Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
KEYWORDS. Scales, models, consumer behavior, marketing research, structural equation models, variety seeking
INTRODUCTION
For many years, scholars and practitioners have been concerned
with exploratory behavior of consumers. This characteristic makes the
consumer switch from one brand or store to another. On the one hand,
companies may understand the switching behavior to be the result of
their marketing efforts. But, on the other hand, the explanatory reasons
for these facts may be internal as far as the individuals are concerned.
Extrinsic variety seeking is the consequence of marketing actions,
group influences or external stimuli. And intrinsic variety seeking is
an individual consumer characteristic, linked with consumers internal
motivations and the consequence of their optimum stimulation level
(OSL).
Raju (1980) defines OSL as the property that characterizes an individual in terms of his general response to environmental stimuli. Individuals do prefer a level of stimulation, termed optimum stimulation
level. When this level is low, consumers try to increase their stimulation. But when they routinize their purchase process, their stimulation
level decreases; and when this happens, they start to engage in variety
seeking in order to recover their OSL.
Such behavior, termed exploratory behavior, may lead the consumers to look for a variety of products, brands or stores to choose from.
This means switching from one brand or store to another. Variety
seeking is the main consequence of the search for OSL. In their research, Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1992) suggested that the relationship between stimulation and consumers reactions follows an
inverted U-shaped function. According to these authors, people tend
to prefer intermediate levels of stimulationOSL. And moreover, what
is considered as optimum stimulation level varies a lot among consumers. It may be expected that consumers with higher OSL engage in
exploratory behavior more intensively than those who are characterized by lower levels of OSL.
A great number of academics and practitioners from different fields
of the social sciences have researched this topic. Psychologists and
economists have devoted time and effort to understand this problem,
and they have developed measures and devised new models.
Some of the important studies which deal with intrinsic or extrinsic
seeking, or with both, are: Venkatesan (1973); Bass (1974); Faison
(1977); Laurent (1978); Moschis (1978); Holbrock and Hirschman
(1982); McAlister (1982); McAlister and Pessemier (1982); Givon
Ildefonso Grande
10
Scale
Subscales
Author/s
Reliability
ASTI
Mehrabian and
Russell 1974
0.87
ASTII
Mehrabian
1978
0.93
CSI
Exploratory tendencies
Garlington and
Shimota 1964
0.800.85
SSS
Zuckerman
1979
0.830.86
0.94
NES
Pearson 1970
0.87
USA years ago. On that point, the cultural environment in the USA is
not the same as the cultural environment in many other countries in the
world. Moreover, the consumer behavior may be different too. So,
when researchers validate scales, they should expect two things: firstly, their dimensions could vary from one cultural environment to
another; and, secondly, some of their original items could become
irrelevant.
To validate the available OSL measures in this research, a randomly
selected sample of adults was surveyed. Some data were collected
from 762 adults using a questionnaire containing a seven-point Likerttype scale to measure the level of stimulation which a person may
prefer to have. The questionnaires included a set of items belonging to
CSI, AST, NES and SSS scales and 646 of them were valid and used.
EQS is a powerful instrument for validating marketing constructs.
This software is used for purifying scales. It is also used for isolating
the dimensions of the construct, and for measuring its convergent and
discriminant validity. By using EQS, it is possible to identify what the
scales are measuring; and it is also possible to ascertain what the
relevant items are. Different exploratory factor analyses suggested the
initial dimensions of the scales. Confirmatory factor analyses, by using EQS, identified the relevant items of the scales and their contribution to the reliability, which was measured through parallel, congeneric and tau equivalent models.
