Abstract
Research of the last decades focused on answering several questions in view of optimum stimulation theory. Which variables do influence general explorative tendencies such as risk taking, variety seeking, or curiosity-motivated behaviour and how do the general explorative tendencies effect the willingness to choose new or familiar products on a repurchase occasion? The approach of this research is the attempt to analyse a wide range of variables, which have successfully been tested to influence innovative behaviour, within one simultaneous model. This research is applied across different product-categories. It is confirming the nomological validity of OSL-theory including some contextual variables by attesting a principal consistency between all (six) models that have been established throughout the range of several examined product categories. The parameters between inherent factors do not contradict when comparing the single models with each other, parameter values do only differ slightly according to category-specific peculiarities. As a consequence of these results, an overall fairly good picture is drawn of what is behind the keenness for innovations of early adopters in general (regardless of the product category).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Notes
Guido et al. (2007) found significant correlations (p < 0.05) between OSL and Agreeableness (0.847), Introversion (−0.249) and Openness to Experience (0.611). Nicholson et al. (2005) even found significant (p < 0.05) relationships between all personality factors and overall risk propensity (extraversion and openness positively associated; neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness negatively associated with risk propensity).
The ADF-estimations (asymptotically distribution-free methods) can as well be used regardless of underlying distributions but has some serious problems in practise. Sample sizes must exceed at least 1,000 cases and the models need to be small. Also, they do not necessarily perform better. ADF techniques are rather seen to be theoretically interesting but not an appropriate practical alternative (e.g. Baumgartner and Homburg 1996, p. 149).
References
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16(1):74–94
Balderjahn I (1986) The robustness of LISREL unweighted least squares estimation against small sample size in confirmatory factor analysis models. In: Gaul W, Schader M (eds) Classification as a tool of research. Proceedings of the 9th annual meeting of the classification society. pp 3–10
Bänsch A (1995) Variety Seeking—Marketingfolgerungen aus Überlegungen und Untersuchungen zum Abwechslungsbedürfnis von Konsumenten. Jahrbuch der Absatz- und Verbrauchsforschung 41(4):342–365
Baumgartner H, Homburg C (1996) Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: a review. Int J Res Mark 13:139–161
Baumgartner H, Steenkamp J-BEM (1996) Exploratory Consumer Buying Behavior, Conceptualization and Measurement. Int J Res Mark 13:121–137
Berlyne DE (1960) Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill, New York
Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long SJ (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 445–455
Burns DJ, Krampf RF (1992) Explaining innovative behavior: uniqueness-seeking and sensation-seeking. Int J Advert 11(3):227–337
Chin WW, Newsted PR (1999) Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Strategies for small sample research. Sage Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 307–341
Chuang SC, Kung C-Y (2005) The effects of emotions in risk-taking. J Am Acad Bus Camb 2:113–117
Daghfous N, Petrof JV, Pons F (1999) Values and adoption of innovations: a cross-cultural study. J Consum Mark 16(4):314–331
Digman JM (1990) Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu Rev Psychol 41(1):417–440
Etzel MJ, Wahlers RG (1984) Optimal stimulation level and consumer travel preferences. In: 1984 American Marketing Association Educators Proceeding. Chicago, pp 92–95
Fiore AM, Lee S-E, Kunz G (2002) Individual differences, motivations, and willingness to mass customization option for fashion products. Eur J Mark 38/7:835–849
Fornell C, Bookstein FL (1982) Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. J Mark Res 19/11:440–452
Garlington WK, Shimota HE (1964) The change seeker index: a measure of the need for variable stimulus input. Psychol Rep 14:919–924
