Marketing Letters 15:4, 213–221, 2004

c 2005 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in the Netherlands.

Variety-Seeking and Time of Day: Why Leader

Brands Hope Young Adults Shop in the Afternoon,
but Follower Brands Hope for Morning
HARPER A. ROEHM JR.
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

MICHELLE L. ROEHM ∗ Michelle.Roehm@mba.wfu.edu

Associate Professor of Marketing, Babcock Graduate School of Management, Wake Forest University,
Winston-Salem, NC 27109

Abstract

The relationship between variety-seeking behaviors and the time of day at which choices are made is investigated.
It is proposed that more variety-seeking will typically occur during times of day when people are experiencing
arousal lows rather than arousal peaks. Two studies support this view. Moreover, it is also shown that the incidence
of choice is greater for follower brands during day periods when variety-seeking is heightened, whereas leader
brands fare better in periods when variety-seeking is relatively minimal.

Keywords: variety-seeking, brand choice

“Variety-seeking” is a phenomenon in which a consumer’s choices vacillate over time

among an acceptable set of alternatives (McAlister, 1982; McAlister and Pessemier, 1982).
For example, a variety-seeking consumer might choose the following candy bar snacks over
the course of a week’s time: Snickers, Snickers, Hershey Bar, Snickers, Almond Joy, Milky
Way, Snickers. In varying choices in this manner, this consumer can achieve benefits such
as avoiding satiation or even boredom with a favorite brand (e.g., Snickers) by interspersing
its consumption with consumption of other satisfactory items.
The consumption patterns that characterize variety-seeking have attracted substantial
attention from marketing researchers over the past two decades. In the course of this research,
numerous factors have been identified as variables that can enhance or undermine tendencies
to engage in its practice. Examples include such things as a person’s mood (Kahn and Isen,
1993), a store’s atmosphere (Menon and Kahn, 1995), characteristics of a product category
(van Trijp, 1996), and preference uncertainty (Simonson, 1990; Simonson and Winer, 1992).
The present research investigates an as-yet unexplored influence on variety-seeking,
which is the time of day at which purchases occur. Specifically, we examine the possi-
bility that holding constant aspects such as those listed above (shopper’s mood, shopping

∗ Corresponding author.
214 ROEHM JR. AND ROEHM

environment, product category, etc.), variety-seeking may be more likely to occur at some
hours than at others. Further, we also consider the ramifications of such timing asymmetry
for two different kinds of brands, category share leaders and followers.
Our coverage of these issues begins with a discussion of variety-seeking and its effects
on the sales positions of leader and follower brands. After deriving specific predictions, we
then present two studies that test the propositions we advance.

1. Conceptual Background

1.1. Variety-Seeking

Variety-seeking is characterized by consumers’ tendencies to switch among available

brands. A key benefit to such switching behaviors is that a consumer can experience some
degree of product novelty and thereby break up the monotony of consuming the same
product over and over again. For example, to revisit the introductory illustration, one can
imagine that having a Snickers every day might become dull after a time, even for people
who claim Snickers as a favorite candy treat. However, by interweaving choices of Snickers
with choices of other candy bars, weariness with the product may be minimized.
Inasmuch as it delivers welcome breaks in a consumption routine, variety-seeking is
often depicted as providing arousal to consumers who otherwise may feel an unpleasant
sense of tedium (McAlister and Pessemier, 1982; Raju, 1980; Steenkamp and Baumgartner,
1992). Indeed, the arousal potential of variety seeking is considered to be one of its core
advantages for consumers.
However, in addition to this upside for consumers, it is also important to take into account
the consequences of variety-seeking from the marketer’s point of view. Here, things seem
to be not quite so clear-cut. To understand why, consider the logically opposing relation-
ship between the concepts of variety-seeking and brand loyalty. Loyalty suggests that a
favorite brand may be chosen again and again on successive purchase occasions. By con-
trast, variety-seeking tendencies work against repeat-purchase loyalty, leading consumers
to trade away from favorite brands—at least temporarily—in order to inject some novelty
into a consumption series.
From these observations, it follows that the degree to which variety-seeking is problem-
atic versus welcomed by a marketer may thus depend on the market share position that the
marketer enjoys. For a leading brand that has developed a substantial base of loyal cus-
tomers, variety-seeking may be a source of concern. Each time the brand loses a choice to
a competitor for the sake of supplying the consumer with novelty, it is not just the one pur-
chase occasion’s revenue that might be lost. The switch would also open up the possibility
that an alternative item that was chosen could curry favor with the consumer and eventually
replace the leader as the consumer’s preferred brand. Compatible with this analysis, it has
been demonstrated that market share leaders have the most to lose when consumers engage
in variety-seeking (Feinberg et al., 1992).
By contrast, variety-seeking behaviors may present a welcome opportunity for follower
brands to gain ground in a product category. Switches away from favorite brands present
opportunities to “steal” business away from incumbent leaders. Consistent with this logic, it
VARIETY-SEEKING AND TIME OF DAY 215

