See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233358244

A typology of consumers' variety-seeking

disposition based on inherent needs

Article in Journal of Marketing Management · May 2012

DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2011.565728

CITATIONS READS

9 106

1 author:

Nina Michaelidou
Loughborough University
50 PUBLICATIONS 844 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social Media Ad Avoidance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nina Michaelidou on 29 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
A Typology of Consumers’ Variety-seeking Disposition based on Inherent Needs

Nina Michaelidou
Birmingham Business School
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham B15 2TT
United Kingdom
Tel: + 44 (0)121 414 8318
Fax: + 44 (0)121 414 7791
Email: N.Michaelidou@bham.ac.uk

1
Abstract

Consumers’ variety-seeking ‘has preoccupied many researchers in the last three decades and

many explanations and models have been produced. The concept is relevant to market

segmentation but is has not been fully explored. This study explores variety-seeking in order

to derive a consumer typology based on the strength of the disposition to seek for variety, and

the intrinsic needs that trigger this disposition. A quantitative methodology is adopted using a

sample comprising customers of a large UK-based clothing retailer. Factor and cluster

analyses are used to derive a variety-seeking disposition typology. Findings indicate four

distinct clusters which differentiate in terms of the strength of variety-seeking dispositions

and the build-in needs that drive variety-seeking disposition. Clusters also discriminate in

terms of behavioural, attitudinal and demographic variables, including attitude to clothes,

brand commitment, interest in fashion, age, gender, education and occupation. A number of

implications derive from this study in relation to targeting and marketing strategy.

Keywords: Variety seeking, segmentation, optimal stimulation level, typology, inherent

needs, cluster analysis

2
Background

Consumers’ choice of brands is often guided by variety-seeking, in that for particular

products, individuals make their brand selections on the basis of the variety they seek (Orth,

2005). Variety-seeking has preoccupied many researchers in the last three decades and many

explanations and models have been produced. Early research concentrated on modelling

variety-seeking as ‘non-zero order’ behaviour (i.e. future preference is affected by past

experience) caused by satiation with product attributes (e.g. Farquhar & Rao, 1976; Hagerty,

1983; Huper & Reibstein, 1978; Jeuland, 1978; McAlister, 1982). Such models are expressed

as Markov processes using ‘transition probabilities’, each stating the probability of choosing

a particular brand B i directly following the selection of brand B j (Feinberg, Kahn &

McAlister, 1992, 1994; Givon, 1984; Kahn, Kalwani & Morrison, 1986; Lattin & McAlister,

1985; Trivedi 1999). Other models are ‘variable order’ and pattern consumption types in that

they allow for different types of behaviour such as pure inertia, pure variety-seeking and

hybrid behaviour (e.g. Bawa, 1990; Jimenez-Martin & Ladron-de-Guevara, 2007).

The basic premise of these models is that repeat consumption of initially preferred products

or product attributes (e.g. flavour, colour, format, etc.) declines over time, leading to satiation

(McAlister, 1982). Thus, variety-seeking is the result of individuals feeling satiated with

consuming the same product attributes (e.g. physical and sensory) including format, flavour,

odour and colour (Inman, 2001; McAlister, 1982). Satiation with a product or its attributes is

thus one of the many underlying causes of variety-seeking which can be classified as being

either internal or external (Hoyer & Ridgway, 1984; Kahn, 1995; Van Trijp, Hoyer & Inman,

1996).

3
Other internal causes of variety-seeking highlighted in the literature include the inability of

consumers to make the right choice (Celsi & Olson, 1988; Huber & Reibstein, 1979), their

attempt to balance product attributes to maximize utility (Farquhar & Rao, 1976), multiple

purchases for future consumption (Kahn, 1995; Kahn & Lehman, 1991; Simonson, 1990),

consumers’ attempts to simplify the shopping task, and consumers’ optimal stimulation level

(Hoyer & Ridgway, 1984; Orth, 2005; Orth & Bourrain, 2005a; Raju, 1980; 1983; Van Trijp

& Steenkamp, 1992). On the other hand, external causes include out-of-stock situations and

special offers or promotions which are often used to stimulate varied purchases (Kahn &

Louie, 1990; Trivedi & Morgan, 2003; Van Trijp et al., 1996). However, the dominant view

in consumer research is that consumers tend to seek variety due to internal reasons such as

satiation with a brand’s attributes or the need for stimulation (McAlister & Pessemier, 1982).

Much of the previous research on variety-seeking captures or models the concept as a

behaviour (e.g. brand switching) focusing mostly on consumption histories and purchase

sequences (e.g. Trivedi, 1999). However, these approaches do not capture ‘true’ variety-

seeking’ (McAlister & Pessemier, 1982) since they focus on observed types of behaviour

such as switching, thus omitting the psychological antecedents of variety-seeking (Steenkamp

& Baumgartner, 1992). They are therefore not ‘stable’ over time in terms of indicating

variety-seeking disposition. In view of this, research on the psychological antecedents (i.e.

inherent needs) of variety-seeking remains underdeveloped. Relatively little research has

explored variety-seeking from an environmental psychology perspective by focusing on

psychological causes of variety-seeking such as optimal stimulation level (e.g. Rohm &

Swaminathan, 2004) in terms of inherent needs.

In addition, variety-seeking is linked to various areas of marketing such as segmentation and

risk taking (e.g. Givon, 1985; Orth, 2005; Raju, 1980; Trivedi, 1999), although research has

4
not fully explored variety-seeking as a segmentation base on its own. Yet, in terms of

segmentation, the value of identifying variety-seeking segments lies in the devising of

promotional strategies, since different variety-seeking levels or types require different

promotional approaches. For example, high variety seekers would be easily induced to switch

to an alternative brand or to try a new product (Kumar & Trivedi, 2006; Trivedi & Morgan,

2003), whereas low variety seekers tend to be brand loyal and resistant to adopting new

products (e.g. Mittelstaedt, Grossbart, Curtis & Devere, 1976). Similarly, Van Trijp and

Steenkamp (1992) support the view that variety-seeking serves as a criterion for

segmentation, and assists marketers in adapting marketing strategies to consumer needs more

effectively.

