predictions and df = 29, p < .00, χ2/df = 5.6, RMSEA = .041; (.035 – .047, the two
results are in harmony. The prediction in this study is that the intensity numbers indicating the lower and upper limits, respectively, of the 90%
of wanting is higher for variety-seekers than for consistency-seekers, confidence interval of RMSEA), RMR = .041, GFI = .99, AGFI = .98,
which is also confirmed in Fig. 3. NFI = .97, NNFI = .96, CFI = .98, IFI = .98. This shows that the
Construct validity can be seen both in a trait validity perspective model fits the data well. The standardized factor loadings were quite
that is more similar to the measurement model, and in a nomological high and all t-values for the indicators were significant (t > 3.65, with
validity perspective that is more similar to the structural model the exception of Trips t = 3.10, p < .01), see Table 2. The highest
(Cronbach and Meehl, 1955; Lynch, 1983). Fig. 3 shows that all con- loading for Curiosity was ‘One should say yes to opportunities in life
structs predict what they are supposed to predict. However, they also when they come, for Novelty-seeking ‘I often try new things earlier than
have some weaknesses. Convergent validity was measured with factor my friends’, for Adventure ‘I appreciate adventures’, and for Trips ‘total
loadings, AVE, and reliability (Hair et al., 2006). All factor loadings are number of leisure trips within the EU. The model says that curiosity
statistically significant and their standardized loading estimates is .5 or drives consumers’ variety-seeking vacation choices through its impact
higher. As a good rule of thumb they should be .5 or higher. Variance on their novelty-seeking, their risk willingness, and reward learning in
extracted (AVE) should be .5 or higher and construct reliability (CR) terms of the number of vacation trips they take. The results show that
should be .7 or higher. The following results were found for the con- curiosity is most important for consumers’ variety-seeking behavior
structs: Curious (AVE = .22, CR = .33), Novel (AVE = .42, CR = .61), with a total effect of .23. That makes curiosity more important than risk
Advent (AVE = .63, CR = .68), and Trips (AVE= .29, CR = .51). But, willingness (.18) novelty seeking (.17), and reward learning in terms of
as Cronbach, p. 128) (1961) concludes, low reliability doesn’t dis- the number of holiday trips made (.09).
courage us from using the test if the predictive validity is satisfactory. A The model fits the total sample very well considering the large
rigorous test to assess discriminant validity is to compare the average sample size (8 821), with the following results: χ2 = 546.69, df = 29,
variance-extracted values for any two constructs with the square of the p < .00, χ2/df= 18.85, RMSEA = .045; (.042–.049, the two numbers
correlation estimate between these two constructs (Hair et al., 2006). indicating the lower and upper limits, respectively, of the 90%
With one exception, all constructs passed this test which provides good
evidence of discriminant validity. Curious and Advent did not pass this Table 2
Standardized estimates.
test (.43 < .56), and are therefore not truly distinct from each other.
In order to test the theoretical model derived above against the Latent variable/ Main results Total sample
empirical data, the model was specified as a structural equation model. Manifest variables Standardized estimate Standardized estimate
Parameters for the model were estimated with maximum-likelihood
Curious
(ML) methods through the use of the Lisrel 8.30 program (Jöreskog and
Opport .49 .45
Sörbom, 1999) under the STREAMS 3.0.5 (Gustafsson and Stahl, 2005) Learn .45 .36
modeling environment. The RMSEA index, the Root Mean Square Error Cov &Opport &Learn .23 .32
of Approximation index (see Browne and Cudeck, 1993), which on an Novel
Early .76 .77
absolute scale measures the amount of deviation between model and
News .59 .58
data taking sample size and model complexity into account guided First .54 .52
evaluation of model fit. For a model to be regarded as well-fitting the Advent
rules have been followed that the RMSEA point estimate should be Adventure .89 .87
lower than .05 and the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval of the Risktake .69 .70
Trips
estimate should be lower than .07. Modification indices (Sörbom,
EUtrips .69 .56
1989), computed by the Lisrel program, were primarily used for Domtrips .53 .45

75
R. Martenson
confidence interval of RMSEA), RMR = .038, GFI = .99, AGFI = .98,
NFI = .97, NNFI = .95, CFI = .97, IFI = .97. Curiosity is still most
important (total effects .17), and then willingness to take risks (.16),
and novelty-seeking (.07) and reward learning (.07) equally important.
