2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2010.11.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Goal orientation and variety seeking behavior: The role of decision task

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Personality variables include optimum stimulation level (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992), deal proneness (Martínez and Montaner, 2006), self-monitoring (Ratner and Kahn, 2002) and goal orientation (Wu and Kao, 2011). Product category-level characteristics such as involvement (subjective personal relevance of a product) and hedonic features (features in products that cause sensory gratification and give pleasure) also affect variety seeking (Van Trijp et al, 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Personality variables include optimum stimulation level (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992), deal proneness (Martínez and Montaner, 2006), self-monitoring (Ratner and Kahn, 2002) and goal orientation (Wu and Kao, 2011). Product category-level characteristics such as involvement (subjective personal relevance of a product) and hedonic features (features in products that cause sensory gratification and give pleasure) also affect variety seeking (Van Trijp et al, 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A major difference between promotion focus and prevention focus is a differential sensitivity toward positive and negative outcomes (Higgins, 1998). The consumer psychology literature has demonstrated that goal orientation has an impact on endowment effect (Higgins, 2002;Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999), the status quo bias (Chernev, 2004), mental accounting (Pham & Avnet, 2004), brand extension (Yeo & Park, 2006), framing effect (Jain, Lindsey, Agrawal, & Maheswaran, 2007;Sett, 2014), attractiveness effect (Mourali, Bckenholt, & Laroche, 2007), the extent to which consumers use price information as an indicator of quality or sacrifice (Lin, Wu, Chuang, & Kao, 2007), variety seeking (Wu & Kao, 2011), team performance (Anne, Daan, & Dirk, 2013), radical innovation (Lameez & Daan, 2014), and creativity (Huang & Luthans, 2015).…”
Section: Goal Orientationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, this research is the first to provide empirical evidence that goal orientation moderates the persuasive impact of terminologies. Goal orientation has been discussed in a comprehensive manner, such as endowment effect (Higgins, 2002;Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999), the status quo bias (Chernev, 2004), framing effect (Jain, Lindsey, Agrawal, & Maheswaran, 2007), attractiveness effect (Mourali, Bockenholt, & Laroche, 2007), the extent to which individuals use price information as an indicator of quality or sacrifice (Lin et al, 2007), and variety seeking (Wu & Kao, 2011). However, those studies on goal orientation have failed to reach similar conclusions.…”
Section: Theoretical Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Understanding how goal orientation plays a role in a realistic context seems important for both academia and practicality. Previous psychological research has devoted much attention to the effects of goal orientation on persuasion (e.g., Kim, ; Micu & Chowdhury, ), choices (Wu & Kao, ), and behavior (e.g., Arnold & Reynolds, ; Chung & Tsai, ). However, little attention has been devoted to examining how goal orientation interacts with different types of communication messages.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%