has been shown that follower brands can gain share from leader brands when variety-seeking
is in operation (Feinberg et al., 1992).
The observation that variety-seeking can be more kind to follower brands than to leaders
suggests that marketers of leader brands would benefit if consumers were to shop or make
choices when in a frame of mind not conducive to variety-seeking, whereas the opposite
would apply to follower brands. It thus bears considering what kinds of variables may
produce a pro-versus an anti-variety-seeking mindset. Intriguingly, there is some evidence
to suggest that the time of day when a person shops may be instrumental in this regard. This
notion is explored in the section that follows.

1.2. Time of Day

A relationship between time of day and performance on various activities has long been
acknowledged (Folkard, 1982). Moreover, for the current purposes, it is important to note
that such time-of-day effects have been linked to diurnal variations in arousal levels—
relatively elevated or relatively dwindling feelings of alertness or wakefulness–across day
parts (Colquhoun, 1971). That is, for many people, arousal tends to follow a fairly rhythmic
and regular pattern of ebbs and flows within a typical day, and these peaks and valleys often
produce differential behavioral outcomes.
One motivating factor, which helps to explain performance differences during arousal
highs versus lows, is the relationship between the actual level of arousal that a person
feels at a given point in time and his or her generally preferred level of arousal, or in other
words the person’s optimum stimulation level (“OSL”; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992).
When an individual’s actual arousal falls below his or her generally preferred level (OSL),
as may be especially likely in low diurnal arousal times (henceforth referred to as “diurnal
lows”), the person will sense a need for stimulation, and this may prompt the seeking out of
arousing stimuli and engagement in arousing activities (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992;
Steenkamp et al., 1996). However, when one’s actual arousal meets or exceeds one’s OSL,
as may often be the case during a diurnal arousal peak (henceforth referred to as a “diurnal
peak”), the drive to obtain additional stimulation through additional arousing activities may
be relatively minimal.
These observations have important implications for variety-seeking propensities, be-
cause, as noted earlier, variety-seeking has been related to arousal. More specifically,
variety-seeking, with its opportunity to experience novelty, is one activity that can pro-
vide arousal when needed (Raju, 1980; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992). As such, it
may be predicted that the incidence of variety-seeking will increase when consumers ex-
perience less actual arousal than their OSL would dictate, as may often transpire during
diurnal lows. Variety-seeking may be welcomed in such circumstances as a means of recti-
fying suboptimal levels of arousal. On the other hand, in cases where actual arousal is at or
above OSL, as may often occur during diurnal peaks, the incidence of variety-seeking may
drop off (Menon and Kahn, 1995). This would presumably occur, because variety-seeking
would provide arousal, and for a consumer who is already experiencing sufficient arousal
from the diurnal peak, additional stimulation would be unwarranted.
216 ROEHM JR. AND ROEHM