Table 2 shows the results. The letter I, followed by a number,
Ildefonso Grande
11
CSI
Average Absolute
0.0340
Standardized
Residuals
Average OffDiagonal
0.0437
Absolute
Standardized Residuals
SatorraBentler Scaled
6.627
ChiSquare
Probability value for
0.1218
the ChiSquare
statistic is
Bentler-Bonett
0.920
Normed Fit Index
BentlerBonett
0.919
Nonnormed Fit Index
Comparative Fit
0.926
Index (CFI)
Robust Comparative
0.933
Fit Index
Standardized Solution:
Item
l
q
I53 0.687 0.727
AST
SSS
NES
0.035
0.0327
0.0128
0.0113
0.0490
0.0213
6.8972
9.9072
1.0735
0.1312
0.07791
0.58465
0.910
0.933
0.985
0.902
0.906
0.981
0.910
0.953
0.988
0.926
0.977
0.979
Item
I6
l
0.866
q
0.500
Item
I17
l
0.838
q
0.545
Item
l
q
I1 0.601 0.799
I59
0.535 0.845
I7
0.763
0.647
I20
0.545
0.839
I41
0.754 0.657
I73
0.821 0.571
I8
0.853
0.646
I23
0.818
0.575
I42
0.456 0.890
I77
0.884 0.467
I12
1.000
0.000
I25
0.577
0.817
I45
0.686 0.728
I78
0.581 0.814
I13
0.841
0.541
I40
0.525
0.851
I86
0.526 0.851
I21
0.861
0.508
I88
0.611
I38
0.911
0.411
I94
0.568 0.823
0.792
shows the item order in the original scale in order to facilitate their
identification.
In Table 2, l and q quantify the contribution of the items to the
reliability and their errors in the estimate. These two parameters are
essential for assessing the coefficient of the reliability of the scale,
Cronbachs a, by means of this formula.
a = (Swl)2 / [(Swl)2 + (Sw2q)]
Where w is equal to 1, l/q2 or 1/q2, when the model specification is
parallel, congeneric or tauequivalent. The results of Table 2, considering
the reliability of the tested OSL scales, measured by parallel models, are
CSI; 0.858; AST, 0.7207; SSS, 0.7504; NES, 0.6697. There is hardly any
difference among the results of alternative reliability models.
12
Ildefonso Grande
13
S A new OSL assessment should be based on some familiar marketing variables; and these variables should be different from the
psychological ones. Consumers demographic indicators could
be a matter of importance when trying to identify market segments in order to develop specific marketing strategies that will
match their current or expected behavior.
A THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE OPTIMUM
STIMULATION LEVEL DIMENSIONS
The previous discussion and the empirical test (CSI, AST, NES,
SSS) suggest that an alternative OSL scale could be a composite
measure of risk, loyalty and innovation proneness. However, and with
regard to the links found empirically, I do consider that an additional
theoretical justification of these findings is necessary before building
the model.
The basic theory of consumer behavior shows that there are links
between OSL and risk. Consumers are constantly making decisions as
regards the goods they buy and the services they need. The consequences of their decisions are often uncertain; so, the consumers face
some risks in making their decisions. When consumers engage in a
routine buying process, their stimulation level could decrease. It is
widely known that when this happens, they may try to be innovative
by changing their habits of going to the same stores and buying the
same products, or they may opt for new products or different brands of
the same product category.
The purchase process involves facing some risks. Some of the risks
are: financial risk or loss of money; physical risk to oneself or to
others which the product may pose; functional risk, in the case that the
product may be below standard (not as good as what is normal or
required); social risk, when the choice may result in a social embarrassment; psychological risk associated with unsatisfaction derived
from an unfortunate choice; time risk, when the consumers have the
feeling that the time spent in searching for the product has been
wasted. Conservative consumers are not expected to engage in exploratory behavior. By contrast, risk takers increase their stimulation level
when they explore different brands, products or stores.
Some authors associate risks with OSL. Raju (1980) found high
correlation between risk taking and OSL. Brunning, Koviac and Ober-
14
dick (1985) also found that some consumers enjoy taking risks when
they choose from the different alternatives open to them. Zuckerman
(1979) stated that OSL is expected to be positively related to risk-taking behavior. More evidences of this are found in Steenkamp and
Baumgartner (1992) and Van Trijp, Hoyer and Inman (1996). Then, a
first hypothesis may be stated:
H1: The greater the OSL of the consumers, the higher their risk
acceptance
In the context of this research, loyalty should be understood as an
individual characteristic or the tendency to buy the same brands at all
times or to buy things in the same store. It should not be understood as
the consequence of marketing strategies. This variable is also linked
with OSL and apart from being a topic widely researched into since
the 1960s, it is one of the cornerstones of the companys marketing.
When consumers simplify their purchase decisions, they usually
buy the same brand in the same store. When their stimulation level
decreases, they complicate their buying process by engaging in variety
seeking. This means that they go in search of different brands or
stores, or they go in search of both things at the same time. It may be
expected that consumers with a lower OSL will tend to be loyal, and
conversely, consumers with higher OSL will tend to be disloyal.