The biggest difference is that novelty-seeking is much less important in
the total sample compared with the theory-based sample.
6. Discussion
This research has extended the literature on variety-seeking beha-
vior in a number of ways. The theoretical framework which integrates
findings from neuro-research on rewards with the mind-set theory and
variety-seeking research in marketing, gives deeper insights into the
differences between variety-seekers and consistency-seekers and what
motivates them. Those differences in the intensity of wanting were
quantified, whereas the differences in what motivates the two groups
were only proposed and not empirically tested. This is an important
conceptual contribution to the field.
The proposed model on curiosity-motivated exploratory vacation
behavior tendencies showed the relative importance of different dri-
vers, which hasn’t been done before. It also showed the differences in
intensity of wanting between variety-seekers and consistency-seekers in
the predicted way. All hypotheses in the study were supported. Results
in this research support Litman's (2005) findings that curiosity is as-
sociated with approach behavior and experiences of rewards, rather
than avoidance behavior due to satiation. This study doesn’t provide
the final answers to all the complex problems with definitions and
measurement of concepts in areas almost void of prior studies in the
marketing literature. The study does however provide structure on a
substantive phenomenon: consumers’ variety-seeking vacation tenden-
cies, the constructs predict what they are supposed to predict, and the
model fits the data well in the SEM-analysis.
6.1. Theoretical reflections
As MacInnis (2011) noted, the conceptualization of constructs is
critical because constructs form the basis on which measures are de-
rived and from which theories are tested. Variety-seeking, as a con-
struct, is a vague construct with many inherent problems that it shares
with loyalty as a construct. In the tourism sector, loyalty surveys rou-
tinely operationalize the construct as “intention to return in the future”
without specifying the temporal dimension (Sánchez-García et al.,
2012). In a lab setting with a homogeneous group of undergraduates
and simple products, the conceptualization of the variety-seeking con-
struct may not pose the same problems as in a real world setting with
more complex and expensive products and experience-centric services.
A vacation is a combination of a number of different experience-centric
services sold individually or as a package. The implication is that al-
though consumers may be loyal to a certain holiday destination, which
was the issue in this study, they may nevertheless experience variety by
choosing different hotels and/or restaurants, as well as excursions or
other activities, although they return to the same destination. Research
has indicated that when the drive for variety on one dimension (e.g.,
the hotel) is satisfied, the desire for variety on other dimensions (e.g.,
the place) diminishes (Menon and Kahn, 1995; Kahn and Ratner, 2005).
Well-managed destinations are places people want to return to in an-
ticipation of new things to see and do (Voss et al., 2008). It is never-
theless common that people make global evaluations of their experi-
ences (Fredrickson and Kahneman, 1993). Global evaluations are based
on the weighted averaging of salient moments and/or ending moments
of extended affective events. In the present study, as well as in the other
studies reviewed, variety-seeking wasn’t sufficiently defined, which is a
major weakness that these studies share with most loyalty studies.
Definitions developed in future studies should start from real world
behavior, which may be specific for the product or service or experience
(e.g., Van Trijp et al., 1996), may differ between consumer segments,
76
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41 (2018) 70–78
and may be situation specific (e.g., vacation with family vs. friends vs.
partner). As an example, habitual behavior may be preferred when
going on a family vacation, whereas the same couple may chose variety
on their weekend-vacations. Another issue deals with personal versus
joint decisions. This study, as well as other studies, dealt with in-
dividuals’ vacation preferences, whereas most people go on vacation
with at least one more person. Hypothetically, this means that pre-
ferences may differ depending on whether the individual goes on va-
cation alone, with a partner, with a family/kids, etc. That opens up the
issue of how people adapt their own preferences to make compromises,
and the impact of compromises on vacation satisfaction. Individuals
making several trips annually may not feel that they make any sacri-
fices, and other may share preferences with their partner.
