We examine whether the consumer trait of exploratory buying behavior tendencies (EBBT; Baumgartner, H., and Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1996). Exploratory consumer buying behavior: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 121–137.) can influence even choices made for others. The results of three experiments in a gift-giving context show that high (vs. low) EBBT individuals have greater salience of hedonic search motives and consequently form more diverse consideration sets while purchasing a gift. Further, when working with a specific gift budget, high EBBT consumers are more likely to diversify their gift choices by buying a greater number of relatively lower-priced gift items. We also find that the effects of the EBBT trait are significantly attenuated when the regulatory focus of the person making the gift decision is one of prevention rather than promotion. Discussion focuses on implications and future research directions regarding the relationship between exploratory buying behavior tendencies and consumer decision-making.
Variety-seeking behavior is an important and well-known construct in consumer research. It has been defined and measured by the degree of change or diversity in what a person purchases and consumes (Goukens et al., 2007; Kahn and Ratner, 2005; McAlister and Pessemier, 1982). Behavioral as well as modeling researchers have provided substantial support for variety-seeking patterns in consumer choice (e.g., Chintagunta, 1999; Ratner and Kahn, 2002; Ratner, Kahn, and Kahneman, 1999). Researchers have also distinguished conceptually between variety-seeking behavior as a chronic, individual-difference variable vs. variety-seeking that is triggered by state variables such as hunger or external stimuli such as price promotions (Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1996 and Goukens et al., 2007; Kahn and Raju, 1991 and Van Trijp et al., 1996).
When variety-seeking behavior is considered at a dispositional or individual-difference level, prior research suggests that it is strongly associated with the consumer trait of exploratory buying behavior tendencies (i.e., EBBT; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992). The theoretical link between the two is that high (vs. low) EBBT individuals are thought to be motivated by the need for increased sensory and cognitive stimulation and thus are more likely to purchase and consume diverse products ( Kahn and Ratner, 2005 and Raju, 1980; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992). Empirical support for the hypothesized relationship between EBBT and variety-seeking consumption behavior has been provided by Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996).
The central question we pursue in the current research is as follows: Can EBBT influence even choices made for others? By pursuing this question, we seek to make four key contributions to the literature. First, we wish to show that EBBT can influence decision-making processes and choice outcomes even when someone else's satisfaction with the chosen product is the objective. Note that this is in contrast to prior research on EBBT and variety-seeking behavior, where the consumer's own utility function and satisfaction with the chosen option usually have been the central focus (see Kahn and Ratner, 2005 for a recent review). Evidence that EBBT can impact choices even when the decision-maker knows that he or she is not going to personally benefit from consuming the product would shed light on EBBT's wide-ranging and potent nature.
Second, and again unlike prior studies in this area, we examine whether EBBT can influence diversity not only in choices, but also in choice consideration sets. The composition of a consideration set indicates potentially substitutable alternatives and thereby points to a product's marketplace competitors (Desai and Hoyer, 2000; Hauser and Wernerfelt, 1990; Ratneshwar, Pechmann, and Shocker 1996; Roberts and Lattin, 1991). An important issue here is the degree of diversity or heterogeneity among the options in a consideration set, when assessed by the extent to which these alternatives come from distinctly different product categories (Chakravarti and Janiszewski, 2003 and Johnson, 1984; Park and Smith, 1989 and Ratneshwar et al., 1996). For example, while shopping for a gift in a department store, individual A might create a consideration set that encompasses three different product categories (e.g., two different wristwatches, a leather purse, and a perfume), whereas individual B's gift consideration set might be composed only of alternatives within a single product category (e.g., four different wristwatches). In the context of the present research, the issue is whether EBBT can help explain this difference between the two individuals' consideration sets.
Hypothesis 3 posits that high (vs. low) EBBT individuals will include a greater number of products in their final gift choices. Inspection of the data showed that no participant had more than one item from the same product category in his/her final gift choices. Hence, for all participants, the number of items included in the final gift choice was exactly the same as the number of different product categories represented in the final gift choice. Further, a regression analysis confirmed a significant positive effect for EBBT such that increasing scores for EBBT were associated with an increasing number of products in the final gift choices (β = .29, t (51) = 2.14; p < .05). Thus, H3 was supported. Further insight on the data is obtained by comparing the means for the high and low EBBT groups, based on a median split of the participants. High (vs. low) EBBT individuals on average had more products (2 vs. 1.53) in their final gift choices and correspondingly spent less on average per item ($27.20 vs. $33.70).