The research works developed by Farquhar (1989) and Kapferer
(1992), support the existence of links between OSL and loyalty. Then,
a second hypothesis may be stated,
H2: The higher the OSL of the consumers, the lower their overall
loyalty
Innovative behavior is the adoption of a recently introduced product,
independent of any interpersonal communication concerning experiences with the product (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). When the stimulation level of the consumers decreases, they may try to be innovative in
order to increase it. Innovative consumers show the tendency to try
goods or services on their own initiative before they are told of other
consumers experiences and reports. Some authors have done research
works which support the links between the OSL and the innovative
behavior [see, for example, Schiffman (1972); Leavitt and Walton
(1975); Raju (1980); Price and Ridgeway (1983); Foxall and Bathe
(1991); Burns and Krampf (1992); and Steenkamp and Baumgartner
Ildefonso Grande
15
(1992)]. In their research works, they came to the conclusion that there
is a strong relationship between OSL and innovative behavior. Consumers characterized by a higher OSL will tend to explore among
brands to a greater extent than others who are characterized by a lower
OSL. Based on their research works, a third hypothesis may be stated.
H3: The greater the OSL of the consumers, the greater their innovation proneness
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE SCALE
FOR ASSESSING OSL
Considering the theoretical and empirical dimension of current OSL
scales, the next step will be to devise a new measure for assessing the
dimensions of the exploratory tendencies of the consumers. According
to the findings in Spain, the new instrument should be a composite
measure of risks, loyalty and innovation proneness.
The literature provides many scales for measuring these variables.
Some authors, including Craig and Gintner (1975), Leavitt and Walton
(1975), Raju (1980), Dikerson and Gentry (1983), Hawes and Lumpkin (1984), Oliver and Bearden (1985), Fisher and Price (1992), Fisher (1993) and Price and Ridgeway (1983) and Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991), have devised excellent scales for measuring innovation
tendency.
Many authors, like Raju (1980), Hawes and Lumpkin (1984), Hozier and Stem (1985), Beatty and Kahle (1988), Carlson and Grossbart
(1988), Litchenstein, Netemeyer and Burton (1990), devised different
measures for assessing the propensity of a human being to be loyal to
goods, brands, services or stores. And some authors, like Murray
(1985), Murray and Slachter (1990), Venkatraman and Price (1990)
and Venkatraman (1991), have devised measures for assessing perceived risk.
The new OSL measure proposed in this paper, ETS, (Exploratory
Tendency Scale) has been devised by using some items taken from the
above mentioned scales. After a process of trial and error based on
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, I would like to propose
the following items for an alternative OSL measure.
1. When I buy a product, I feel uncertain about it after buying it.
2. When I choose among products, I often doubt whether to take
this or that.
16
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
F1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0,6770
0,8128
0,7718
0,8298
0,0458
0,0149
0,1100
0,1582
0,0358
0,2058
F2
*0,1104
0,0913
0,1225
0,1204
0,8422
0,8118
0,8033
0,0150
0,0312
0,0730
F3
0,0544
0,1256
0,2032
0,0836
*0,0548
0,0958
0,0548
0,8085
0,8377
0,7820
Ildefonso Grande
17
T ratio
Error
RISK
1
0.863
13.375
0.506
2
3
4
LOYALTY
5
6
7
INNOVATIVENESS
8
9
10
0.803
0.794
0.846
11.692
10.766
13.407
0.596
0.608
0.534
0.842
0.861
0.771
11.600
10.780
10.543
0.540
0.508
0.637
0.761
0.533
0.516
6.243
4.823
4.486
0.649
0.846
0.856
x2
d.f.
NFI
CFI
AOSR1
3.075
0.98
0.991
0.0220
0.095
0.99
0.999
0.0049
1.265
0.98
1.000
0.0244
18
Constrained Model
No constrained model
x2 Differences
18.83 (7 d.f.)
28.75 (7 d.f.)
19.53 (7 d.f.)
13.50 (6 d.f.)
18.38 (7 d.f.)
13.04 (6 d.f.)