Although previous research has profiled variety seekers (e.g. Rohm & Swaminathan, 2004),

this study is unique in that it contributes to knowledge by focusing on the psychological

causes of variety-seeking, specifically by considering optimal stimulation level (OSL) and its

inherent needs, in order to cluster consumers. Clustering individuals using OSL and its ‘built-

in’ needs provides a better and fuller psychological explanation and profile of variety-seeking

disposition. Additionally, individuals’ with variety-seeking dispositions, driven by different

inherent needs, are likely to differ in attitudes and behaviour. The approach used in this study

stems from the field of environmental psychology (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) which

conceptualises variety-seeking as a ‘predisposition’, resulting from consumers’ internal need

for stimulation (OSL). OSL is recognised as a personality characteristic which affects

individuals’ consumption experiences (Eliashberg & Sawhney, 1994; Van Trijp &

Steenkamp, 1992). It possesses intra-individual stability due to its association with

personality traits (e.g. dogmatism) which affect its scope and levels (Hoffman & Novak,

1996; Joachimsthaler & Lastovicka, 1984; Raju, 1980).

5
Psychographic segmentation has been explored in C2C and B2B contexts, and for both online

and offline retailing (e.g. Barry & Weinstein, 2009; McGoldrick, Keeling & Beatty, 2008;

Rigopoulou, Tsiotsou & Kehagias, 2008). In a C2C context, psychological ‘unobservable’

variables such as personality traits, dispositions, values and lifestyle have been used to

segment consumers into clusters (Hassan, Craft & Kortam, 2003; Honkanen, Olsen &

Myrland, 2004; Wedel & Kamakura, 1999). These variables or ‘bases’ were developed and

are used for segmentation ‘…in response to the need for a more lifelike picture of consumers

and a better understanding of their motivations’ (Wedel & Kamakura, 1999, p.11). In

particular, Mitchell & Bates (1998) classified UK consumers into segments based on their

decision making styles. The authors identified and profiled four segments (‘Trend Setters’,

‘Shopping Avoiders’, ‘Recreational Quality Seekers’ and ‘Cautious Brand Loyals’),

suggesting that marketers should adapt their strategies when targeting individuals with

different decision making styles (Michell & Bates, 1998). Kucukemiroglu, (1997) classified

consumers on the basis of ethnocentrism, while Roddy, Cowan & Hutchinson (1996) profiled

consumers based on their attitudes to organic food. More recently, Volkov, Harker & Harker

(2006) classified Australian consumers into four typologies (‘Aficionados’, ‘Guardians’,

‘Activists and ‘Seekers’), based on advertising opinions and propensity to complain. In a

similar fashion, Rigopoulou et al. (2008) classified Greek consumers into two segments (i.e.

‘fastidious and ‘easy-going’)!according to their ‘shopping orientation’. Previous research also

used involvement, values, and brand associations, to segment individuals (e.g. Lockshin,

Spawton & Macintosh, 1997; Orth, McDaniel, Shellhammer & Lopetcharat, 2004; Ross,

2007).

6
Psychological variables such as personality and predispositions influence consumption

patterns and explain perceptions (e.g. intentions, risk) or behaviours (e.g. switching, loyalty,

etc.) (Hoyer & Ridgway, 1984; Singh, 1990), which have implications for marketing and

advertising strategy (Gilbert & Warren, 1995). This is equally true for general personality

characteristics and predispositions, or predispositions specific to the marketplace (Singh,

1990). However, according to Wedel and Kamakura (1999), general personality

characteristics have a much stronger relationship with behavioural patterns across product

categories. [For a review of segmentation bases see Dibb, Simkin, Pride, & Ferrell, 2006;

Hassan et al., 2003]. On this basis, given OSL’s relatively stable nature and its potential

relationship with the adoption decision process (Mittelstaedt et al., 1976), promotional

strategy (Trivedi, 1999) and brand choice (Orth, 2005), individuals’ variety-seeking caused

by OSL, represents a useful basis for clustering consumers. The concept of OSL and its

relationship with variety-seeking are discussed in the following section. The methodology

and analysis sections follow, which then lead to the findings and discussion.

Optimal Stimulation Levels (OSL) as Antecedents of Variety-seeking

Variety-seeking has been commonly addressed as a means of obtaining environmental

stimulation by alternating among familiar brands or ‘bundles of attributes’ (Givon, 1984;

McAlister & Pessemier, 1982; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1992). Environmental psychology

suggests that individuals have a need for an optimal stimulation level (OSL) which is based

on different OSL needs (change, risk, etc.) that are linked to personality traits such as

dogmatism and intolerance (Raju, 1980). OSL posits that individuals seek to maintain an

optimal level of environmental stimulation, and that any deviation from optimality will lead

to certain tendencies (variety-seeking) purported to re-establish an optimal level of

7
stimulation (Eliashberg & Swahney, 1994; Hebb, 1955; Leuba, 1955; Raju, 1981; Steenkamp

& Baumgartner, 1992; Wood & Swait, 2002). Previous research has shown that individuals

exhibit variety-seeking dispositions in order to maintain their OSL (Raju, 1980; Steenkamp &

Baumgartner, 1992). Previous research advocates that OSL leads to variety-seeking (e.g. Orth

& Bourrain, 2005b; Vazquez-Carrasco & Foxall, 2006). Thus, on this basis, OSL is viewed

as an internal, stable psychological cause of variety-seeking, and can be used to capture

variety-seeking empirically (Kahn, 1995).

Furthermore, utilising OSL to capture variety-seeking dispositions allows us to establish the

‘source’ (e.g. inherent needs such as need for change, need for risk, need for sensation, etc.

Hoffman & Novak, 1996; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1992) of variety-seeking dispositions,

and to determine how variety-seeking is manifested (e.g. switching, use innovation, etc.) in

specific product situations (Price & Ridgway, 1982). For example, individuals with high

variety-seeking disposition driven largely by the need for change, will be more likely to

switch between familiar product alternatives, while individuals with high variety-seeking

disposition driven by the need for risk will be more willing to innovate (e.g. use innovation,

Van Trijp & Steenkamp, 1992). Similarly, individuals with a high need for sensation will

place more emphasis on emotional criteria such as touch, feel and taste when evaluating

alternatives.

Methodology

Instrument and Sample

The data was acquired through the use of a URL embedded questionnaire (Wilson & Laskey,

2003) which was used for cost effectiveness and speed of transmission (Kent & Brandal,

8
2003). The questionnaire was sent to a sample1 of three thousand individuals. The

questionnaire also included demographic behavioural and attitudinal measures

(discriminatory variables) to profile individual clusters, in relation to potential respondents’

shopping behaviour for clothing. Clothing was selected as a context because it is pertinent to

both men & women of all ages, and it is a product category where variety-seeking

dispositions are likely to be manifested, since individuals tend to 1) own a portfolio of

clothing brands and 2) browse for clothing in multiple shops or channels, which indicates a

variety-seeking disposition. The sample was randomly derived from the customer database of

a large UK clothing retailer across their retail, catalogue and Internet operations. Potential

respondents received a URL address in the form of a hypertext link included in an e-mail

message sent by the retailer. The e-mail invited recipients to visit the webpage to complete

the questionnaire. A pilot test preceded the main launch, and a completion incentive in the

form of vouchers was offered. Five hundred and seven usable questionnaires were returned.