Gerbing DW, Anderson JC (1993) Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. In: Bollen KA, Long SJ (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 40–65
Gierl H, Helm R, Stumpp S (1999) Erklärung des Konsumentenverhaltens durch die Optimum Stimulation Level Theorie. Marketing ZFP, vol 3, 3rd quarter, pp 217–235
Gierl H, Helm R, Praxmarer S, Stumpp S (2000) Konsequenzen für das Marketing aus dem Explorationsstreben der Konsumenten. Die Unternehmung 54(5):331–349
Gierl H, Helm R, Stumpp S (2002) Markentreue und Kaufintervalle bei langlebigen Konsumgütern. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftlich Forschung 54:215–232
Givon M (1984) Variety seeking through brand switching. Mark Sci 3:1–22
Goldsmith RE, Flynn LR, Goldsmith EB (2003) Innovative consumers and market mavens. J Market 11(4):54–64
Grande I (2005) Dimensions in scales for measuring exploratory tendencies and stimulation levels in consumers: a cross-cultural comparison of the USA and Spain. J Consum Behav 4:363–373
Grob A (1995) A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavior. J Environ Psychol 15:209–220
Guido G, Capestro M, Peluso AM (2007) Experimental analysis of consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences. Int J Mark Res 49/3:365–386
Hasselmann H, Helm R (2001) Exploratory consumer buying behaviour: how to identify innovator characteristics? In: Marketing transformation: research for the bottom line. Esomar Publication Series, Rome, pp 113–129
Helm R (2001) Planung und Vermarktung von Innovationen, Stuttgart
Herrmann A, Huber F, Kressmann F (2006) Varianz- und kovarianzbasierte Strukturgleichungsmodelle–Ein Leitfaden zu deren Spezifikation, Schätzung und Beurteilung. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 58:34–66
Homburg C, Hildebrandt L (1998) Die Kausalanalyse: Bestandsaufnahme, Entwicklungsrichtungen, Problemfelder. In: Hildebrandt L, Homburg C (eds) Die Kausalanalyse, Stuttgart, pp 15–44
Homburg C, Klarmann M (2006) Die Kausalanalyse in der empirischen betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung—Problemfelder und Anwendungsempfehlungen. DBW Die—Betriebswirtschaft 66:727–748
Hoyer WD, Ridgway NM (1984) Variety seeking as an explanation for exploratory purchase behavior: a theoretical model. J Consum Res 11:114–119
Hoyle RH, Panter AT (1995) Writing about structural equation models. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 158–176
Hu L-T, Bentler PM (1995) Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modelling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, pp 76–99
Huber F, Herrmann A (2006) Organisationale Erfolgsfaktoren von Markenallianzen—Eine kausalanalytische Studie auf Basis des Ressourcenansatzes. DBW—Die Betriebswirtschaft 66:86–108
Joachimsthaler EA, Lastovicka JA (1984) Optimal stimulation level—exploratory behavior models. J Consum Res 11:830–835
Joreskog KG, Sorbom D (1993) LISREL 8: structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International, Chicago
Kahn BE, Isen AE (1993) The influence of positive affect on variety seeking among safe, enjoyable products. J Consum Res 20:257–270
Kahn BE, Lehmann DR (1991) Modeling choice among assortments. J Retail 67:274–299
Kassarjian WM (1962) A study of Riesman’s theory of social character. Sociometry 25:213–230
Keller H, Voss H-G (1976) Neugier und Exploration—Theorien und Ergebnisse. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart
Koppelmann U, Brodersen K, Volkmann M (2001) Wissen—Produktmarketing—Variety Seeking: Manchmal reizt auch nur das Neue. Absatzwirtschaft, 2001, No. 12, pp. 56
Krampen G (1979) Differenzierung des Konstrukts der Kontrollüberzeugungen: Deutsche Bearbeitung und Anwendung der IPC-Skalen. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie 26:573–595
Laurent G, Kapferer J-N (1985) Measuring consumer involvement profiles. J Mark Res 22:41–53
MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods 1:130–149
Manning KC, Bearden WO, Madden TJ (1995) Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. J Consum Psychol 4/4:329–345
McAlister L, Pessemier E (1982) Variety-seeking behavior: an interdisciplinary review. J Consum Res 9:311–322
McReynolds P (1971) The nature and assessment of intrinsic motivation. In: McReynolds P (ed) Advances in psychological assessment 2. Science and behaviour Books, Palo Alto, pp 157–177
Midgley DF, Dowling GR (1978) Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement. J Consum Res 4:229–242
Mittal B, Lee M-S (1989) A causal model of consumer involvement. J Econ Psychol 10:363–389