5.33 **
10.36*
6.49 **
* x2 1%/1 = 6,63
** x2 5%/1 = 3,84
Parallel
Tau equivalent
Congeneric
Loyalty
0,8961
0,8992
Innovativeness
0,6360
0,6730
0,8993
0,6810
Risk
0,8649
0,8710
0,8712
Parallel
Tau equivalent
Congeneric
ETS
0,9340189
0,9470087
0,9463151
Ildefonso Grande
19
AST
NES
SSS
ETS
AST
0.335
(0.089)
p = .000
NES
0.365
(0.079)
p = 0.000
0.387
(0.068)
p = 0.000
SSS
0.312
(0.172)
p = 0.046
0.449
(0.098)
p = 0.000
0.316
(0.059)
p = 0.000
ETS
0.309
(0.067)
p = 0.002
0.281
(0.023)
p = 0.000
0.234
(0.071)
p = 0.009
1
0.319
(0.078)
p = 0.000
second sample sized 563 individuals. The goodness of the fit of the
causal model appears in Table 9.
The model equations are,
Risk = 0.712 CSI + 0.567 Innovativeness + 0.580 e1
(0.02)
(0.03)
Loyalty = 0.743 risk 0.653 CSI 0.456 Innovativeness + 0.453 e2
(0.01)
(0.000)
(0.04)
Innovativeness = 0.770 risk + 0.638 CSI + 0.367 e3
(0.001)
(0.02)
20
S The greater the OSL of the consumers, the higher their risk acceptance.
S The higher the OSL of the consumers, the lower their overall loyalty.
S The greater the OSL of the consumers, the greater their innovation proneness.
RISK
CSI
LOYALTY
INNOVATIVENESS
TABLE 9. Goodness of the Fit of the Structural Model Linking OSL and Related
Variables
Average Absolute Standardized Residuals
Average OffDiagonal Absolute Standardized Residuals
SatorraBentler Scaled ChiSquare
Probability Value for the ChiSquare Statistic Is
BentlerBonett Normed Fit Index
BentlerBonett Nonnormed Fit Index
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Robust Comparative CFI Index
0.0127
0.0212
1.3481
0.245
0.986
0.934
0.989
0.998
Ildefonso Grande
21
CONCLUSIONS
This research began with a discussion of the most used scales for
measuring the exploratory tendencies of consumers. These constructs
were developed in a particular cultural environment, and they are
supposed to be adapted to other contexts. It was proved that the dimensions which they give in the USA do not agree with the dimensions they give in Spain. So, and from an international perspective,
there are differences between consumers in one country and consumers in another country.
On the other hand, the scales used for measuring the exploratory
tendencies of consumers do have a strong sociological component.
They may be now obsolete, and their wording may not be very familiar to those who are in charge of marketing in the companies.
These discoveries account for the development of an alternative
scale for measuring the Optimum Stimulation Level. The new instrument has taken the dimensions detected in Spanish consumers, and the
deficiencies observed in the former scales, into consideration.
The new scale is based on the theoretical basis of the consumer
behavior. From a methodological perspective, the scale was validated
by using statistical methods like confirmatory factor analysis and
structural equation models. The results show the convergent and discriminant validity of this scale. From the scope of marketers, this
instrument has a big advantage over the previous scales. This scale is
simple, short and reliable.
The proposed model supports the stated hypotheses. The results
match the theory of consumer behavior. It may be concluded that OSL
is a relevant variable that explains how consumers behave, because it
affects the risk acceptance, the loyalty and the innovation proneness.
Additionally, higher OSL affects positively new products diffusion.
The marketers are concerned with the market segmentation. They
want to identify groups of consumers in order to prepare adequate
strategies for them. One of the most useful criteria for segmenting the
markets is the loyalty of the consumers. The scale which was developed in this research measures the exploring tendencies, an undesirable characteristic in consumer behavior which is against the tendency
to be loyal.
The application of this instrument can make it possible for the
managers to identify the profiles of the consumers, variety seekers and
those who show loyalty. In that case, it will be sufficient to include
22
Ildefonso Grande
23
Campo, K. and Gijsbrechs, E. (1997). Variety Seekers and Variety Avoiders Reactions to Different Type of In-Store Promotions, 26th EMAC Conference,
1522-1541.
Carlson, L. and Grossbart, S. 1988. Parental Style and Consumer Socialization of
Children, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, June, 77-94.
Craig, C. S. and Gintner, J. L. (1975). An Empirical Test of a Scale for Innovativeness, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2, 555-562.
Crouch, J. (1994). Variety-Seeking and On-Premises Beer Selection, Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35, February, 80-81.