Building on these observations, we may draw some conclusions about shopping times
that may be more or less advantageous for leader versus follower brands. It was noted earlier
that leader brands should wish to minimize variety-seeking. As such, it appears that times of
day during which diurnal peaks occur would be optimal shopping times for leaders. Already
benefiting from peak arousal, none need be sought by consumers through variety-seeking,
and loyal repeat purchase may thus be protected. By contrast, diurnal lows may be more
advantageous for follower brands, as consumers may pursue additional stimulation through
switches away from favored brands.
In summary, two key premises will be tested empirically. The first is the notion that there
should be less variety-seeking activity during a diurnal peak time than during a diurnal low.
The second is that market leaders will have greater choice incidence during a diurnal peak
time than a diurnal low, whereas the opposite should be found for a follower brand. Two
studies will now be presented to examine these hypotheses.

2. Experiment 1

Experiment 1 provided a preliminary test of the notions that variety-seeking in product

choices would vary as a function of time of day and that results would differ for leader
versus follower brands. Forty-four business students (age range 22–29) volunteered for the
study and were compensated by entry into a drawing for two $25 gift certificates to a local
restaurant.
The approach taken was to have each participant make a series of choices from a list that
included both market leaders and follower brands. This took place either during a diurnal
peak time or during a diurnal low time. Choices were then analyzed to assess the amounts of
variety-seeking evident within the diurnal conditions, as well as the incidences of choices
for leader and follower brands.

2.1. Stimuli

The candy bar category was chosen as a context for experiment 1, because snack foods have
been utilized previously in variety-seeking research (Kahn and Isen, 1993), and because
this is a category that a pretest (N = 20) indicated was purchased frequently by students in
the study population. The same pretest survey indicated that the favorite brand of candy bar
among the students was Snickers, which was thus included in Experiment 1 to represent
a leader brand. Approximately 80% of the pretest sample indicated that they had had a
Snickers bar during the past 3 months, and 34% reported that they had had one in the
past week. Other brands rated favorably by students and thus included in the study were
Milky Way, Three Musketeers, Hershey Bar, Pay Day, Baby Ruth and Butterfinger. Among
these, Pay Day was selected as a focal follower brand. This decision was made after a
second pretest (N = 14) indicated that Pay Day is the brand on our list that is rated as the
most different from Snickers. As such, it was expected to provide the strongest departure
from Snickers and thus might be especially likely to gain share when a consumer seeks a
temporary break from Snickers.
VARIETY-SEEKING AND TIME OF DAY 217

2.2. Methodology

Participants attended a study session either at 4 PM or at 9 AM. Prior research indicates

that these times often correspond to diurnal peaks and diurnal lows, respectively, for people
of our sample’s age (Yoon, 1997). All study materials and instructions were contained in
a booklet that was given to participants at the beginning of the experiment. The first page
of the booklet provided a set of instructions. Respondents were asked to assume that they
were making a series of ten daily snack choices from the school’s vending machine and
that the experimental candy bar brands were available for purchase. They were asked to
indicate which candy bar brand they would choose to consume on each day.
Subsequent pages of the booklet were individually labeled “Candy Bar for Day 1,” “Candy
Bar for Day 2” and so forth. On each page, a complete alphabetical listing of the available
brands was provided. Participants simply circled their choice for each day.