Although the sample derived from the customer database of a single clothing retailer, all

respondents had internet access, and 95 per cent shopped online for multiple products and

brands of clothing. Additionally, respondents indicated frequent purchases of other clothing

brands, resulting in 252 different brands being mentioned including designer brands, high

street brands, department store-own brands and lower-end brands. In addition, respondents

indicated purchases of clothing using multiple channels (e.g. high street, catalogues

department stores, the internet, factory outlets, local shops, etc.).

Measures

Variety-seeking
1
The sample was randomly selected and was representative (thus externally valid) of the specific population under
consideration because it fulfilled a number of conditions according to Schillewaert et al. (1998). First, a central register of
the research population existed (customer database). Second, all members of the population had the chance to be selected
since contact information was available. Third, no non-response bias occurred when comparing late versus early
respondents.

9
Variety-seeking disposition was captured using an optimal stimulation scale from

environmental psychology (e.g. Joachimsthaler & Lastovicka, 1984; Mehrabian & Russell,

1974). This scale was used in order to capture more needs (e.g. risk, sensation) that trigger

variety-seeking disposition, since other scales (e.g. ‘change seeker index’ (Steenkamp &

Baumgartner, 1992)) capture only the need for change or novelty or sensation. However,

according to Wahlers and Etzel (1990), this scale had problems in terms of item loadings,

therefore it was decided to re-examine this scale before its use in the study. In line with

Churchill (1979), the scale was reduced, resulting in 25 items being retained from the original

40 (also a procedure outlined by Finn & Kayande, 2004).

Discriminating Variables

Segmentation studies commonly utilise related discriminating variables to perform external

validity checks which validate their cluster solutions. Ketchen and Shook (1996) report that

22 per cent of the studies they reviewed2 assessed criterion-related validity through the use of

ANOVA tests on non-clustering variables. Non-clustering variables used in previous studies

include demographic, attitudinal, personality and behavioural variables (Lockshin et al.,

1997; Orth et al., 2004; Rohm & Swaminathan, 2004; Ross, 2007; Singh, 1990). Variety-

seeking disposition has been theoretically linked to a number of variables including brand

switching/commitment, loyalty, involvement, risk, and behavioural intentions (Helmig,

Huber & Leeflang, 2007; Hoyer & Ridgway, 1984). Additionally, Raju (1980) found that

individuals with high OSL levels tended to have more exploratory tendencies compared to

individuals with lower OSL levels (Raju, 1980). Thus variety-seeking often manifests via

purchase exploration, or by acquiring knowledge and developing an interest in new and

unfamiliar products (Price & Ridgway, 1982). In line with previous research, this study uses

2
24% used tests on clustering variables, 38% did not specify, 4% used hold-out samples and 7% used expert opinion
(Ketchen and Shook, 1996).

10
behavioural, attitudinal and demographic variables to validate variety-seeking clusters.

Specifically, the following variables were used: interest/attitude towards clothing, measured

by the overall score of a 3-item scale adapted from Van Trijp et al. (1996) [Clothing interests

me a lot, I am indifferent to the subject of clothing; I am not interested in clothes];

exploratory purchase tendencies measured by 3 items originating from Raju’s (1980)

exploration through shopping [I like to shop around; I like window shopping; I have an

interest in fashion,]. Information search/evaluation [I consider a wide range of features to

evaluate clothing brands], knowledge [I understand the features to evaluate clothing brands]

and commitment [I would choose another brand if my preferred brand is not available] were

measured by single items adapted from Jensen, Carlson and Tripp (1989). All items were

measured on a scale of 1 to 5 (strongly agree-strongly disagree).

Analysis and Findings

The sample consisted of 14% males and 86% females spread across the following age groups:

5.9% in 16-24, 45.6% in 25-34, 39.7% in 35-44, 7.6% in 45-54 and 1.3% over 55 years of

age.

Scale Reduction

Based on the procedure outlined by Churchill (1979), and using a convenient sample, the

length of the scale was reduced by examining the item to total correlations, and eliminating

those items with values significantly lower than other items (or close to zero). Twenty-five

items were retained from the original 40 (see Finn & Kayande, 2004). Measures were taken

to ensure the reliability and content/face validity of the scale in view of the reduction.

Although this scale has not been tested extensively in the literature, the authors (Mehrabian &

Russell, 1974) advocate that the scale can be summed up to assess a single trait, but also it

11
reflects five individual factors (needs) for which the authors only give examples in terms of

which items corresponded to each factor (p.42). The reliability of the reduced scale was thus

assessed, and indicated an alpha value of above .80. Additionally, the content validity of the

scale was also ensured in order to include items reflecting needs underlining optimal

stimulation level. Thus, the reduced scale comprised of 25 items capturing all five inherent

needs (change, risk, activity, sensation, novelty.) in line with Mehrabian and Russell (1974).

Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Prior to cluster analysis, the scale was subjected to principal components exploratory factor

analysis (EFC) with orthogonal rotation (Varimax). EFA was performed prior to CFA for

three reasons: 1) The scale has been reduced to 25 items 2) The authors of the original scale

(Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) do not provide adequate information in terms of which items

correspond to the factors and 3) Problems reported by Wahler and Etzel (1990) in terms of

cross loadings of items. The solution derived from EFA indicates 7 distinct and interpretable

factors, explaining 55% of the variance (Table 1). Items with loadings below .35 were

excluded from the analysis to enable a clearer interpretation of the factors (Lockshin et al.,

1997; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Because the scale is composed of inherent needs, and

given that it can be summed up with a single variable (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) there is

an expectation of interrelationships. However, in contrast to Wahlers and Etzel (1990), there

was no cross loading on factors above .35 that would have potentially complicated the

interpretation of the factors. Reliability analysis showed that coefficient alpha values range

from .60 to .73.

Confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 16.01 was subsequently conducted to further

assess scale dimensionality in line with Gerbing and Anderson (1988). Maximum Likelihood

12
was used as the method of estimation. Chi-square was significant ( χ 2 (244)=489, p<0.00),

however relative chi-square (i.e. divided by degrees of freedom) was lower than 2 as

recommended by Carmines and McIver (1981). Findings indicate an acceptable fit for the

seven factor structure (GFI= .931, AGFI=.908, TLI=.871, CFI=.895, RMSEA= .044). AVE

was calculated to gauge discriminant validity (Fornell & Larker, 1981). Average variance

extracted for each factor is: 0.91 for F1, 0.94 for F2, 0.93 for F3, 0.94 for F4, 0.94 for F5,

0.86 for F6 and 0.95 for F7, exceeding the benchmark of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Discriminant validity was established by comparing the AVE with the squared correlations

between the factors (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 2 shows the factor loadings from the

CFA. All items have significant loadings on their corresponding factor, albeit some loadings

are <.60i.