A hypothesis for future studies is that differences between con-
sumers may be explained by the fact that reward-directed learning can
occur by associating the stimulus with rewards (Pavlovian con-
ditioning), or by associating an action with rewards (operant con-
ditioning) (Schultz, 2004). Consumers who return to the same place
may associate the place, i.e., the stimulus, with various rewards,
whereas consumers who select a new place almost every time may as-
sociate travelling, i.e., the action or activity, and novel experiences with
the rewards. Consumers with a growth mindset, i.e., variety seekers, are
process oriented. All consumers may appreciate both alternatives, but
in various degrees which would help to explain their preferences. In this
study reward-learning was measured indirectly by the number of trips
(private) the respondents had done. Future studies may explore whe-
ther there are better ways to measure reward-learning.
6.2. Managerial reflections
Most markets today are challenged by various price discounters and
search engines provide tools to enable consumers to look for the lowest
prices. Thus, the switching economy may grow at the expense of more
traditional markets and increase the competitive pressure.
Understanding variety-seeking behavior is to understand customer
loyalty, because they are related (see Berné et al., 2001). This study
shows that most people prefer some degree of variety-seeking and that
variety-seekers are more curious than consistency-seekers, but what is
more important in a managerial perspective is that both groups are very
curious and thus demanding. That makes the experiential content even
more important as experiences can be used to differentiate the core
product or service, e.g., Starbucks (Voss et al., 2008). Retailers, e.g.,
Apple, use ‘coffee shopping’ to de-emphasize merchandize to be able to
focus on experiences (Forbes, 2017). Combined with the fact that
consumers go on vacation many times per year it is reasonable to as-
sume that they also expect a lot. To satisfy their expectations it may be
necessary to focus on specific segments of variety-seekers. Managers
must understand what kind of variety they are after, and that requires
much more empirical data on consumers’ vacation habits. There are
many kinds of variety-seekers such as those who want new adventures
every year, those who seek culinary experiences, the golfers, the surfers,
the art-lovers, the walkers, etc. They must also find out whether or not
they can do anything about it. They can do little about seasonal dif-
ferences that may be why surfers, skiers, golfers, etc. prefer destination
variety over the year. To survive the intense competition they must be
good to superior at something appreciated by a specific target group. A
variety-seeker who goes on vacation one time per year is normally
much less valuable than a consistency-seeker. However, as the average
EU-consumer makes 4 trips per year it is still interesting to attract the
variety-seekers. In that perspective one could talk about share of cate-
gory requirements for vacations. Some countries such as Spain have
however found that the number of tourists is a bad measure of success.
The amount of money they spend on hotels, restaurants, shops, excur-
sions, etc. may be less as an increasing number of tourists are low-
budget tourists. An increasing number of Europeans own or rent (long-
term) properties abroad, which makes them a special category of
R. Martenson
tourists. Although they don’t stay at hotels, they are still quite valuable
with their destination loyalty and their consumption expenditures.
Managers in cooperation with other local and/or regional decision-
makers could make places more attractive to variety-seekers by ex-
tending the range of cultural activities such as art exhibitions, concerts,
walks, etc. It may be necessary to distinguish between places with a
potential to create returning visitors and places with little or no such
potential. As an example, going to an ice hotel may be exiting the first
time, but the potential to create returning visitors is low unless there
are other nearby attractions. Going to a big city or a resort is different.
Such visits are more unpredictable and consumers may anticipate what
new things to do and see on their next visit. Big cities have more to offer
than most visitors are aware of and going to a resort is inherently en-
joyable and an activity that most people like to do many times.
6.3. Methodological reflections
The proposed model fits the data very well, and the constructs in the
model predict what they are assumed to predict quite well, i.e., dif-
ferences between variety-seekers and consistency-seekers. Considering
our present understanding of the field that is quite satisfactory.
However there is also room for improvements. As suggested by
Cronbach and Meehl (1955), construct validation is a continual process,
and both the constructs and the measures need to be refined. Future
studies should consider concentrating on specific types of vacations
such as sun and bath vacations or art, food and culture vacations. Sun
and bath resorts compete only indirectly with for example ski resorts
and art, food and culture vacations. As the proposed model is based on
curiosity-motivated behavior tendencies, such specification may result
in differences in the role of curiosity for different types of vacations.