2.3. Results

The number of switches between brands on successive choices (nine possible, given ten
completed choices) was analyzed via ANOVA, with time of day (diurnal peak or diurnal
low) as a predictor. Higher scores on the switching measure have previously been interpreted
as indicators of greater variety-seeking (Kahn and Isen, 1993).
This analysis revealed a main effect for time of day (F(1, 42) = 17.30, p < .01), such
that means in the diurnal peak condition (M = 3.55) were lower than in the diurnal low
condition (M = 5.41). This pattern of results is consistent with predictions.
Specific choice incidences for the leader brand (Snickers) and for the focal follower
brand (Pay Day) were also examined in a 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA, with time of day and brand
as between- and within-subjects factors, respectively. This analysis revealed an interaction
between time of day and brand (λ = .46, F(1, 42) = 49.62, p < .01). Follow-up analyses
indicated that, as predicted, means for Snickers in the diurnal peak condition (M = 2.41)
were higher than in the diurnal low condition (M = 1.72, F(1, 42) = 9.06, p < .01). By
contrast, Pay Day was chosen more often in the diurnal low condition (M = 1.73) than in
the diurnal peak condition (M = .36, F(1, 42) = 63.85, p < .01). It was also the case that
Snickers and Pay Day did not differ in choice incidence within the diurnal low condition
(λ = .98, F(1, 21) = .02, p > .98), but did differ significantly within the diurnal peak
condition (λ = .21, F(1, 21) = 77.46, p < .01). Thus, although leader brand share did
drop in the diurnal low condition, it did not drop significantly below the level of the follower
brand.

2.4. Discussion

The findings of experiment 1 are quite consistent with expectations. Variety-seeking, as

indexed by numbers of switches between brands, was lowest during diurnal peaks, and this
benefited leader brands. Our explanation for this is that the diurnal peak provided suffi-
ciently high arousal to meet the OSL requirements of our respondent shoppers. Assuming
218 ROEHM JR. AND ROEHM

variety-seeking is also an arousing activity, it was avoided, because further arousal was not
desired at that particular time.
This logic also explains the result that a higher degree of variety-seeking—which provided
a boost to a follower brand–was observed in conjunction with a diurnal low. In the low
condition, an arousing activity such as variety-seeking would have been attractive as a sort
of pick-me-up that could help to achieve a level of arousal that would be more commensurate
with a person’s OSL.

3. Experiment 2

Thirty-nine business students aged 23–28 participated in our second study and were compen-
sated as in experiment 1. Experiment 2 extended the results of experiment 1 in an important
way. Whereas consumption was imagined in experiment 1, experiment 2 mimicked more
recent papers on variety seeking and included actual consumption (e.g., Ariely and Levav,
2000; Ratner et al., 1999; Simonson, 1990). The goal of this amendment to procedures was
to enhance the external validity of our findings.

3.1. Methodology

Stimulus brands were the same as in Experiment 1. The study took place at the end of eight
successive sessions of two marketing courses, one of which was held from 10:00 AM–
11:20 AM (diurnal low), and the other or which was held from 3:10 PM–4:20 PM (diurnal
peak). Students in the courses were told on the first day that they would be making a series
of eight candy bar choices at the end of the next several class meetings. They were then
given a sheet of paper on which the list of available candy bars was provided. Respondents
were asked to circle the candy bar that they would like to have and were told that they would
in fact be given this candy bar to eat. After circling a desired candy, each participant was
given their selected treat on the way out of class. This procedure was repeated on all eight
days of the study.

3.2. Results

The number of switches between brands on successive choices (seven possible, given eight
completed choices) was again analyzed via ANOVA, with time of day (diurnal peak or
low) as a predictor. This analysis indicated a main effect for time of day (F(1, 37) = 18.09,
p < .01). As in experiment 1, means in the diurnal peak condition (M = 3.15) were lower
than in the diurnal low condition (M = 4.84). This pattern of results is consistent with
predictions.
Specific choice incidences for the leader brand (Snickers) and for the focal follower brand
(Pay Day) were then examined in a 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA with time of day as a between-
subjects factor and brand as a within-subjects factor. From this analysis, an interaction
emerged between time of day and brand (λ = .76, F(1, 37) = 11.81, p < .01). Additional
VARIETY-SEEKING AND TIME OF DAY 219

analyses revealed that, as anticipated, means for Snickers in the diurnal peak condition
(M = 1.90) were higher than in the diurnal low condition (M = 1.16, F(1, 37) = 7.01,
p < .01). However, Pay Day was chosen more frequently in the diurnal low condition
(M = 1.42) than in the diurnal peak condition (M = .40, F(1, 37) = 17.54, p < .01).
It was also found that Snickers and Pay Day did not differ in choice incidence within the
diurnal low condition (λ = .95, F(1, 18) = 1.00, p > .33), but did differ significantly
within the diurnal peak condition (λ = .34, F(1, 19) = 37.17, p < .01).