The findings of the EFC and CFA show 7 distinct and interpretable factors and thus

differentiate from the 5-stucture of Mehrabian and Russell (1974), since they identify 2 new

needs. The factors represent inherent needs that underlie variety-seeking disposition, and are

likely to determine how variety-seeking disposition will be manifested (Mehrabian & Russell,

1974; Price & Ridgway, 1982). They are labelled as: need for novelty (1), need for

unpredictability (2), need for excitement (3), need for activity (4), need for risk (5), need for

change (6) and need for sensation (7).

13
 Table 1 Rotated component matrix

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Osl1:I actively seek new ideas and experiences .671
Osl2:People wearing strange or weird clothing make me uncomfortable .794
Osl3:I prefer familiar people and places .616
Osl4:When things get boring I look for new and unfamiliar experiences .759
Osl5:I like to touch and feel a sculpture .805
Osl6:People view me as quite an unpredictable person .512
Osl7:I like to run through heaps of fallen leaves .791
Osl8:I sometimes like to do things that are a little frightening .702
Osl9:I prefer friends who are unpredictable .733
Osl10:I prefer an unpredictable life full of change to a more routine one .624
Osl11:I like surprises .539
Osl12:My ideal home would be peaceful and quiet .657
Osl13:I eat different kind of food most of the time .531
Osl14:As a child, I often imagined exploring the world .407
Osl15:I like novelty and change in my daily routine .584
Osl16:I am happiest when I feel safe and secure .615
Osl17:I do not pay much attention to y surroundings .694
Osl18:I like to go somewhere different nearly every day .426
Osl19:I do not like to have lots of activity around me .560
Oasl20:I am interested only in what I need to know .569
Osl21:I like meeting people who give me new ideas .615
Osl22:I would be content to live in the same house the rest of my life .437
Osl23:I like a job that offers variety and travel even if it involves some
.473
danger
Osl24:I avoid busy, noisy places .741
Osl25:I would enjoy risky sports such as mountain climbing or sky
.738
diving

14
 Table 2 Standardized regression weights

Estimate P
osl15 <--- f1 .667 ***
osl7 <--- f6 .794 ***
osl21 <--- f1 1.082 ***
osl18 <--- f1 .511 ***
osl14 <--- f1 .505 ***
osl6 <--- f1 .412 ***
osl4 <--- f1 .640 ***
osl1 <--- f1 .546 ***
***
osl16 <--- f2 .957
***
osl10 <--- f2 .622 ***
osl9 <--- f2 .487 ***
osl20 <--- f3 .726 ***
osl17 <--- f3 .477 ***
osl13 <--- f3 .574 ***
osl11 <--- f3 .496 ***
osl24 <--- f4 .753 ***
osl19 <--- f4 .654 ***
osl12 <--- f4 .456 ***
osl25 <--- f5 .648 ***
osl23 <--- f5 .535 ***
osl8 <--- f5 .562 ***
osl3 <--- f7 .924 ***
osl2 <--- f7 .467 ***
osl5 <--- f6 1.070 .003

Cluster Analysis

Factor overall scores were then calculated to be used in the cluster analysis. The cluster

procedure involved 2 stages. The first stage concerned the internal validation. The data was

randomly divided into 2 subsets (e.g. Lockshin et al., 1997). The first subset was used to

generate the possible alternative cluster solutions using hierarchical cluster analysis with

Ward’s method (Dibb, 1998; Lockshin et al., 1997; Rohm & Swaminathan, 2004; Singh,

1990). The optimal number of clusters was determined by analysing and finding the largest

differences among clustering coefficients (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998). The

second stage involved using the second subset to conduct K-means cluster analysis using

15
three, four, and five cluster solutions, as indicated by the hierarchical cluster analysis in the

first subset. The initial centroids provided by the hierarchical analysis on the first subset were

used to parameterize the K-means analysis in the second subset (Punj & Steward, 1983).

Memberships from K-means analysis on the second subset were then compared with

memberships of a hierarchical cluster analysis on the second subset. The degree of agreement

between the K-means assignments [of the second subset] and the results of the hierarchical

analysis provides an indication of the stability of the solution (Punj & Steward, 1983). The

‘four’ cluster solution was chosen as the most appropriate solution in terms of stability and

reproducibility. The datasets were then combined and a final K-means cluster analysis was

conducted using the following procedure (Everitt, Landau & Leese, 2001). The final cluster

solution is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Cluster solution

Clusters
1 2 3 4 ANOVA (F) p
Need for Novelty 2.95 2.29 3.02 2.70 48.096 .000
Need for Unpredictability 3.87 3.33 4.31 3.47 63.053 .000
Need for Excitement 2.35 1.81 2.69 2.73 57.701 .000
Need for Activity 2.72 2.46 3.52 2.81 52.190 .000
Need for Risk 3.73 2.46 3.88 2.46 157.943 .000
Need for Change 2.61 2.00 3.41 3.28 123.507 .000
Need for Sensation 3.68 2.06 2.42 2.92 103.621 .000
3.13 2.34 3.32 2.91
Overall VSD level
% 22.5 30.6 24.7 22.3
Cluster descriptors are based on overall scores. Scores range from 1 to 5 (high-low level).
Clusters

The strength of variety-seeking dispositions and the inherent needs are used to describe and

name the clusters below.

16
Cluster 1: This cluster includes 22.5% of the respondents. They have a medium level of

variety-seeking disposition which stems from various needs (Table 3). This group scores

second highest on need for excitement and need for change. Relative to the other clusters they

have a low score on need for risk and need for sensation. This cluster is named change

seekers.

Cluster 2: This cluster comprises the highest number of sample respondents (30.6%) and has

the highest variety-seeking disposition with the highest scores on all needs relative to the

other clusters. This cluster has the highest scores on all needs with a particularly high score

on need for excitement. Their high variety-seeking disposition is likely to be evident in their

consumption. Individuals in this cluster are labelled as variety enthusiasts.

