Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Satiation is an ongoing marketing challenge as it continually reduces a consumer's ability to enjoy a favored experience. The prevailing notion is that satiation increases with similarity; hence, consumers can best slow satiation by consuming stimuli that are as different as possible. We challenge this traditional (and intuitive) view and instead propose that stimuli can be so inherently different that consumers no longer spontaneously consider them together as part of the same experience. In such cases, promoting the similarity of the stimuli can counterintuitively slow satiation. We propose that this reversal happens because finding similarities leads the consumer to place these episodes into a single ad hoc category for the ongoing experience, thereby helping the consumer fully realize the overall variety inherent across all stimuli. Five studies establish this finding across multiple domains (music, art, and food) and provide process evidence that an ad hoc categorization for the overall experience underlies our effect. Our theory and findings provide insight into how and when similarity can help or hinder satiation, and they clarify the role of ad hoc categorization in this relationship.

Keywords

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barsalou

Lawrence

(1983), “Ad Hoc Categories,” Memory & Cognition, 11 (3), 211–27.

Berlyne

Daniel E.

(1971), Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Broniarczyk

Susan M.

Hoyer

Wayne D.

and McAlister

Leigh

(1998), “Consumers’ Perceptions of the Assortment Offered in a Grocery Category: The Impact of Item Reduction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (2), 166–76.

Chakravarti

Amitav

and Janiszewski

Chris

(2003), “The Influence of Macro-Level Motives on Consideration Set Composition in Novel Purchase Situations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 244–58.

Coombs

Clyde H.

and Avrunin

George S.

(1977), “Single-Peaked Functions and the Theory of Preference,” Psychological Review, 82 (3), 216–30.

Frederick

Shane

and Loewenstein

George

(1999), “Hedonic Adaptation,” in Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, Kahneman

, Diener

, and Schwarz

, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 302–29.

Galak

Jeff

Redden

Joseph P.

and Kruger

Justin

(2009), “Variety Amnesia: Recalling Past Variety Can Accelerate Recovery from Satiation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (4), 575–84.

Gentner

Dedre

and Markman

Arthur B.

(1994), “Structural Alignment in Comparison: No Difference Without Similarity,” Psychological Science, 5 (3), 152–58.

Hetherington

Marion

Rolls

Barbara J.

and Burley

Victoria J.

(1989), “The Time Course of Sensory-Specific Satiety,” Appetite, 12, 57–68.

10.

Kahn

Barbara E.

and Lehmann

Donald R.

(1991), “Modeling Choice Among Assortments,” Journal of Retailing, 67 (3), 274–99.

11.

Kahn

Barbara E.

and Wansink

Brian

(2004), “The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (4), 519–33.

12.

Liberman

Nira

and Trope

Yaacov

(1998), “The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 5–18.

13.

Malkoc

Selin A.

Zauberman

Gal

and Ulu

Canan

(2005), “Consuming Now or Later? The Interactive Effect of Timing and Attribute Alignability,” Psychological Science, 16 (5), 411–17.

14.

Mervis

Carolyn B.

and Rosch

Eleanor

(1981), “Categorization of Natural Objects,” Annual Review of Psychology, 32 (1), 89–115.

15.

Nelson

Leif D.

and Meyvis

Tom

(2008), “Interrupted Consumption: Disrupting Adaptation to Hedonic Experiences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (6), 654–64.

16.

Pessemier

Edgar

and Handelsman

Moshe

(1984), “Temporal Variety in Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (4), 435–44.

17.

Raghunathan

Rajagopal

and Irwin

Julie R.

(2001), “Walking the Hedonic Product Treadmill: Default Contrast and Mood Based Assimilation in Judgments of Predicted Happiness with a Target Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 355–68.

18.

Ratner

Rebecca K.

Kahn

Barbara E.

and Kahneman

Daniel

(1999), “Choosing Less Preferred Experiences for the Sake of Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (1), 1–15.

19.

Ratneshwar

Srinivasan

Pechmann

Cornelia

and Shocker

Allan D.

(1996), “Goal-Derived Categories and the Antecedents of Across-Category Consideration,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (3), 240–50.

20.

Read

Daniel

Loewenstein

George

and Rabin

Matthew

(1999), “Choice Bracketing,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19 (1/3), 171–97.

21.

Redden

Joseph P.

(2008), “Reducing Satiation: The Role of Categorization Level,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (5), 624–34.

22.

Rolls

Barbara J.

van Duijvenvoorde

P.M.

, and Rolls

Edmund T.

(1984), “Pleasantness Changes and Food Intake in a Varied Four-Course Meal,” Appetite, 5 (4), 337–48.

23.

Vallacher

Robin R.

and Wegner

Daniel M.

(1989), “Levels of Personal Agency: Individual Variation in Action Identification,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (4), 660–71.

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.

0.39 MB

0.00 MB

When Promoting Similarity Slows Satiation: The Relationship of Variety,Categorization,Similarity,and Satiation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material