Mittelstaedt RA, Grossbart SL, Curtis WW, De Vere SP (1976) Optimal stimulation level and the adoption process. J Consum Res 3:84–94
Netemeyer RG, Boles JS, McKee DO, McMurrian R (1997) An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. J Market 61:85–98
Nicholson N, Soane E, Fenton-O’Creevy M, Willman P (2005) Personality and domain-specific risk taking. J Risk Res 8/2:157–176
Orth UR (2005) Consumer personality and other factors in situational brand choice variation. Brand Manag 13/2:115–133
Orth UR, Bourrain A (2005a) Optimum stimulation theory and the differential impact of olfactory stimuli on consumer exploratory tendencies. Adv Consum Res 32:613–619
Orth UR, Bourrain A (2005b) Ambient scent and consumer exploratory behaviour: a causal analysis. J Wine Res 16/2:137–150
Otis LP (1984) Factors influencing the willingness to taste unusual foods. Psychol Rep 54:739–745
Pervin LA, Cervone D, John OP (2005) Personality—theory and research. 9th edn. Wiley, New Jersey
Raju PS (1980) Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demographics, and exploratory behavior. J Consum Res 7:272–282
Roehm HA, Roehm ML (2005) Revisiting the effect of positive mood on variety seeking. J Consum Res 32:330–335
Rosenbloom T (2003) Risk evaluation and risky behavior of high and low sensation seekers. Social Behav Personal 31/4:375–386
Rotter JB (ed) (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. American Psychological Associations, Washington
Rudolph B (1998) Kundenzufriedenheit im Industriegüterbereich. Gabler, Wiesbaden
Scholderer J, Balderjahn I (2006) Was unterscheidet harte und weiche Strukturgleichungsmodelle nun wirklich? Mark ZFP 28/1:57–70
Schreier M, Oberhauser S, Prügl R (2007) Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: insights from two extreme sports communities. Mark Lett 18:15–30
Simonson I (1990) The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety seeking behavior. J Mark Res 27:150–162
Simonson I, Winer RS (1992) The influence of purchase quantity and display format on consumer preference for variety. J Consum Res 19:133–138
Steenkamp J-BEM, Baumgartner H (1992) The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory consumer behavior. J Consum Res 19:434–448
Steenkamp J-BEM, Baumgartner H (1995) Development and cross-cultural validation of a short form of csi as a measure of optimum stimulation level. Int J Res Mark 12:97–104
Steenkamp J-BEM, Burgees SM (2002) Optimum stimulation level and exploratory consumer behavior in an emerging consumer market. Int J Res Mark 19:131–150
Synder CR, Fromkin HL (1980) Uniqueness: the human pursuit of difference. New York
Tauber EM (1972) Why do people shop? J Mark 36:46–59
ter Haseborg F, Mäßen A (1997) Das Phänomen des Variety-Seeking-Behavior: Modellierung, empirische Befunde und marketingpolitische Implikationen. Jahrbuch der Absatz- und Verbraucherforschung, 1997, No 2, pp 164–188
van Trijp HCM (1994) Product-related determinants of variety-seeking behavior for foods. Appetite 22:1–10
van Trijp HCM, Steenkamp J-BEM (1992) Consumer’s variety seeking tendency with respect to foods: measurement and managerial implications. Eur Rev Agric Econ 19:181–195
van Trijp HCM, Hoyer WD, Inman JJ (1996) Why switch? Product-category explanations for true variety-seeking behavior. J Mark Res 33:281–292
Venkatraman MP, McInnis DJ (1985) The epistemic and sensory explanatory behaviors of hedonic and cognitive consumers. Adv Consum Res 12:102–107
Venkatraman MP, Price LL (1990) Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness. J Bus Res 20:293–315
Wahlers RG, Etzel MJ (1985) A consumer response to incongruity between optimal stimulation and life style satisfaction. Adv Consum Res 12:97–101
Wahlers RG, Dunn MG, Etzel MJ (1986) The congruence of alternative OSL measures with consumer exploratory behavior tendencies. Adv Consum Res 13:398–402
Warshaw PR (1980) Predicting purchase and other behaviors from general and contextually specific intentions. J Mark Res 17:26–33
Zuckerman M (1991) One person’s stress is another person’s pleasure. Stress Emotion, Anxiety, Anger, Curiosity 14:31–45
Acknowledgement
The authors appreciate the helpful comments of Hans Baumgartner and two anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
“OSL” was measured by a short 7-item form of the Change Seeker Scale (CSI) first developed by Garlington and Shimota (1964) and later optimized by Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1995).