Cluster 3: This cluster is the second larger cluster with 24.7% of respondents. Relative to the

other clusters, they have significantly the lowest level of variety-seeking disposition, in that

they score the lowest on five of the seven needs. It is interesting to note that this cluster

scores very low on the need for unpredictability, which indicates that respondents in this

cluster prefer to feel safe and secure and attempt to avoid unpredictability. They also score

low on need for risk, relative to the other clusters, thus they are labelled as risk and

unpredictability avoiders. In contrast, respondents in this cluster score second highest on the

need for sensation.

Cluster 4: This cluster includes 22.3% of respondents and has the second highest variety-

seeking disposition level relative to the other clusters. Respondents in this cluster score

second highest on the need for risk and need for novelty. Irrespective of the other clusters,

and in terms of the strength of needs that drive variety-seeking disposition, this cluster scores

17
highest on need for risk and novelty seeking but lowest on need for unpredictability. They are

thus labelled as risk and novelty seekers.

External validity of clusters

To establish the external validity of the cluster solution, criterion-related validity was

assessed using attitudinal, behavioural and demographic variables not included in the

development of the clusters, including gender, age, occupation, education, frequency of

clothes purchase, amount spent, information search/evaluation, knowledge, attitude to clothes

shopping and exploratory tendencies. Reliability was established for attitude towards clothes

at a.74 and the discriminating variables were also assessed for discriminant validity.

Correlation values indicate low correlations ranging from .137 to .274 (p<.05) with the

exception of the value between attitude towards clothes and exploratory tendency 3 - ‘I have

interest in fashion’ (.566, p<.000).

Additionally, behavioural (frequency of shopping and amount spent) and demographic (age,

gender, education, occupation) variables were used to profile the clusters. Clusters were

validated via ANOVA and chi-square tests in line with previous research (Ketchen & Shook

1996; Lockshin et al., 1997; Orth et al., 2004; Roddy et al., 1996) ).

Findings of χ 2 tests for demographic variables show significant differences across clusters,

specifically gender ( χ 2 = 13.6504, df = 3, p<.05), age ( χ 2 = 22.208, df = 12, p<.05)

education ( χ 2 =21.386, df = 9, p<.05) and occupation ( χ 2 =55.040, df = 30, p<.05. Although

the sample is biased towards females, clusters differ in terms of the number of males

included, with clusters 2 and 4 having more males than clusters 1 and 3. Findings also show

that relative to the other clusters, clusters 2 and 4 are made up of more respondents between

18
the ages of 15 and 34. Cluster 3 has more respondents between the ages of 35 and 54. In

terms of education, clusters 2 and 4 have more respondents with university degrees compared

to clusters 1 and 3. Furthermore, relative to the other clusters, cluster 2 has more respondents

in education, medical services and middle management, while clusters 1 and 3 have more

respondents with office and clerical posts.

Furthermore, ANOVA findings indicate that information search and exploratory tendencies (I

like to shop around; I like window shopping) do not discriminate the clusters. However,

significant differences were observed for exploratory tendency ‘I have an interest in fashion’

(F= 4.741, p<.05), attitude to clothes (F= 3.133, p<.05), frequency of clothes shopping

(F=4.480, p<.05) and brand commitment (F=2.928, p<.05). Findings also indicate that

knowledge (F=2.599, p<.10) and amount spent on clothes (F=2.400, p<.10) distinguish

clusters, but at 90% confidence intervals. Multiple comparisons were also calculated. Table 4

shows the significant pairwise differences identified.

19
 Table 4 Multiple comparisons

Clusters Mean Std Error Sig.

Difference
I have an interest in fashion
1-4 -.352* .136 .049
2-4 -.434* .127 .004
Attitude to clothes
1-4 -.36732* .12173 .014

Frequency of clothes shopping

1-3 .390* .114 .004
2-3 .294* .106 .029

Brand commitment
1-3 -.250* .094 .040

Table 4 shows significant (p<.05) pairwise differences between clusters in terms of their

interest in fashion, brand commitment, frequency of clothes shopping, and attitude to clothes.

Clusters 1 (M 1.70, sd .959) and 4 (M 2.05, sd 1.12), and 2 (M 1.62, sd .962) and 4, differ in

terms of their interest in fashion, with clusters 1 and 2 having a significantly stronger interest

in fashion. Similarly cluster 1 (M 2.0, sd .95) has a significantly stronger attitude to clothes

compared to cluster 4 (M 2.37, sd .924). Significant differences were also observed in terms

of frequency of clothes shopping between clusters 1 (M 4.31, sd .814) and 3 (M 3.92, sd

.955), and 2 (M 4.21, sd .855) and 3, with clusters 1 and 2 tending to shop more frequently

than cluster 3. Clusters 1 (M 2.34, sd) and 3 (M 2.59, sd .767) also differ in terms of brand

commitment, with respondents in cluster 3 exhibiting stronger commitment to their preferred

brand. This is an interesting finding which shows that although both clusters 1 and 3 have

overall a medium variety-seeking disposition, cluster 1 shows less commitment to their

preferred brand. This may be explained by the fact that cluster 1 has a significantly stronger

need for change compared to cluster 3 (F= 1.485, p< .000).

20
General Discussion

This study uses the notion of optimal stimulation level to capture variety-seeking dispositions

(VSD) which is grounded on various intrinsic needs that determine how variety-seeking

disposition will be manifested. Variety-seeking is important in explaining individual

difference characteristics (e.g. loyalty/commitment, involvement, exploratory tendencies) in

specific product contexts (Hoyer & Ridgway, 1984). Variety-seeking has been linked to

market segmentation, although research in this domain is rather limited. Rohm and

Swaminathan (2004) found that overall, variety seekers are motivated by convenience in their

shopping and are interested in alternative shopping channels and brands. The authors also

report that variety seekers exhibit tendencies to plan their shopping trips. The authors’

findings are in line with previous research which highlights that variety-seeking is linked to

exploratory behaviours, as well as other constructs such as risk and behavioural intentions

(Helmig et al., 2007; Raju, 1980).

Our findings complement this stream of research by arguing that a number of needs underlie

variety-seeking disposition via OSL that can be used to explain and profile variety seekers

fuller and better. We thus identify different variety-seeking segments with different levels of

inherent needs, indicating that individuals can be segmented and profiled, not only in terms of

the strength (or level) of their variety-seeking disposition or tendency (e.g. variety seekers vs.

variety avoiders), but also the inherent needs which drive variety-seeking dispositions. Four

distinct clusters were identified and profiled using additional demographic, behavioural and

attitudinal variables (e.g. age, gender, education, occupation, attitude to clothes, brand

commitment). Clusters were found to differ in terms of the level of their inherent OSL needs

which trigger variety-seeking dispositions, shown to be manifested in the context of shopping

for clothes. Additionally, findings show that demographic variables (e.g. age, gender,

21
education and occupation), as well as attitudinal and behavioural variables (e.g. attitude to

clothes shopping, frequency of clothes shopping and commitment to brand) discriminate

clusters. On the other hand, information search, knowledge and amount spent on clothes do

not discriminate clusters.

