Consumers often make choices for joint consumption with committed relationship partners, and these choices may include more or less variety. When planning a weekend for oneself and one's spouse, for example, a person could choose more varied activities (e.g., going out to dinner, to a movie, and to a concert) or less varied activities (e.g., seeing several different movies). What might affect how much variety people choose? Five experiments demonstrate that how much variety consumers prefer for joint consumption in committed relationships depends on their relationship time perspective (i.e., the perceived time ahead in the relationship). When consumers perceive more (vs. less) time ahead in a committed relationship, they prefer more variety for joint consumption with their partners. This increased preference for variety is driven by a shift in how much excitement is valued within the relationship and is unique to choices for joint consumption with the specific relationship partner. The findings demonstrate that variety preferences depend not just on personal or situational factors but also on aspects of consumers’ social relationships.
ArielyDan and LevavJonathan (2000), “Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 279–90.
2.
AronArthur, NormanChristina C., AronElaine N., McKennaColin, and HeymanRichard E. (2000), “Couples’ Shared Participation in Novel and Arousing Activities and Experienced Relationship Quality,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2), 273–84.
3.
BaoKatherine Jacobs and LyubomirskySonja (2013), “Making It Last: Combating Hedonic Adaptation in Romantic Relationships,”Journal of Positive Psychology, 8 (3), 196–206.
4.
BerlyneDaniel E. (1970), “Novelty, Complexity, and Hedonic Value,”Perception & Psychophysics, 8 (5a), 279–86.
5.
BhargaveRajesh and MontgomeryNicole Votolato (2013), “The Social Context of Temporal Sequences: Why First Impressions Shape Shared Experiences,”Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (October), 501–17.
6.
BroniarczykSusan M., HoyerWayne D., and McAlisterLeigh (1998), “Consumers’ Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category: The Impact of Item Reduction,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (May), 166–76.
7.
CarstensenLaura L. (1992), “Social and Emotional Patterns in Adulthood: Support for Socioemotional Selectivity Theory,”Psychology and Aging, 7 (September), 331–38.
8.
CarstensenLaura L. (2006), “The Influence of a Sense of Time on Human Development,”Science, 312 (June), 1913–15.
9.
CarstensenLaura L. and FredricksonBarbara L. (1998), “Influence of HIV Status and Age on Cognitive Representations of Others,”Health Psychology, 17 (6), 494–503.
10.
CarstensenLaura L., GrossJames J., and FungHelene H. (1997), “The Social Context of Emotional Experience,”Annual Review of Gerontology & Geriatrics, 17, 325–52.
11.
CarstensenLaura L., IsaacowitzDerek M., and CharlesSusan T. (1999), “Taking Time Seriously: A Theory of Socioemotional Selectivity,”American Psychologist, 54 (March), 165–81.
12.
EtkinJordan and MogilnerCassie (2016), “Does Variety Among Activities Increase Happiness?”Journal of Consumer Research, forthcoming (published electronically May 10), [DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucw021].
13.
EtkinJordan and RatnerRebecca K. (2012), “The Dynamic Impact of Variety among Means on Motivation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (April), 1076–92.
14.
EtkinJordan and RatnerRebecca K. (2013), “Goal Pursuit, Now and Later: Temporal Compatibility of Different Versus Similar Means,”Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (February), 1085–99.
15.
EtkinJordan and SelaAner (2016), “How Experience Variety Shapes Postpurchase Product Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (February), 77–90.
16.
FaisonEdmund W.J. (1977), “The Neglected Variety Drive: A Useful Concept for Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (December), 172–75.
17.
FerraroRosellina, ShivBaba, and BettmanJames R. (2005), “Let Us Eat and Drink, for Tomorrow We Shall Die: Effects of Mortality Salience and Self-Esteem on Self-Regulation in Consumer Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 65–75.
18.
FrederickShane and LoewensteinGeorge (1999), “Hedonic Adaptation,” in Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, KahnemanD., DienerE., and SchwarzN., eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 302–29.
19.
FredricksonBarbara L. (1995), “Socioemotional Behavior at the End of College Life,”Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12 (2), 261–76.
20.
FungHelene H. and CarstensenLaura L. (2006), “Goals Change When Life's Fragility Is Primed: Lessons Learned from Older Adults, the September 11 Attacks, and SARS,”Social Cognition, 24 (3), 248–78.
21.
FungHelene H., CarstensenLaura L., and LutzAmy M. (1999), “Influence of Time on Social Preferences: Implications for Life-Span Development,”Psychology and Aging, 14 (December), 595–604.
22.
GalakJeff, KrugerJustin, and LoewensteinGeorge (2011), “Is Variety the Spice of Life? It All Depends on the Rate of Consumption,”Judgment and Decision Making, 6 (3), 230–38.
23.
GalakJeff, ReddenJoseph P., and KrugerJustin (2009), “Variety Amnesia: Recalling Past Variety Can Accelerate Recovery from Satiation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (December), 575–84.
24.
GoodmanJoseph K. and MalkocSelin A. (2012), “Choosing for Here and Now Versus There and Later: The Moderating Role of Psychological Distance on Assortment Size Preferences,”Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (December), 751–68.
25.
HayesAndrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
26.
HochStephen J., BradlowEric T., and WansinkBrian (1999), “The Variety of an Assortment,”Marketing Science, 18 (November), 527–46.
27.
IyengarSheena S. and LepperMark R. (2000), “When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (December), 995–1006.
28.