osl_csi1 | I rather like doing something new or different than always doing the same things. |
osl_csi2 | In everyday life, I like having change and making novel experiences. |
osl_csi3 | I prefer to lead a life that facilitates change, variety, and travel even if this means to be exposed to certain risks. |
osl_csi4 | I am always seeking for new ideas and experiences. |
osl_csi5 | It is appealing to always do something different. |
osl_csi6 | When things get boring, I am trying to make new experiences. |
osl_csi7 | I prefer a steady way of life compared to an unpredictable way of life with lot’s of change. |
The deviation of “OSL” and “ASL” was measured by a 7-item DCSI-scale, measuring the subjective difference between OSL and ASL directly, thus avoiding the problems attributed to conventional differential scales. Testing the DCSI-scale in a preliminary study against conventional approaches to measure the deviation of OSL and ASL was in support of regarding DCSI as being the advanced scale (Helm 2001).
diff1 | Recently, I do … the same things too often … too many new things |
diff2 | Recently, I experience … too much change … too less change |
diff3 | Recently, my life is … too exciting … too less exciting |
diff4 | Recently, I have … too many new ideas … too less new ideas |
diff5 | Recently, I do … always something different … always the same |
diff6 | Recently, I make … too many new experiences … too less new experiences |
diff7 | Recently, my life is … too steady … too unsteady |
RT was measured by a reduced 9-item scale following Raju (1980) and Wahlers et al. (1986).
rt1 | I rather wait until others have tried new things before I am trying myself. |
rt2 | I am among the first to try out new products or brands. |
rt3 | I like trying out unusual things even if I am not certain that it is worth giving it a try. |
rt4 | I stick to products/brands that I usually buy rather than trying out something else that I am not sure about. |
rt5 | I never buy anything that I do not feel sufficiently informed about. |
rt6 | When purchasing expensive equipment I only consider well-known brands. |
rt7 | Only as an exception I buy products/brands which I am not familiar with. |
rt8 | I am very cautious when trying out unknown products/brands. |
rt9 | I think it is safer to buy products/brands that I am already familiar with. |
VS was also measured following the scale of Raju (1980) with some adjustments of some of the ten items.
vs1 | I think it is boring to always buy the same brands even if they are alright. |
vs2 | In order to have some change, I consciously choose among the brands that I already know. |
vs3 | To have a little variety, I occasionally like to change between brands I know. |
vs4 | There are many products at whom I permanently switch between brands when shopping. |
vs5 | There are many products, where I always switch among a few brands. |
vs6 | If I buy another brand than the one I usually buy, I would only consider one I am already familiar with. |
vs7 | Before buying an unknown brand I rather try to find a familiar brand. |
vs8 | To not always buy the same brands, I shop among a few different brands that I am already familiar with. |
vs9 | Very often I feel urged to buy something that is very different to the brands I usually buy. |
vs10 | When I am satisfied with a brand, I rarely change to another brand just to try out something different. |
CMB alike was measured following the scale of Raju (1980) with ten adjusted items.
cm1 | It is interesting to inform oneself about many brands of a product category even if one is not planning to buy anything. |
cm2 | A new store or restaurant is not among the things I am keen on finding out more about. |
cm3 | It is not necessary to always buy something just to have some variety. Sometimes, it is already stimulating just to glance around while shopping. |
cm4 | For new impressions regarding things I routinely buy, I rather read commercials or I have a look at store displays than trying out another brand. |
cm5 | Sometimes I amble through stores with curiosity without planning to buy anything. |
cm6 | I like testing free product samples of different brands because it enables me to compare. |
cm7 | If I see a new brand that seems to be somewhat different to the one I usually buy, I am keen on finding out more about it. |
cm8 | I don’t like window-shopping. |
cm9 | I like exploring different alternatives or brands when shopping. |
cm10 | I often look through mail order catalogues even if I am not planning to order anything. |
Uniqueness seeking was measured by a four-item short form of the “Need for Uniqueness Scale” introduced by Synder and Fromkin (1980).
e1 | I sometimes like to disregard social norms. |
e2 | It bothers me, if people think I am conventional. |
e3 | If I feel myself being very distinguished from the others in a group, I don’t feel comfortable. |
e4 | I tend to defend my opinion emphatically even if it is an extraordinary one. |
Cognitive orientation was measured by four items of the Cognitive Innovativeness Scale by Venkatraman and Price (1990).