Finally, more studies are needed to focus on the differences between
curiosity in general and specific curiosity (e.g., about foreign cultures or
foreign food in the context of vacations). In this study the variables used
measured curiosity in general, which hypothetically may be the reason
why the curiosity construct had the lowest AVE in the study. Reward
learning is another example of a concept that is new to marketing, and
needless to say needs refinements from many more future studies.
References
Alegre, J., Juaneda, C., 2006. Destination loyalty. Consumers' economic behavior. Ann.
Tour. Res. 33 (3), 684–706.
Baumgartner, H., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., 1996. Exploratory consumer buying behavior:
conceptualization and measurement. Int. J. Res. Mark. 13, 121–137.
Belk, R., MacInnis, D., Yadav, M., 2017. Conceptual papers in marketing and consumer
research (Call for Papers Special Issue). J. Mark. Manag. 〈http://explore.tandfonline.
com/cfp/bes/rjmm-conceptual-papers〉.
Bergkvist, L., Rossiter, J.R., 2007. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-
item measures of the same construct. J. Mark. Res. 44, 175–184.
Berlyne, D.E., 1978. Curiosity and learning. Motiv. Emot. 2, 97–175.
Berné, C., Múgica, J.M., Jesús Yague, M., 2001. The effect of variety-seeking on customer
retention in services. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 8, 335–345.
Berridge, K.C., Kringelbach, M.L., 2011. Building a neuroscience of pleasure and well-
being. Psychol. Well-Being: Theory, Res. Pract. 1 (3), 1–26.
Berridge, K.C., Robinson, T.E., J., Wayne Aldridge, J.W., 2009. Dissecting components of
reward: ‘liking’, ‘wanting’, and learning. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 9, 65–73.
Berry, L.L., Yadav, M.S., 1996. Capture and communicate value in the pricing of services.
Sloan Manag. Rev. 37 (4), 41–51.
Bigné, J.E., Sanchéz, I., Andreu, L., 2009. The role of variety seeking in short and long run
revisit intentions in holiday destinations. Int. J. Cult., Tour. Hosp. Res. 3 (2),
103–115.
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in testing
structural equation models. In: Bollen, K.A. (Ed.), Testing Structural Equations
Models. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136–162.
Byrne, B.M., 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Choi, J., Kim, B.K., Choi, I., Yi, Y., 2006. Variety-seeking tendency in choice for others:
interpersonal and intrapersonal causes. J. Consum. Res. 32 (4), 590–595.
Cronbach, L.J., 1961. Essentials of Psychological Testing, 2nd ed. Harper & Row, New
York.
Cronbach, L.J., Meehl, P.E., 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull.
52, 281–302.
Dweck, C.S., 2008. Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and
77
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41 (2018) 70–78
change. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17 (6), 391–394.
Etkin, J., 2016. Choosing variety for joint consumption. J. Mark. Res. 53, 1019–1033.
Etkin, J., Mogilner, C., 2016. Does variety among activities increase happiness? J.
Consum. Res. 43, 210–229.
Etkin, J., Ratner, R.K., 2012. The dynamic impact of variety among means on motivation.
J. Consum. Res. 38, 1076–1092.
Eurobarometer, 2010. Survey on the attitudes towards tourism. Eur. 2010, Anal. Report.
Wave 2, 6.
Eurostat, 2017. Tourism Statistics – Participation in Tourism. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics_-_participation_in_
tourism〉 (Accessed 16 September 2017).
Eurostat, 2012{C}: Europeans aged 65+ spent a third more on tourism in 2011 compared
with 2006. Statistics in focus, 43/2012. 〈http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/
3433488/5585284/KS-SF-12-043-EN.PDF/0d45fd84-d6ad-4584-a800-
2ac868f17e0c?Version=1.0〉 (Accessed 26 June 2017).
Feinberg, F.M., Kahn, B.E., McAlister, L., 1992. Market share response when consumers
seek variety. J. Mark. Res. 29 (May), 227–237.
Fishbach, A., Ratner, R.K., Zhang, Y., 2011. Inherently loyal or easily bored?
Nonconscious activation of consistency versus variety-seeking behavior. J. Consum.
Psychol. 21, 38–48.
Fitzsimons, G.J., 2008. Death to dichotomizing” (editorial). J. Consum. Res. 35 (1), 5–8.