The findings of the cluster analysis show that the majority of respondents exhibit a medium

level of variety-seeking disposition (e.g. ranging from 2.34 for cluster 2 and 3.32 for cluster

3). This is in line with previous research (Berlyne, 1968), although it is interesting to

highlight the variation observed in terms of the strength of different needs in each cluster. For

example, cluster 2 has the highest need for excitement, whereas cluster 3 has the lowest level

of need or no need for unpredictability. Cluster 2 also has a high score on need for change,

whereas cluster 3 has the lowest score for change. Similarly, cluster 1 has the lowest score on

need for sensation.

The variation of the level of needs observed is further validated by the demographic and

behavioural differences identified. For example, cluster 2 which has the highest level of

variety-seeking disposition, is composed mostly of younger respondents (15-34) compared to

cluster 3 (35-54). Similarly, clusters 1 and 2 shop for clothes more frequently than cluster 3.

However, no significant differences were observed for exploratory purchase tendencies (I like

to shop around and I like window shopping) albeit clusters 1 and 2 significantly differ from

cluster 4 in interest in fashion. Further research should therefore be conducted to explore a

wider spectrum of exploratory and avoidance tendencies or behaviours such as innovating,

risk taking and vicarious exploration (Price & Ridgway 1982; Raju 1980)) and other

attitudinal constructs in relation to variety-seeking dispositions in different product contexts.

Additionally, research should also explore a more generalisable sample, and use additional

22
behavioural and demographic variables such the number of brands bought, decision criteria,

income and family size, to discriminate and profile clusters.

Conclusions and Managerial Implications

The study adds to the existing literature by exploring a consumer typology based on inherent

needs that trigger variety-seeking disposition (e.g. Mitchell & Bates 1998; Rohm &

Swaminathan, 2004). This typology reflects a perspective which offers a ‘fuller’ explanation

of variety-seeking dispositions based on OSL needs, which can be used to cluster individuals

and has implications for targeting and marketing strategy. Individuals whose variety-seeking

disposition is triggered by different strength of needs, for example the need for change, risk,

etc., are expected to exhibit significant differences in attitudes and behaviours as well as

exploratory behaviours. This study shows that clusters differ on attitude towards clothes and

frequency of shopping for clothes.

In terms of managerial implications, consumers’ level of variety-seeking dispositions (VSD)

and its ‘sources’ has implications for the development of marketing strategy, since VSD

offers additional information based on which marketers can devise strategies to target

different clusters of individuals. For example, our findings show that individuals with a

relatively high variety-seeking disposition compared to the other clusters (e.g., clusters 2 and

4) score high on need for novelty, activity and risk. Individuals in clusters 2 and 4 tend to

have positive responses towards experiences entailing novelty and risk, and are also likely to

have a higher level of risk tolerance compared to other respondents such as the respondents in

clusters 1 and 3. Individuals in clusters 2 and 4 therefore would be more eager to try new

products or services, since these individuals have a need for novelty, tend to be more

innovative and perceive less uncertainty and consequences in their purchases compared to

23
other consumers (Fiore, Lee & Kunz, 2004). In addition, individuals with a high need for

risk and novelty tend to switch brands or exhibit multiple loyalties, particularly in the context

of clothes shopping where individuals own a portfolio of brands (Michaelidou & Dibb,

2009).

In contrast, individuals in clusters 1 and 3 score low on the need for risk and unpredictability,

and hence likely are to be risk avoiders. Risk avoiders are likely to be later adopters of

innovations, as they tend to avoid situations with high uncertainty and unforeseeable

consequences. Compared to the other clusters, clusters 1 and 3 therefore would use larger

amounts of information in their decision making, and would have a higher propensity to be

brand loyal. This finding is useful to marketers in devising strategies to target such

individuals; marketers can acquire a better profile of consumers if they consider inherent

OSL needs such as risk, novelty and unpredictability as segmentation bases, since OSL needs

determine behaviours such as risk taking, brand switching or loyalty, and shape attitudes.

Hence, when targeting individuals with high need for novelty and risk, marketers should

stress the variety and novelty of their product assortment; they should direct any new

offerings to individuals with a high need for novelty and risk. In contrast, when targeting

individuals with a low need for risk and unpredictability, marketers should attempt to support

consumers’ decision making processes with large amounts of information, and explain the

product features to them well.

Furthermore, cluster 1 scores very low on need for sensation, a finding which indicates that

these individuals do not place significant weight on decision criteria involving sensory input

such as taste, smell and touch. This is an interesting and useful finding for both companies

who want to promote their online shopping operation, but also for e-tailers. For example,

24
online supermarkets such as Ocado (www.ocado.com) would be interested in targeting

individuals who do not choose food on the basis of sensory appeal such as smell, taste and

texture. Individuals with low or no need for sensation are therefore ‘ideal candidates’ for

online shopping of experiential products including, but not limited to, groceries such as fresh

produce and meat.

In contrast, individuals in clusters 2, 3 and 4 who score relatively high on need for sensation

will be more interested in sensory or physical criteria (e.g. taste, smell, texture) when buying.

Consider for example the purchase of a house deodorant. Individuals with a high need for

sensation will choose on the basis of the smell and aroma, while individuals with a low need

for sensation will be more interested in the functionality and effectiveness of the house

deodorant in terms of eliminating odours; they will therefore place less emphasis on the

aroma and smell. Thus, for individuals with a high need for sensation, sensation seeking is a

key part of their shopping experience, and they will place considerable emphasis on sensory

appeal when evaluating products or services. On this basis, individuals with a high need for

sensation are likely to choose to shop in retail stores, rather than other shopping formats such

as the Internet, or direct mail. This finding is useful to companies with a multi-channel

operation, as well as e-tailers in targeting individuals with online products and services, since

consumers’ need for sensation may be related to consumers’ willingness to patronize

different channel formats.

Moreover, consumers’ varied levels of OSL needs (e.g., sensation, risk, unpredictability,

excitement, novelty and change) assist marketers when devising promotional messages that

focus on specific product attributes (e.g., sensory or non-sensory) and formats (e.g., affective

or cognitive, emotional or informational appeals) and assist consumers to make decisions. For

25
example, high sensation seekers (such as clusters 2, 3 and 4) are likely to be more interested

in messages of high sensation appeal that trigger greater sensory and affective responses,

compared to low-sensation seekers who are susceptible mostly to cognitive or information-

based messages. Messages that target high sensation seekers therefore should highlight the

sensory attributes of the product (e.g., taste, smell, texture, etc.) and focus on cues such as

music, colour, illustrations, and endorsements. On the other hand, when targeting individuals

with a low need for sensation (e.g. cluster 1), marketers should stress the functional

characteristics of products (e.g. price, durability etc.) rather than the sensory or emotional

attributes.