3.3. Discussion

The findings of experiment 2 are again consistent with expectations and are also quite
well-aligned with the results of experiment 1. Once again, it appears that variety-seeking
was lowest in the diurnal peak condition and highest in the diurnal low condition. This
was presumably because actual arousal met or exceeded individuals’ OSLs in the diurnal
peak condition, but was suboptimal in the diurnal low condition. Another repeated result
was that the diurnal peak time favored the leader brand, whereas the diurnal low time was
advantageous for the follower. Notably, these findings were replicated, despite the inclusion
of actual consumption of chosen products. As such, it seems that the observed relationships
between time of day and variety-seeking are not limited to imagined rather than experienced
consumption.

4. General Discussion

The current experiments have revealed a relationship between the time of day in which
choices are made and the incidence of variety-seeking. The empirical demonstration of
this connection provides advancements on at least two fronts. First, an as-yet unexplored
influence on variety-seeking has been identified. Causal influences that have been previously
investigated in the variety-seeking literature include personal characteristics of consumers
such as chronic desire for stimulation (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992), product aspects
such as being low involvement and having relatively undifferentiated competitors (van
Trijp et al., 1996) and situational aspects such as retail environments (Menon and Kahn,
1995). The present results suggest that time of day represents another situational factor of
importance in determining consumers’ engagement in variety-seeking.
Second, for marketing managers, this finding may be quite informative and useful in
planning marketing initiatives. One obvious area of application would be promotions. The
notion that circadian rhythms can affect variety-seeking implies that certain kinds of mar-
keters may find it helpful to induce consumers to shop at certain times of day. For example,
marketers for a brand in a share leadership position, which may benefit from minimizing
variety seeking and maintaining loyal repeat purchase, may find it advantageous to draw
consumers into shopping experiences during diurnal peak times. To this end, a marketer
might offer young adults, such as those studied presently, coupons for discounts only dur-
ing afternoon or evening hours. Alternatively, for marketers of leader brands who find that
timed coupons are not viable, another useful strategy might be to cultivate a broadened
220 ROEHM JR. AND ROEHM

brand portfolio that can internally accommodate variety-seeking and thereby satisfy stimu-
lation needs during diurnal low periods. In this way, purchases can be captured by the parent
company, even during times when switching away from the leader brand is quite likely.1
Turning to implications for a follower brand, in seeking to encourage consumers to switch
away from the leader brand, these marketers may also find that a coupon timing strategy
can also be beneficial, albeit one in which times are calibrated to elicit shopping during
diurnal lows. Along these lines, incentives to shop in morning hours could be offered to
individuals similar to our study participants.
More broadly, given evidence that circadian rhythms can differ across the human life
cycle, the present results suggest that age-based segmentation may be a useful tool for
marketers wishing to manage variety-seeking. For instance, consider the predisposition for
older adults to experience an arousal schedule characterized by peak periods in the morning
hours and diurnal lows later in the day (Yoon, 1997). This observation suggests that, when
targeting older versus younger adults, leader and follower brands may benefit from applying
coupon timing schemes that are opposite to the ones outlined above.
Finally, limitations to the current research should be considered. One drawback is that,
like most prior studies of arousal and variety-seeking (e.g., Menon and Kahn, 1995; Raju,
1980; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992), we have not directly measured the underlying
mechanism–the discrepancy between an individual’s actual arousal and OSL–that may
account for the relationship between time of day and variety-seeking. Indeed, investigators
have noted the potential to enrich research in this domain by developing and employing
measures that take into account both actual and optimal stimulation levels (Steenkamp
and Baumgartner, 1992). Further, the rare studies that have measured the actual versus
OSL discrepancy certainly provide testament to the possible utility of such an approach
(e.g., Steenkamp et al., 1996; Wahlers and Etzel, 1985). With this in mind, we encourage
additional research that would extend the current work by obtaining measures of actual and
desired stimulation and relating these measures to variety-seeking tendencies at different
times of day.
Other aspects of the current studies, which might fruitfully be broadened in future in-
vestigations, should also be acknowledged. For instance, it may be noted that the product
category that was tested remained constant across the two studies. Thus, a question re-
mains open as to whether the present results would generalize outside the candy category.
Follow-up research is thus encouraged to take place within other product categories—for
example, snack chips or yogurt–where variety-seeking effects have previously been ob-
served. Another relevant issue is the usage of student subjects. Although quite valuable for
initially testing our predictions, which required a relatively homogeneous group in terms
of age, external validity would certainly be well-served by additional research with varied
consumer types. Future studies are therefore encouraged to corroborate the present findings
with a wider variety of respondents.