Forbes, 2017. How Retailers are Using Coffee-Shopping to Bring Customers in the Door.
By Mulqueen, T., June 16. 〈https://www.forbes.com/sites/tinamulqueen/2017/06/
16/how-retailers-are-using-coffee-shopping-to-bring-customers-in-the-door/#
15ae64882288〉. (Accessed 18 November 2017).
Fredrickson, B.L., Kahneman, D., 1993. Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of
affective episodes. J. Personal. Social. Psychol. 65 (1), 45–55.
Goukens, C., Dewitte, S., Pandelaere, M., Warlop, L., 2007. Wanting a bit(e) of every-
thing: extending the valuation effect to variety seeking. J. Consum. Res. 34, 386–394.
Gustafsson, J.-E., Stahl, P.A., 2005. STREAMS User's Guide. Version 3.0.5. Molndal.
Multivariate Ware, Sweden.
Hair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate
Data Analysis. Pearson/Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1995. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle, Rick H. (Ed.), Structural
Equation Modeling. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 76–99.
Inman, J.J., 2001. The role of sensory-specific satiety in attribute-level variety seeking. J.
Consum. Res. 28, 105–120.
Jeong, H.G., Drolet, A., 2016. Variety-seeking as an emotional coping strategy for
chronically indecisive consumers. Mark. Lett. 27, 55–62.
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., 1999. Lisrel 8. Structural Equation Modeling with SIMPLIS
Command Language. Scientific Software, Mooresville, IL. 〈www.ssicentral.com〉.
Kahn, B.E., 1995. Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services. An integrative
review. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2 (3), 139–148.
Kahn, B.E., Isen, A.M., 1993. The influence of positive affect on variety seeking among
safe, enjoyable products. J. Consum. Res. 20, 257–270.
Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M.U., Morrison, D.G., 1986. Measuring variety-seeking and re-
inforcement behaviors using panel data. J. Mark. Res. 23, 89–100.
Kahn, B.E., Ratner, R., Kahneman, D., 1997. Patterns of hedonic consumption over time.
Mark. Lett. 8 (1), 85–96.
Kahn, B.E., Ratner, R.K., 2005. Variety for the sake of variety? Diversification motives in
consumer choice. In: Ratneshwar, S., Mick, G.D. (Eds.), Inside Consumption:
Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires. Routledge, London,
Chapter 6.
Kashdan, T.B., Rose, P., Fincham, F.D., 2004. Curiosity and exploration: facilitating po-
sitive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. J. Personal. Assess.
82 (3), 291–305.
Keinan, A., Kivetz, R., 2011. Productivity orientation and the consumption of collectable
experiences. J. Consum. Res. 37, 935–950.
Kim, H.C., 2013. How variety-seeking versus inertial tendency influences the effective-
ness of immediate versus delayed promotions. J. Mark. Res. 50, 416–426.
Krebs, R.M., Schott, B.H., Schütze, H., Düzel, E., 2009. The novelty exploration bonus and
its attentional modulation. Neuropsychologia 47, 2272–2281.
Kringelbach, M.L., Berridge, K., 2009. Towards a functional neuroanatomy of pleasure
and happiness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13 (11), 479–487.
Langer, E.J., 1975. The illusion of control. J. Personal. Social. Psychol. 32 (2), 311–328.
Litman, J.A., 2005. Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: wanting and liking new in-
formation. Cogn. Emot. 19 (6), 793–814.
Litman, J.A., 2010. Relationships between measures of I- and D-type curiosity, ambiguity
tolerance, and need for closure: an initial test of the wanting-liking model of in-
formation-seeking. Personal. Individ. Differ. 48, 397–402.
Litman, J.A., Silvia, P.J., 2006. The latent structure of trait curiosity: evidence for interest
and deprivation curiosity dimensions. J. Personal. Assess. 86 (3), 318–328.
Lynch Jr., J.G., 1983. The role of external validity in theoretical research. J. Consum. Res.
10, 109–111.
Lynch Jr., J.G., 1999. Theory and external validity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 3, 367–376.
Lynch Jr., J.G., 2012. Fellow's address: substantive consumer research. Adv. Consum. Res.
38, 15–18.