kog1 | I often try to analyse my own feelings and reactions. |
kog2 | If I am confronted by extraordinary statements, I often try to find out what lies behind it. |
kog3 | It is not unusual for me to ponder over the causes why the world is like it is. |
kog4 | I often try to explain things in different ways. |
Social character was measured by five items of the I–O Social Preference Scale of Kassarjian (1962).
s1 | It is important to me what my friends think about me. |
s2 | I don’t feel comfortable, if I am not dressed in the fashion of my friends. |
s3 | I like to be popular and esteemed by others. |
s4 | In regards of my actions it is less important to me which impression I leave behind then what is best for me. |
s5 | For making important decisions, the advice of my friends means a lot to me. |
Locus of control was measured by five items according to Krampen (1979) and based on the Internal–External Scale of Rotter (1966).
k1 | Having a car accident or not merely depends on my driving skills. |
k2 | If I make plans, I am sure that the plans are put into action. |
k3 | I can control much of what is happening in my life. |
k4 | If I get what I want, it is most likely the result of hard work. |
k5 | My life is determined by my own actions. |
Product involvement was measured by two items following the approach of Mittal and Lee (1989) based on Laurent and Kapferer (1985). Like for the following other product-category variables, adjustments in regards of the respective product were made.
inv1 | Aftershave/Perfume doesn’t matter to me. |
inv2 | The usage of aftershave/perfume is very important to me. |
The perceived hedonic value was as well operationalised according to Mittal and Lee (1989) based on Laurent and Kapferer (1985).
hed1 | For me it is very satisfying to buy aftershave/perfume. |
hed2 | It is a real pleasure for me to use aftershave/perfume. |
The degree of preferences was measured following the approach of van Trijp et al. (1996) by only one item.
praef | In the case of aftershave/perfume, I clearly prefer one or few brands relative to others. |
Interpurchase frequency was also measured by one single item on a 7-point rating scale that was formulated sensitive to the conceivable possibilities within a respective product category.
Finally, product-category-specific exploratory behaviour as a tendency to choose either new or familiar alternatives against the formerly used alternative was measured following the approach of Raju (1980) as demonstrated in this example of aftershave/perfume:
Imagine you intend to buy an aftershave/a perfume. At the store you have the choice between the following brands: | |
Brand A | is the brand you have recently bought most often and which you have been completely satisfied with. |
Brand B | is a band you are familiar with and that you believe to be equivalent to A. |
Brand C | is a whole new brand to the market. |
Now assume, brand B and C cost just as much as brand A. Would you be willing to buy brand B or C instead of brand A? | |
Willingness to buy brand B | very low … very high |
Willingness to buy brand C | very low … very high |
Imagine now, you would definitely like to try out something else. Do you … | |
definitely buy brand B … definitely buy brand C | |
Last question was aimed on validating the measurement of the willingness to take risk of a test person by his/her choice of either a new or a familiar product.
Appendix 2
Factor-analytical optimization and validation of the variables of intrinsic motivation and general exploratory tendencies.