Note

1. We thank the reviewer for identifying this strategic implication.

VARIETY-SEEKING AND TIME OF DAY 221

References

Ariely, Dan and Jonathan Levav. (2000). “Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled
and Less Enjoyed,” Journal of Consumer Research 27, 279–290.
Colquhoun, William P. (1971). “Circadian Variations in Mental Efficiency.” In William P. Colquhoun (ed.), Bio-
logical Rhythms and Human Performance. London: Academic Press.
Feinberg, Fred M., Barbara E. Kahn and Leigh McAlister. (1992). “Market Share Response When Consumers
Seek Variety,” Journal of Marketing Research 29, 227–237.
Kahn, Barbara E. and Alice M. Isen. (1993). “The Influence of Positive Affect on Variety-seeking among Safe,
Enjoyable Products,” Journal of Consumer Research 20, 257–270.
Folkard, Simon. (1982). “Circadian Rhythms and Human Memory.” In Frederick M. Brown and R. Curtis Graeber
(eds.), Rhythmic Aspects of Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McAlister, Leigh and Edgar Pessemier. (1982). “Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review,” Journal
of Consumer Research 9, 311–322.
Menon, Satya and Barbara E. Kahn. (1995). “The Impact of Context on Variety Seeking in Product Choices,”
Journal of Consumer Research 22, 275–295.
Raju, Puthankurissi S. (1980). “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demographics, and
Exploratory Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research 7, 272–282.
Ratner, Rebecca K., Barbara E. Kahn, and Daniel Kahneman. (1999). “Choosing Less-Preferred Experiences for
the Sake of Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research 26, 1–15.
Simonson, Itamar. (1990). “The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal
of Marketing Research 27, 150–162.
Simonson, Itamar and Russell S. Winer. (1992). “The Influence of Purchase Quantity and Display Format on
Consumer Preference for Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research 19, 133–138.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Hans Baumgartner, and Elise van der Wulp. (1996). “The Relationships among
Arousal Potential, Arousal and Stimulus Evaluation, and the Moderating Role of Need for Stimulation,” Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing 13, 319–329.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Hans Baumgartner. (1992). “The Role of Optimum Stimulation Level in
Exploratory Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research 19, 434–448.
van Trijp, Hans C. B., Wayne D. Hoyer, and Jeffrey J. Inman. (1996). “Why Switch? Product Category-Level
Explanations for True Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research 33, 281–292.
Wahlers, Russell G. and Michael J. Etzel. (1985). “A Consumer Response to Incongruity between Optimal Stim-
ulation and Lifestyle Satisfaction.” In Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook (eds.), Advances in
Consumer Research, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Yoon, Carolyn. (1997). “Age Differences in Consumers’ Processing Strategies: An Investigation of Moderating
Influences,” Journal of Consumer Research 24, 329–342.