Dikerson, M. and Gentry, J. W. (1983). Characteristics of Adopters and Non-Adopters of Home Computers, Journal of Consumer Research, 10, September, 225-235.
Faison, E. (1977). The Neglected Variety Drive, Journal of Consumer Research, 4,
(December), 172-175.
Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing Brand Equity, Marketing Research, September,
7-12.
Feinberg, F., B. Kahn and L. McAlister (1992). Market Share Response When Consumers Seek Variety, Journal of Marketing Research, 29, May, 227-237.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20, September, 303-315.
Fisher, R. J. and Price, L. (1992). An Investigation into the Social Context of Early
Adoption Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 19, (December), 477-86.
Foxall, G. and Bathe, S. (1991). Cognitive Style: Personal Involvement and Situation
as Determinants of Computer Use. Technovation, 11, Vol. 3, 183-199.
Garlington, W. R. and Shimota, H. (1964). The Change Seeker Index: A Measure of
the Need for Variable Stimulus Input, Psychological Reports, Vol. 14, 919-924.
Givon, M. (1984). Variety Seeking Through Brand Switching, Marketing Science, 3,
1, 1-22.
Goldsmith, R. and Hofacker, L. (1991). Measuring Consumer Innovativeness, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, Summer, 209-221.
Grossbart, S., Carlson, L. and Walsh, A. (1991). Consumer Socialization and Frequency of Shopping with Children. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, Summer, 155-163.
Hawes, J. and Lumpkin, J. (1984). Understanding the Out-shopper, Journal of Academy Marketing Science, Fall, 200-218.
Holbrock, J. and Hirschman, E. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption:
Consumer Fantasies, Feeling and Fun, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, (September), 132-140.
Hoyer, W. and Brown, S. (1990). Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a
Common Repeat Product, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, September,
141-148.
Hozier, G. and Stem, D. (1985). General Retail Patronage Loyalty as a Determinant
of Consumer Outshopping Behavior, Journal of Academy Marketing Science, 13,
Winter, 32-46.
Jacoby, J. (1978). Consumer Research. A State of Art Review, Journal of Marketing,
April, 87-96.
24
Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R. (1978). Brand Loyalty Measurement, John Wiley and
Sons.
Joachimsthaler, E. A., and Lastovicka, J. L. (1984). Optimum Stimulation LevelExploratory Behavior Models, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, (3), 830-835.
Kahn, B. E. and Louie, T. A. (1990). Effects of Retraction of Price Promotions on
Brand Choice Behavior for Variety Seeking and Last-Purchase-Loyal Consumers,
Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 279-289.
Kahn, B. E. and Raju, P. S. (1991). Effects of Price Promotions on Variety Seeking
and Reinforcement Behavior, Marketing Science, 10, 4, 316-337.
Kahn, B., Kalwani, E., Manohar, U. and Morrison, D. G. (1986). Measuring VarietySeeking and Reinforcement Behaviors Using Panel Data, Journal of Marketing
Research. Vol. 23, May, 89-100.
Kapferer, J. N. (1992). Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating
and Evaluating Brand Equity. London: Kogan Page.
Keaveney, S. (1995). Customer Switching Behavior in Services Industries: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Marketing, 59, April, 71-82.
Lattin, J. and McAlister, L. (1985). Using a Variety Seeking Model to Identify
Substitute Complementary Relationships Among Competing Products, Journal of
Marketing Research, 22, August, 330-339.
Laurent, G. (1978). A Study of Multiple Variant Consumption for Frequently Purchased Consumer Products. Phd. Sloan School of Management. MIT.
Leavitt, C. and Walton, J. (1975). Development of a Scale for Innovativeness, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2, 545-554.
Litchenstein, D., Netemeyer, R and Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness: An Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54, July, 54-67.
Mazursky, D. and P. LaBarbera and Aiello, A. (1987). When Consumers Switch
Brands. Psychology and Marketing, 4, 1, 141-150.
McAlister, L. (1982). A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety Seeking
Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, September, 141-151.
McAlister, L. and Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Consumer Research, December, 311-322.
Mehrabian, A., 1978. Individual Reactions to Preferred and Unpreferred Environments. Journal of Personality, 40, December, 717-731.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Menon, S. and Kahn, B. (1995). The Impact of External Context on Variety Seeking
in Product Choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, December, 285-289.
Midgley, D. and Dowling, G. (1978). Innovativeness: The Concept and its Measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, March, 2229-2242.