Variable | Item | Factor loadings | Eigen values | Explained variance (%) | Cronbach α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OSL by CSI scale | osl_csi1r | 0.612 | 3.313 | 47.33 | 0.806 |
osl_csi2 | 0.716 | ||||
osl_csi3 | 0.733 | ||||
osl_csi4 | 0.717 | ||||
osl_csi5 | 0.762 | ||||
osl_csi6 | 0.655 | ||||
osl_csi7r | 0.605 | ||||
Subjective deviation of OSL and ASL by DCSI scale | diff1r | 0.771 | 3.802 | 54.32 | 0.854 |
diff2 | 0.813 | ||||
diff3 | 0.668 | ||||
diff4 | 0.453 | ||||
diff5 | 0.806 | ||||
diff6 | 0.774 | ||||
diff7r | 0.805 |
Forming the three variables of exploratory consumer behaviour individually using principal component analysis provided the following results:
Variable | Item | Factor loadings | Eigen values | Explained variance (%) | Cronbach α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk taking | rt1 | 0.569 | 3.131 | 52.18 | 0.808 |
rt4 | 0.772 | ||||
rt5 | 0.635 | ||||
rt7 | 0.782 | ||||
rt8 | 0.804 | ||||
rt9 | 0.742 | ||||
Variety seeking | vs3 | 0.675 | 2.243 | 56.07 | 0.737 |
vs4 | 0.775 | ||||
vs5 | 0.779 | ||||
vs8 | 0.762 | ||||
Curiosity-motivated behaviour | cm1 | 0.602 | 2.644 | 44.07 | 0.731 |
cm3 | 0.477 | ||||
cm5 | 0.819 | ||||
cm8r | 0.777 | ||||
cm9 | 0.668 | ||||
cm10 | 0.577 |
Examining the stability of the variables using a simultaneous principal axis analysis provided the following results:
Item | Factor loadings | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Factor 1: risk taking (Eigen value: 3.474) | Factor 2: variety seeking (Eigen value: 2.971) | Factor 3: curiosity-motivated behaviour (Eigen value: 1.730) | |
rt1 | 0.558 | −0.060 | −0.033 |
rt4 | 0.773 | −0.034 | 0.025 |
rt5 | 0.643 | 0.032 | 0.061 |
rt7 | 0.770 | 0.035 | −0.052 |
rt8 | 0.798 | 0.077 | −0.050 |
rt9 | 0.724 | −0.048 | 0.095 |
vs3 | −0.111 | −0.674 | 0.100 |
vs4 | 0.013 | −0.791 | −0.073 |
vs5 | 0.115 | −0.746 | 0.047 |
vs8 | 0.112 | −0.750 | −0.058 |
cm1 | 0.029 | 0.018 | 0.590 |
cm3 | 0.191 | 0.075 | 0.545 |
cm5 | −0.047 | −0.029 | 0.806 |
cm8r | −0.159 | −0.031 | 0.738 |
cm9 | −0.247 | −0.183 | 0.576 |
cm10 | 0.028 | 0.018 | 0.590 |
Explained variance: 51.09%; KMO (matrix): 0.810 | |||
Appendix 3
Within-convergent-validity and discriminant-validity was successfully assessed for all exogenous variables. Nevertheless, the following tables are only concerned with the three forms of general exploratory tendencies under discussion in order to illustrate the fact that RT, VS, and CMB are distinct variables.
Within-convergent-validation of the different forms of general exploratory tendencies and OSL:
Model fit indices | Identified value | Threshold value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall fit statistics | χ2/df | 2.221 | <3 | |||
GFI | 0.946 | >0.9 | ||||
AGFI | 0.928 | >0.9 | ||||
SRMR | 0.049 | <0.05 | ||||
RMSEA | 0.032 | <0.05 | ||||
Item | Loading (>0.4) | t-value (>1.645) | Item reliability (>0.4) | Construct reliability (>0.6) | Extracted variance (>0.5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk taking | rt1 | 0.460 | 9.604 | 0.212 | 0.929 | 0.694 |
rt4 | 0.716 | 16.362 | 0.519 | |||
rt5 | 0.380 | 7.409 | 0.147 | |||
rt7 | 0.664 | 14.532 | 0.441 | |||
rt8 | 0.701 | 15.553 | 0.492 | |||
rt9 | 0.650 | 14.369 | 0.428 | |||
Variety seeking | vs3 | 0.476 | 9.145 | 0.226 | 0.831 | 0.556 |
vs4 | 0.652 | 12.888 | 0.427 | |||
vs5 | 0.662 | 13.016 | 0.428 | |||
vs8 | 0.618 | 12.136 | 0.382 | |||
Curiosity-motivated behaviour | cm1 | 0.464 | 7.680 | 0.214 | 0.864 | 0.531 |
cm3 | 0.323 | 6.018 | 0.104 | |||
cm5 | 0.649 | 10.355 | 0.422 | |||
cm8r | 0.602 | 10.250 | 0.363 | |||
cm9 | 0.631 | 10.740 | 0.400 | |||
cm10 | 0.422 | 7.979 | 0.179 |
Assessment of discriminant-validity by χ2-difference tests shows significant declines in the model fit when fixing correlations between any of the constructs to 1. Thus, disriminant-validity is supported.