Similarly, individuals with a low need for risk, unpredictability, sensation and excitement

will be more interested in messages that contain functional information about the product

such as price, quality, warranty and availability. Marketers should therefore focus on using

rational appeals to target such individuals, including, for example, problems and solutions,

demonstrations and testimonials.

Overall, our findings have practical implications, particularly in terms of segmentation and

targeting, as well as for advertising strategy and the design of messages. Marketers can adjust

their marketing approaches according to the level of variety-seeking exhibited by different

individuals, and particularly the OSL needs that drive their variety-seeking disposition.

26
REFERENCES

Barry, J., & Weinstein, A. (2009). Business psychographics revisited: From segmentation

theory to successful marketing practice. Journal of Marketing Management, 25 (3-4), 315-

340.

Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B., E.M. (1996). Exploratory consumer buying behaviour:

Conceptualisation and measurement. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13,

121-137.

Bawa, K. (1990). Modelling inertia and variety seeking tendencies in brand choice behaviour.

Marketing Science, 9 (3), 263-278.

Berlyne, D.E. (1960), Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Carmines, E.G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Unobserved variables. In G.W. Bohrnstedt & E.F.

Borgatta (eds.) Social Measurement: Current Issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Celsi, R.L., & Olson, J.C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension

processes, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 210-224.

Dibb, S. (1998). Market segmentation: Strategies for success. Marketing Intelligence and

Planning, 16 (7), 394-406.

Dibb, S., Simkin, L., Pride, W.M., & Ferrell, O.C. (2006). Marketing: concepts and

strategies, (5th Edition), Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin.

Eliashberg, J., & Swahney, M.S. (1994). Modelling goes to Hollywood: predicting individual

differences in movie enjoyment. Management Science, 40 (9), 1151-1173.

Everitt, B. S., Landau, S. & Leese, M. (2001), Cluster analysis, (4th Edition), London:

Arnold.

Farquhar, P.H., & Rao, V.R. (1976). A balance model for evaluating subsets of multi-

attribute items. Management Science, 22 (5), 528-539.

27
Feinberg, F.M., Kahn, B.E. & McAlister, L. (1992). Market share response when consumers

seek variety. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 227-237.

Feinberg, F.M., Kahn, B.E., & McAlister, L. (1994). Implications and relative fit of several

first-order Markov models of consumer variety seeking. European Journal of Operational

Research, 76, 309-320.

Fiore, A. M., Lee S.-F., & Kunz G. (2004). Individual differences, motivations, and

willingness to use a mass customization option for fashion products. European Journal of

Marketing. 38 (7), 835.

Fornell, C., & Larcker D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.

Gilbert, F.W., & Warren, W.E. (1995). Psychographic constructs and demographic segments.

Psychology and Marketing, 12 (3), 223-237.

Givon, M. (1984). Variety seeking through brand switching. Marketing Science, 3 (1), 1-22.

Givon, M. (1985). Variety seeking market partitioning and segmentation, International

Journal of Research in Marketing, 2, 117-127.

Hagerty, M.R. (1983). Variety seeking among songs which vary in similarity. In R. P.

Bogozzi & A.M. Tybout (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 10, Ann Arbor MI:

Association for Consumer Research, 75-79.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E. Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate data analysis,

(5th Edition), Upper Saddle River, JJ::Prentice Hall International.

Hassan, S.S., Craft, S., & Kortam, W. (2003). Understanding the new bases for global

marketing segmentation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20 (4/5), 446-462.

Hebb, D.O. (1955). Drives and the C.N.S. (Central Nervous System). Psychological Review,

62, 243-254.

28
Helmig, B., Huber, J.-A., & Leeflang, P. (2007). Explaining behavioural intentions towardco-

branded products. Journal of Marketing Management, 23 (3-4), 285-304.

Hoffman, D.L., & Novak, T.P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated

environments: conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 50-68.

Honkanen, P., Olsen, S., & Myrland, O. (2004). Preference-based segmentation: A study of

meal preferences among Norwegian teenagers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3 (3), 235-

250.

Hoyer, W.D., & Ridgway, N.M. (1984). Variety seeking as an explanation for exploratory

behaviour: A theoretical model. In T.C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, 11,

Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 114-119.

Huber, J., & Reibstein, D. J. (1979). Attitude measures and choice frequency: Some pitfalls

to be avoided. In Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, American Marketing Association

Proceedings Series.

Jensen, T.D., Carlson, L., & Tripp, C. (1989). The dimensionality of involvement: An

empirical test. In T. K. Sroll (Ed.) ,Advances in Consumer Research, 16, Provo, UT:

Association for Consumer Research, 680-689.

Inman, J. J. (2001). The role of sensory-specific satiety in attribute-level variety seeking.

Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 105-120.

Jeuland, A. P. (1978). Brand preference over time: A partially deterministic

operationalisation of the notion of variety seeking. In , J. Shubashi (Ed.), Proceedings of the

AMA Educators Conference: Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions,

Chicago IL: American Marketing Association, 33-37.

Jimenez-Martin, S., & Ladron-de-Guevara, A. (2007). Modelling consumption patterns in the

attribute space: Theory and evidence of hybrid behaviour. International Journal of Research

in Marketing, 24, 242-253.

29
Joachimsthaler, E.A.. & Lastovicka, J.A. (1984). Optimal stimulation level-exploratory

behaviour models. Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (3), 830-835.

Kahn, B.E. (1995). Consumer variety seeking among goods and services. Journal of

Retailing and Consumer Services, 2, 139-148.

Kahn, B.E., & Lehmann, D.R. (1991). Modelling choice assortments. Journal of Retailing, 67

(3), 274-299.

Kahn, B.E., & Louie, T.A. (1990). Effects of retraction of price promotions on brand choice

behaviour for variety seeking and last purchase loyal consumers. Journal of Marketing

Research, 27, 279-289.

Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M.U., & Morrison, D.G. (1986). Measuring variety seeking and

reinforcement behaviours using panel data. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 89-100.

Ketchen, D.J., & Shook, C.L. (1996). The Application of cluster analysis in strategic

management Research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (6), 441-

458.

Kent, R., & Brandal, H. (2003). Improving e-mail response in a permission marketing

context. International Journal of Market Research, 45, 489-496.

