Variety‐Seeking Tendency in Choice for Others: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Causes

Choi, Jinhee; Kim, B. Kyu; Choi, Incheol; Yi, Youjae

doi:10.1086/500490

Cited by 73 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas past research has studied choice for others (Baskin et al 2014;Choi et al 2006;Laran 2010) and choice for the self with knowledge of what others chose (Ariely and Levav 2000;Berger and Heath 2007;Salganik, Dodds, and Watts 2006), research on what considerations are involved when consumers make decisions for both the self and the other together is scant. In this research, we document the friendly taking effect-interpersonal closeness leads to a preference for a self-benefiting consumption package when it also offers greater total benefit to the selfother collective; that is, people are more likely to take from a close other than from a distant other.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Tu¹,

Shaw²,

Fishbach³

2015

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research documents "the friendly taking effect" in choosing consumption packages for the self and others, interpersonal closeness leads to a preference for a self-benefiting package when this package also offers greater total benefit to the self-other collective (studies 1 and 2). We propose that a friendly intention (i.e., concern for the total benefit) underlies the friendly taking effect; therefore, people both take more from and give more to a close (vs. distant) other when doing so offers greater benefits in total (study 3), and people are cognitively tuned in to (e.g., acquire, remember) information about the total benefit more when choosing a package for themselves and a close (vs. distant) other (study 4). Moreover, the importance people place on the total benefit mediates the impact of closeness on people's preference for self-benefiting packages (study 5). We explore boundary conditions (study 6) and implications for marketers of consumption packages (study 7).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Tu¹,

Shaw²,

Fishbach³

2015

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides personality characteristics, an individual's cultural background or demographic characteristics could also influence variety seeking in choice situations (Ratner and Kahn, 2002;Choi et al, 2006). Situational factors, such as affective state when making a decision, could also influence variety seeking.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beyond variety drivers associated with the dining experience, other factors such as personality characteristics, affective state, product category-level characteristics, and loyalty are also involved in variety seeking in choice situations (Chuang et al, 2008;Roehm and Roehm, 2005;Choi et al, 2006). In particular, personality characteristics related to variety seeking are highly associated with an individual's optimal stimulation level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variety seeking in restaurant choice and its drivers

Jang

2013

International Journal of Hospitality Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Extensive researches also show that variety seeking closely relates to other domains of consumer behavior such as impulse buying, ethical behavior, cultural studies (Punj 2011;Van Trijp, Hoyer, & Inman, 1996;Kim & Drolet, 2003). The understanding of variety seeking is also deepened from extending the research contexts into emerging markets (e.g., Grünhagen, Dant, & Zhu, 2012) and various purchasing situations (Choi, Kim, & Yi, 2006). One representative example is that people will prefer more equal mixes of virtues and vices when making simultaneous, as opposed to sequential, choices (Read, Loewenstein, & Kalyanaraman, 1998).…”

Section: Literature Review and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumers’ Variety Seeking: From an Information Perspective

2015

IBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variety seeking is one of the most common psychological heuristics when consumers make decisions. The literature posits that understanding the mechanism of variety seeking is critical to explain consumers' decision-making process. Yet little is known about the effects of information, which also significantly influences consumers' choice behavior. Drawing on established theories of psychology and economics, the author develops a synergetic framework investigating the impact of information adequacy on degree of variety seeking. Results from three studies show that information scarcity significantly stimulates the degree of variety seeking (Study 1). In addition, consumers' preference stability, which represents consumers' inherent information, also inhibits the degree of variety seeking (Study 2). Finally, consumers' expertise level, which represents information acquired by learning and experience, shows a moderating effect on variety seeking-information link. Specifically, novice consumers are more likely to prefer variety than expert consumers when information is limited (Study 3).

show abstract

Variety‐Seeking Tendency in Choice for Others: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Causes

Cited by 73 publications

References 10 publications

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Variety seeking in restaurant choice and its drivers

Consumers’ Variety Seeking: From an Information Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About