Risk taking | Variety seeking | |
|---|---|---|
Variety seeking | 277.55 | |
Curiosity-motivated behaviour | 353.20 | 27.12 |
Discriminant-validity is also supported by the Fornell–Larcker-Criterion. All squared correlations between the constructs (0.022; 0.053; 0.050) are smaller than the respective extracted variances.
Extracted variance | Variety seeking | Curiosity-motivated behaviour | |
|---|---|---|---|
Risk taking | 0.694 | 0.022 | 0.053 |
Variety seeking | 0.556 | 0.050 | |
Curiosity-motivated behaviour | 0.531 |
Appendix 4
Factor-analytical optimization and validation of the personality trait variables by principal component analysis.
Variable | Item | Factor loadings | Eigen values | Explained variance (%) | Cronbach α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Uniqueness seeking | e1 | 0.739 | 1.461 | 48.71 | 0.476 |
e3r | 0.667 | ||||
e4 | 0.685 | ||||
Cognitive orientation | kog1 | 0.733 | 2.310 | 57.74 | 0.740 |
kog2 | 0.813 | ||||
kog3 | 0.711 | ||||
kog4 | 0.779 | ||||
Social character | s1 | 0.830 | 1.752 | 58.39 | 0.640 |
s3 | 0.748 | ||||
s5 | 0.709 | ||||
Locus of control | k2 | 0.637 | 1.875 | 46.87 | 0.611 |
k3 | 0.783 | ||||
k4 | 0.630 | ||||
k5 | 0.678 |
For three of the variable scales the reliability was not satisfying. A simultaneous principal axis analysis was conducted in order to test, if it is still possible to model the four assumed variables.
Examining the stability of the personality trait variables using a simultaneous principal axis analysis provided the following results:
Item | Factor loadings | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor 1: uniqueness seeking (Eigen value 2.886) | Factor 2: locus of control (Eigen value 1.962) | Factor 3: social character (Eigen value 1.607) | Factor 4: cogn. orientation (Eigen value 1.147) | |
e1 | 0.583 | −0.049 | 0.065 | 0.010 |
e3r | 0.422 | 0.042 | −0.202 | −0.053 |
e4 | 0.418 | 0.067 | 0.016 | 0.120 |
k2 | −0.080 | 0.485 | −0.062 | 0.065 |
k3 | 0.050 | 0.723 | 0.094 | −0.059 |
k4 | −0.064 | 0.461 | −0.026 | −0.038 |
k5 | 0.116 | 0.469 | 0.094 | 0.071 |
s1 | −0.122 | −0.014 | 0.767 | −0.013 |
s3 | 0.025 | 0.087 | 0.593 | −0.032 |
s5 | 0.027 | −0.043 | 0.491 | 0.047 |
kog1 | −0.062 | −0.018 | 0.082 | 0.623 |
kog2 | 0.107 | 0.037 | 0.081 | 0.696 |
kog3 | −0.081 | −0.072 | −0.041 | 0.597 |
kog4 | 0.045 | 0.025 | −0.094 | 0.696 |
Explained variance: 54.30%; KMO (matrix): 0.705 | ||||
All Eigen values were above 1 and all items can be clearly allocated to a single variable without violating any criteria. Correlations between the variables are low. Altogether, the measurements of personality traits are applicable for further analysis.
In regards of product-category specific variables, however, high correlations between the variables led to an extraction of only one factor variable in all of the scenarios. Therefore, only involvement and the degree of preferences went into further analysis.