Kucukemiroglu, O. (1997). Market segmentation by using consumer lifestyle dimensions and

ethnocentrism: An empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (5/6), 470-487.

Kumar, A., & Trivedi, M. (2006). Estimation of variety seeking for segmentation and

targeting: An empirical analysis. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for

Marketing, 15 (1), 21-29.

Lattin, J.M., & McAlister, L. (1985). Using a variety seeking model to identify substitute and

complementary relationships among competing products. Journal of Marketing Research, 22

(3), 330-339.

30
Leuba, C. (1955). Toward some integration of learning theories: The concept of optimal

stimulation. Psychological Reports, 1, 27-33.

Lockshin, L. S., Spawton, A. L., & Macintosh, G. (1997). Using product, brand and

purchasing involvement for retail segmentation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,

4 (3), 171-183.

McAlister, L., & Pessemier, P. (1982). Variety seeking behaviour: An interdisciplinary

review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 311-322.

McGoldrick, P.J., Keeling, K.A., & Beatty, S.F. (2008). A typology of roles for avatars in

online retailing. Journal of Marketing Management, 24 (3-4), 433-451.

Mitchell, V.-W., & Bates, L. (1998). UK consumer decision-making styles. Journal of

Marketing Management, 14, 199-225.

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental Psychology,

Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Michaelidou N., & Dibb, S.C. (2009). Brand switching in clothing: The roles of variety

seeking drive and product category-level characteristics. International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 33 (3), 322-326.

Mittelstaedt, R.A., Grossbart, S.L., Curtis, W.W., & Devere, S.P. (1976). Optimal stimulation

level and the adoption decision process. Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (2), 84-95.

Orth, U.R. (2005). Consumer personality and other factors in situational brand choice

variation. Brand Management, 13 (2), 115-133.

Orth, U.R., & Bourrain, A. (2005a). Ambient scent and consumer exploratory behaviour: A

causal analysis, Journal of Wine Research, 16 (2), 137-150.

Orth, U.R., & Bourrain, B. (2005b). Optimum stimulation level theory and the differential

impact of olfactory stimuli on consumer exploratory tendencies. In G. Menon & A. Rao

31
(Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 32, Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer

Research, 613-619.

Orth, U.R., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer, T., & Lopetcharat, K. (2004). Promoting brand

benefits: The role of consumer psychographics and lifestyle. The Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 21 (2/3), 97-108.

Price, L.L., & Ridgway, N.M. (1982). Use innovativeness, vicarious exploration and

purchase exploration: Three facets of consumer varied behaviour. In Walker et al., (Eds.),

Proceedings of the AMA Educators Conference, Chicago IL: American Marketing

Association, 56-60.

Punj, G., & Steward, D.W. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and

suggestions for application, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 134-148.

Raju, P.S. (1980). Optimal stimulation level: Its relationships to personality, demographics

and exploratory behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 272-282.

Raju, P.S. (1981). Theories of exploratory behaviour: Review and consumer research

Implications, Research in Marketing, 4, 223-249.

Raju, P. S. (1983). Measurement and modelling of variety seeking behaviour: Observations

and implications. In R. P. Bogozzi & A.M. Tybout (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research,

10, Ann Arbor MI: Association for Consumer Research, 84-87.

Rigopoulou, I.D., Tsiotsou, R.H., & Kehagias, J.D. (2008). Shopping orientation-defined

segments based on store-choice criteria and satisfaction: An empirical investigation. Journal

of Marketing Management, 24 (9-10), 979-995.

Roddy, G., Cowan, C.A., & Hutchinson, G. (1996). Consumer attitudes and behaviour to

organic foods in Ireland. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9 (2), 41-63.

Rohm, A.J., & Swaminathan, V. (2004). A typology of online shoppers based on shopping

motivations. Journal of Business Research, 57, 748-757.

32
Ross, S.D. (2007). Segmenting sports fans using brand associations: A cluster analysis,

Sports Marketing Quarterly, 16 (1), 15-24.

Schillewaert, N., Langerak, F., & Duhamel, T. (1998). Non-probability sampling for www

surveys: A comparison, Journal of the Market Research Society, 40 (4), 307-322.

Simonson, I. (1990). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety seeking

behaviour. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 150-162.

Singh, J. (1990). A typology of consumer response styles. Journal of Retailing, 66 (1), 57-99.

Steenkamp, J.-B. E.M., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). The role of optimum stimulation level in

exploratory consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 434-448.

Steenkamp, J.-B. E.M., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). Development and cross-cultural

validation of a short form of CSI as a measure of optimum stimulation level. International

Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 97-104.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics, (4th Edition), Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Trivedi, M. (1999). Using variety seeking based segmentation to study promotional response.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (1), 37-49.

Trivedi, M., & Morgan, N. S. (2003). Promotional evaluation and response among variety

seeking segments. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12 (6/7), 408-425.

Van Trijp, H.C.M., Hoyer, W.D., & Inman, J.J. (1996). Why switch? product category level

explanations for true variety seeking behaviour. Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (3), 281-

292.

Van Trijp, H.C.M., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1992). Consumers’ variety seeking disposition

with respect to foods: Measurement and managerial implications. European Research on

Agricultural Economics, 19, 181-195.

33
 Vazquez-Carrasco, R., & Foxall, R. G. (2006). Positive vs. negative switching barriers: The

influence of service consumers’ need for variety. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 367-

375.

Volkov, M., Harker, M., & Harker D. (2006). People who complain about advertising: The

aficionados, guardians, activists and seekers. Journal of Marketing Management, 22, 379-405

Wahlers, R.G., Dunn, M.G., & Etzel, M.J. (1986). The congruence of alternative OSL

measures with consumer exploratory behaviour tendencies. In R.J. Lutz, (Ed.), Advances in

Consumer Research, 13, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 398-408.

Wahlers, R.G. & Etzel, M.J. (1990). A structural examination of two optimal stimulation

level measurement models. In M.E. Goldberg, G.Gorn, & R.W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in

Consumer Research, 17, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 415-422.

Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. (1999), Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological

foundations. (2nd Edition),Boston, Mass: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wilson, A., & Laskey, N. (2003). Internet based marketing research: A serious alternative to

traditional research methods? Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 21 (2), 79-84.

Wood, S.L., & Swait, J. (2002). Psychological indicators of innovation adoption: Cross-

classification based on need for cognition and need for change, Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 12 (1), 1-13.

i
Additional analysis could have been performed to eliminate items, yet it was decided to proceed to cluster
analysis without losing further content from the scale since the fit indices are acceptable and the factor loadings
are all significant.

34

View publication stats