MacInnis, D.J., 2011. A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. J. Mark. 75
(July), 136–154.
McAlister, L., 1982. A dynamic attribute satiation model of variety-seeking behavior. J.
Consum. Res. 9, 141–150.
Menon, S., Kahn, B.E., 1995. The impact of context on variety seeking in product choices.
J. Consum. Res. 22 (3), 285–295.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Rodriquez, M.I., 1989. Delay of gratification in children. Science
244, 933–938.
Mittelman, M., Andrade, E.B., Chattopadhyay, A., Brendl, C.M., 2014. The offer framing
R. Martenson
effect: choosing single versus bundled offerings affects variety seeking. J. Consum.
Res. 41, 953–964.
Murphy, M.C., Dweck, C.S., 2016. Mindsets shape consumer behavior. J. Consum. Behav.
26 (1), 127–136.
Nawijn, J., Marchand, M.A., Veenhoven, R., Vingerhoets, A.J., 2010. Vacationers
Happier, but Most Not Happier After a Holiday. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 5, 35–47.
Okulicz-Kozaryn, A., 2011. Europeans work to live and americans live to work (who is
happy to work more: Americans or Europeans?). J. Happiness Stud. 12, 225–243.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv.
Exp. Social. Psychol. 19, 123–205.
Raju, P.S., 1980. Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demo-
graphics, and exploratory behavior. J. Consum. Res. 7, 272–282.
Ratner, R.K., Kahn, B.E., 2002. The impact of private versus public consumption
on variety-seeking behavior. J. Consum. Res. 29, 246–257.
Ratner, R.K., Kahn, B.E., Kahneman, D., 1999. Choosing less-preferred experiences for the
sake of variety. J. Consum. Res. 26, 1–15.
Sánchez-García, I., Pieters, R., Zeelenberg, M., Bigné, E., 2012. When satisfied consumers
do not return: variety seeking's effect on short- and long-term intentions. Psychol.
Mark. 29 (1), 15–24.
Schultz, W., 1997. Dopamine neurons and their role in reward mechanisms. Curr. Opin.
Neurobiol. 7, 191–197.
Schultz, W., 2000. Multiple reward signals in the brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 1, 199–207.
Schultz, W., 2004. Neural coding of basic reward terms of animal learning theory, game
theory, microeconomics and behavioral ecology. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 14, 139–147.
Seetharaman, P.B., Che, H., 2009. Price competition in markets with consumer variety
78
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41 (2018) 70–78
seeking. Mark. Sci. 28 (3), 516–525.
Shen, H., Wyer Jr., R.S., 2010. The effect of past behavior on variety seeking: automatic
and deliberative influences. J. Consum. Psychol. 20, 33–42.
Simonson, I., Winer, R.S., 1992. The influence of purchase quantity and display format on
consumer preference for variety. J. Consum. Res. 19, 133–138.
Sörbom, D., 1989. Model modification. Psykometrika 54, 371–384.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Baumgartner, H., 1992. The role of optimum stimulation level in
exploratory consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 19, 434–448.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Baumgartner, H., 1995. Development and cross-cultural validation
of a short form of CSI as a measure of optimum stimulation level. Int. J. Res. Mark.
12, 97–104.
Van Trijp, H.S.M., Hoyer, W.D., Inman, J.J., 1996. Why switch? Product category-level
explanations for true variety-seeking behavior. J. Mark. Res. 33, 281–292.
Voss, C., Roth, A.V., Chase, R.B., 2008. Experience, service operations strategy, and
services as destinations: foundations and exploratory investigation. Prod. Oper.
Manag. 17 (3), 247–266.
Wahlers, R.G., Etzel, M.J., 1985. A consumer response to incongruity between optimal
stimulation and life style satisfaction. In: Hirschman, E., Holbrook, M.B., (Eds.).
Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, UT, 12, 97–101.
Walter, H., Abler, B., Ciaramidaro, A., Erk, S., 2005. Motivating forces of human actions.
neuroimaging reward and social interaction. Brain Res. Bull. 67, 368–381.
Wittmann, B.C., Bunzeck, N., Dolan, R.J., Düzel, E., 2007. Anticipation of novelty recruits
reward systems and hippocampus while promoting recollection. NeuroImage 38,
194–202.