Appendix 5
Factor loadings of the exogenous models (in the six different product settings):
Factor | Item | Cell phone | Perfume | Hairdresser | Alternatives of frozen food | Alternatives of pizza brands | Alternatives of pizza toppings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OSL | osl_csi1r | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
osl_csi2 | 0.588 | 0.585 | 0.586 | 0.591 | 0.588 | 0.589 | |
osl_csi3 | 0.585 | 0.582 | 0.583 | 0.581 | 0.584 | 0.583 | |
osl_csi4 | 0.587 | 0.584 | 0.585 | 0.587 | 0.589 | 0.589 | |
osl_csi5 | 0.619 | 0.614 | 0.616 | 0.618 | 0.616 | 0.615 | |
osl_csi6 | 0.447 | 0.444 | 0.445 | 0.445 | 0.445 | 0.445 | |
osl_csi7r | 0.510 | 0.510 | 0.511 | 0.513 | 0.511 | 0.513 | |
OSL-ASL | diff1r | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
diff2 | 0.650 | 0.652 | 0.653 | 0.653 | 0.652 | 0.652 | |
diff3 | 0.645 | 0.645 | 0.645 | 0.643 | 0.643 | 0.643 | |
diff4 | 0.522 | 0.523 | 0.525 | 0.520 | 0.522 | 0.521 | |
diff5 | 0.634 | 0.632 | 0.633 | 0.633 | 0.630 | 0.629 | |
diff6 | 0.437 | 0.434 | 0.437 | 0.436 | 0.434 | 0.435 | |
diff7r | 0.507 | 0.506 | 0.506 | 0.500 | 0.501 | 0.502 | |
Uniqueness seeking | e1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
e3r | 0.313 | 0.308 | 0.314 | 0.296 | 0.297 | 0.297 | |
e4 | 0.280 | 0.276 | 0.277 | 0.291 | 0.285 | 0.292 | |
Locus of control | k2 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
k3 | 0.482 | 0.481 | 0.478 | 0.478 | 0.478 | 0.478 | |
k4 | 0.320 | 0.319 | 0.317 | 0.319 | 0.317 | 0.317 | |
k5 | 0.365 | 0.365 | 0.366 | 0.367 | 0.364 | 0.364 | |
Social character | s1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
s3 | 0.438 | 0.444 | 0.441 | 0.444 | 0.442 | 0.441 | |
s5 | 0.432 | 0.431 | 0.426 | 0.431 | 0.430 | 0.435 | |
Cogn. orientation | kog1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
kog2 | 0.705 | 0.701 | 0.706 | 0.713 | 0.713 | 0.712 | |
kog3 | 0.485 | 0.478 | 0.483 | 0.483 | 0.482 | 0.480 | |
kog4 | 0.599 | 0.593 | 0.596 | 0.597 | 0.595 | 0.599 | |
Product involvement | inv1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
inv2r | 0.672 | 0.675 | 0.366 | 0.516 | 0.520 | 0.519 | |
Degree of preferences | präf | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Appendix 6
Factor loadings of the endogenous models (in the six different product setting):
Factor | Item | Cell phone | Perfume | Hairdresser | Alternatives of frozen food | Alternatives of pizza brands | Alternatives of pizza toppings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk taking | rt1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
rt4 | 0.745 | 0.751 | 0.744 | 0.751 | 0.752 | 0.754 | |
rt5 | 0.437 | 0.444 | 0.444 | 0.449 | 0.450 | 0.449 | |
rt7 | 0.621 | 0.619 | 0.614 | 0.619 | 0.614 | 0.612 | |
rt8 | 0.629 | 0.633 | 0.631 | 0.642 | 0.645 | 0.646 | |
rt9 | 0.550 | 0.553 | 0.550 | 0.546 | 0.546 | 0.547 | |
Variety seeking | vs3 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
vs4 | 0.616 | 0.611 | 0.630 | 0.633 | 0.616 | 0.626 | |
vs5 | 0.638 | 0.631 | 0.639 | 0.618 | 0.612 | 0.626 | |
vs8 | 0.524 | 0.531 | 0.526 | 0.518 | 0.531 | 0.510 | |
Curiosity-motivated behaviour | cm1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
cm3 | 0.200 | 0.202 | 0.202 | 0.197 | 0.199 | 0.200 | |
cm5 | 0.633 | 0.643 | 0.639 | 0.634 | 0.636 | 0.637 | |
cm8r | 0.653 | 0.667 | 0.660 | 0.658 | 0.662 | 0.658 | |
cm9 | 0.719 | 0.714 | 0.712 | 0.715 | 0.716 | 0.714 | |
cm10 | 0.405 | 0.404 | 0.400 | 0.404 | 0.405 | 0.405 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Helm, R., Landschulze, S. Optimal stimulation level theory, exploratory consumer behaviour and product adoption: an analysis of underlying structures across product categories. Rev Manag Sci 3, 41–73 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-009-0024-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-009-0024-7
Keywords
- Optimal stimulation theory
- Consumer behaviour
- Exploratory consumer behaviour
- Adoption
- New products
JEL Classification
- M31