KahnBarbara E. (1995), “Consumer Variety-Seeking Among Goods and Services,”Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2 (3), 139–48.
29.
KahnBarbara E. and LehmannDonald R. (1991), “Modeling Choice Among Assortments,”Journal of Retailing, 67 (3), 274–300.
30.
KahnBarbara E. and RatnerRebecca K. (2005), “Variety for the Sake of Variety? Diversification Motives in Consumer Choice,” in Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, RatneshwarS. and Glen MickDavid, eds. London: Routledge, 102–21.
31.
KahnBarbara E. and WansinkBrian (2004), “The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (4), 519–33.
32.
KamvarSepandar D. and HarrisJonathan (2009), We Feel Fine: An Almanac of Human Emotion. New York: Scribner.
33.
KimHeejung S. and DroletAimee (2003), “Choice and Self-Expression: A Cultural Analysis of Variety-Seeking,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (2), 373–82.
34.
LaranJuliano (2010), “Goal Management in Sequential Choices: Consumer Choices for Others Are More Indulgent Than Personal Choices,”Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (August), 304–14.
35.
LatinJames M. and McAlisterLeigh (1985), “Using a Variety-Seeking Model to Identify Substitute and Complementary Relationships Among Competing Products,”Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 330–39.
36.
LiuPeggy J., CampbellTroy H., FitzsimonsGavan J., and FitzsimonsGrainne M. (2013), “Matching Choices to Avoid Offending Stigmatized Group Members,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122 (November), 291–304.
37.
MandelNaomi and SmeestersDirk (2008), “The Sweet Escape: Effects of Mortality Salience on Consumption Quantities for High- and Low-Self-Esteem Consumers,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (August), 309–23.
38.
McAlisterLeigh (1982), “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety-Seeking Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 141–50.
39.
McAlisterLeigh and PessemierEdgar A. (1982), “Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 311–22.
40.
MedinaJohn J. (1997), The Clock of Ages: Why We Age, How We Age, Winding Back the Clock. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
MenonSatya and KahnBarbara E. (1995), “The Impact of Context on Variety Seeking in Product Choices,”Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 285–95.
42.
MogilnerCassie, AakerJennifer, and KamvarSepandar D. (2012), “How Happiness Affects Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (August), 429–43.
43.
MogilnerCassie, KamvarSepandar D., and AakerJennifer (2011), “The Shifting Meaning of Happiness,”Social Psychological & Personality Science, 39 (May), 559–77.
44.
MogilnerCassie, RudnickTamar, and IyengarSheena S. (2008), “The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers’ Perceptions of Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (August), 202–15.
45.
PessemierEdgar A. (1978), “Stochastic Properties of Changing Preferences,”American Economic Review, 68 (May), 380–85.
46.
PolmanEvan (2012), “Self-Other Decision Making and Loss Aversion,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 199 (2), 141–50.
47.
RaghunathanRaj and CorfmanKim (2006), “Is Happiness Shared Doubled and Sadness Shared Halved? Social Influence on Enjoyment of Hedonic Experiences,”Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (August), 386–94.
48.
RajuP.S. (1980), “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demographics, and Exploratory Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3), 272–82.
49.
RamanathanSuresh and McGillAnn (2007), “Consuming with Others: Social Influences on Moment-to-Moment and Retrospective Evaluations of an Experience,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4), 506–24.
50.
RatnerRebecca K. and KahnBarbara E. (2002), “The Impact of Private Versus Public Consumption on Variety-Seeking Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (September), 246–57.
51.
RatnerRebecca K., KahnBarbara E., and KahnemanDaniel (1999), “Choosing Less Preferred Experiences for the Sake of Variety,”Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (June), 1–15.
52.
ReddenJoseph P. (2008), “Reducing Satiation: The Role of Categorization Level,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (February), 624–34.
53.
RollsBarbara J., RollsEdmund T., RoweEdward A., and SweeneyKevin (1981), “Sensory Specific Satiety in Man,”Physiology & Behavior, 27 (July), 137–42.
54.
SelaAner and MaimaranMichal (2016), “Variety as a Preference Strength Signal,”working paper, University of Florida.
55.
SimonsonItamar (1990), “The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior,”Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (May), 150–62.
56.
SimpsonJeffrey A., GriskeviciusVladas, and RothmanAlexander J. (2012), “Consumer Decisions in Relationships,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (July), 304–14.
57.
SinhaJayati and WangJing (2013), “How Time Horizon Perceptions and Relationship Deficits Affect Impulsive Consumption,”Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (October), 590–605.
58.
SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M. and BaumgartnerHans (1992), “The Role of Optimum Stimulation Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (December), 434–48.
59.
SuddendorfThomas and CorballisMichael C. (1997), “Mental Time Travel and the Evolution of the Human Mind,”Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 123 (2), 133–67.
60.
TsapelasIrene, AronArthur, and OrbuchTerri (2009), “Marital Boredom Now Predicts Less Satisfaction 9 Years Later,”Psychological Science, 20 (5), 543–45.
61.
VenkatesanMeere (1973), “Cognitive Consistency and Novelty Seeking,” in Consumer Behavior, SourcesT., WardS., and RobertsonT.S., eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 355–84.
62.
WardMorgan K. and BroniarczykSusan M. (2011), “It's Not Me, It's You: How Gift Giving Creates Giver Identity Threat as a Function of Social Closeness,”Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (June), 164–81.
63.
WilliamsPatti and DroletAimee (2005), “Age-Related Differences in Responses to Emotional Advertisements,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (December), 343–54.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