Moschis, G. (1978). Acquisition of the Consumer Role by Adolescents, Research
Monograph 82, Georgia State University.
Muelhing, D., Stoltman, J. and Grossbart, S. (1990). The Impact of Comparative
Advertising on Levels of Message Involvement, Journal of Advertising, 19, Vol.
4, 4-50.
Ildefonso Grande
25
Murray, K. B. (1985). Risk Perception and Information Source Use for Products
Differing in Service Attributes, PhD, Arizona Sate University: Temple, Arizona.
Murray, K. B. and Slachter, J. (1990). The Impact of Services vs. Goods on Consumers Decision Strategies, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, June, 29-37.
Oliver, R. and Bearden, W. (1985). Crossover Effects in the Theory of Reasoned
Action: A Moderating Influence Attempt, Journal of Consumer Research, 12,
December, 324-340.
Pearson, P. H. (1970). Relationship Between Global and Specified Measures of
Novelty Seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 2, 199-204.
Price, L. and Ridgeway, N. M. (1983). Development of a Scale to Measure Use
Innovativeness. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, 679-684.
Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality,
Demographics and Exploratory Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7,
December 1980, 272-282.
Raju, P. S. (1981). Theories of Explanatory Behaviour: Review and Consumer Research Implications. Research in Marketing, 4, 223-249.
Raju, P. S. (1984). Exploratory Brand Switching: An Empirical Examination of its
Determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology, 5, 201-221.
Raju, P. S., Srinavasan, S. and Lal, R. (1990). The Effects of Brand Loyalty on
Competitive Price Promotional Strategies. Management Science. Vol. 36, No. 3,
March, 276-304.
Schiffman, L. G. (1972). Perceived Risk in New Trial by Elderly Consumers. Journal
of Marketing Research, February, 106-108.
Simonson, I. (1990). The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking
Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 27, May, 150-162.
Steenkamp, J. B. and Baumgartner, H. (1992). The Role of Optimum Stimulation
Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19,
December, 434-48.
Steenkamp, J. B. and Baumgartner, H. (1995). Development and cross-cultural validation of a short form of CSI as a measure of optimum stimulation level. International Journal of Research in Marketing. Vol. 12, July, 97-104.
Steenkamp, J. B. and Van Trijp, H. (1991). The Use of LISREL in Validating Marketing Constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing. Vol. 8, November,
283-299.
Trivedi, M., Bass, F. and Rao, R. C. (1994). A model of stochastic Variety-Seeking.
Marketing Science. Vol. 13, Summer, 274-297.
Van Trijp, H. (1995). Variety-Seeking in Product Choice Behavior. Theory with
Applications in the Food Domain. (Thesis.) University of Wageningen.
Van Trijp, H. and Hoyer, W. (1991). A New Model for Variation in Consumer
Behavior. 20th EMAC Conference.
Van Trijp, H. Hoyer, W., and Inman, J. J. (1996). Why Switch? Product CategoryLevel Explanations for True Variety Seeking Behaviour. Journal of Marketing
Research. August, 1996, 281-292.
Venkatesan, M. (1973). Cognitive Consistency and Novelty Seeking. In Consumer
Behavior: Theoretical Sources, eds. Scott Ward and Thomas Robertson, Prentice
Hall.
26
HAWORTH JOURNALS
ARE AVAILABLE ON MICROFORM
All Haworth journals are now available in either microfiche or microfilm from
The Haworth Microform/Microfiche Division at the lowest possible prices.
Microfiche and microfilms are available at 25% above the library subscription rate.
For journal subscription rates, please look within the journal on the copyright pages.
For all microform subscriptions, these charges apply: outside US and Canada: 40% to total;
in Canada, 30% to total as well as 7% GST.
Microfilm specifications: 35mm; diazo or silver.
Microfiche specifications: 105mm x 184mm (4 x 6); reduction ratio: 24X;
nonsilver (diazo) positive polarity.
Microform are mailed upon completion of each volume.
For further information, contact Janette Kemmerer, Microform Contact,
The Haworth Press, Inc., 10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580;
Tel: (607) 722-5857, ext. 311; Fax: (607) 722-1424;
E-Mail: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com
Microform and microfiche are also available from Bell & Howell Information
and Learning (formerly University Microfilms International), 300 North
Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346; Tel: (800) 521-0600.