Variety-Seeking Behavior and Information Processing in Choosing a Vacation Destination

Abstract

This study investigates broad versus specific levels of perceived variety seeking when choosing a vacation destination. In general, consumers use two criteria to evaluate where to vacation: the novelty of the destination relative to their current place and the potential variety of activities offered. Consumers’ perception about these criteria is regulated at a broad level through spatial distance information, and at a specific level through activity information. Findings from experiments indicate that people prefer taking vacations to distant (vs. close) places. However, when both types of vacation information are available, people prefer a destination with more activities regardless of spatial distance. Process evidence suggests that analytic (vs. holistic) information processing and variety seeking at a specific (vs. broad) level drive the findings.

Keywords

variety seeking information processing spatial distance activities vacation destination experiential purchase

Introduction

In general, the thought of positive experiences such as eating at a good restaurant or watching an interesting movie evokes excitement and happiness. As such, searching the term vacation on Google returns positive images including happy, smiling people and beautiful landscapes. While actually taking a vacation unsurprisingly increases happiness, research shows even thinking about or anticipating a vacation yields a positive effect (Nawijn 2010; Nawijn et al. 2011). This can be explained by the propensity of experiential, involved activities such as vacations to generate positive memories (Carter and Gilovich 2010; Boven 2005; Boven and Gilovich 2003). More broadly, taking vacations leads to greater satisfaction and quality of life (Dolnicar, Lazarevski, and Yanamandram 2013; Dolnicar, Yanamandram, and Cliff 2012; Sirgy et al. 2011), increased work productivity (de Bloom et al. 2014), and improved health (Gump and Matthews 2000; Chen and Petrick 2013). With such potential upside, how do people choose their vacation spot to maximize enjoyment? Current research proposes that consumers seek variety as a primary component to this decision.

Individuals seek variety when choosing products, and if given enough choice will even include options they like less as part of a choice set (e.g., Kahn 1995; Ratner and Kahn 2002; Ratner, Kahn, and Kahneman 1999). Additionally, people tend to seek variety when they have uncertain preferences in the category but are buying for multiple future consumption occasions, or are pursuing sensational pleasure (Kahn and Lehmann 1991; Zuckerman 1994). While people are often attracted to variety, research has also shown extensive assortments can cause choice overload, leading to decreased motivation to choose and less satisfaction with the chosen option (e.g., Iyengar and Lepper 2000; Mogilner, Rudnick, and Iyengar 2008; Yan et al. 2015). Even though these mixed results focus on material purchases, we see similar conflicts in a few studies examining variety-seeking tendencies regarding experiential purchases (e.g., Antón, Camarero, and Laguna-García 2018; Kim, Kim, and Kim 2018; Dai and Zhang 2013; Brey and Lehto 2007; Smith, Pitts, and Litvin 2012; Keinan and Kivetz 2011; Sood and Dreze 2006). For example, consumers enjoy diverse and novel activities to increase productivity (Keinan and Kivetz 2011), prefer watching dissimilar sequels of movies (Sood and Dreze 2006), and choose different options in travel bundle packages (Kim, Kim, and Kim 2018). Individuals tend to seek variety as a means of escaping mundane routine, and vacations can fulfill this need by offering new, stimulating activities (Iso-Ahola 1983). Moreover, consumers can feel less satiated, which results in greater intention to return to the vacation place when they participate in a greater number of discrete activities (Antón, Camarero, and Laguna-García 2018).

Other research shows caveats to this behavior, such as a high level of involvement in an activity at home increasing the tendency to engage in the same activity when traveling (Brey and Lehto 2007; Smith, Pitts, and Litvin 2012). However, as this research notes, only highly specialized activities like golf had a strong influence on the engagement of the same activities during travel. In the current study, we acknowledge those consumers who tend to engage in the same activity while vacationing, but did not limit our study to this specific consumer segment. In general, consumers prefer to experience a variety of activities while vacationing, and we investigate how this priority influences their preferences for vacation destinations. To test our research questions, we constructed experiments using popular activities highlighted on major travel websites as well as academic research.

Consumers tend to have greater preference uncertainty for future consumption because they do not know which option they would like the most (Simonson 1990). This uncertainty means consumers taking a vacation to an unfamiliar place might want to sample more activities to increase their likelihood of enjoyment. Overall, prior studies in experiential purchases suggest that people pursue variety and novelty to increase their general state of happiness and pleasure while engaging in leisure activities. Since information regarding location and activity details are important for consumers to construct an accurate image of a vacation destination (e.g., Perpiña, Camprubí, and Prats 2017; Tasci, Gartner, and Cavusgil 2007), we believe that a deeper understanding of the nature of variety-seeking behavior while on vacations would be needed when investigating how and when consumers seek variety in choosing their vacations. Moreover, there is no research investigating how various activities interact with spatial distance to influence consumers’ perceived available variety and lead to a choice of vacation destination even though these are critical factors for making a vacation decision. This study addresses important research gaps by investigating how consumers process vacation information and seek variety in vacations.

This study proposes that later vacation-planning stages, which include evaluating a vacation place, involve different information-processing procedures than the initial stage of vacation planning, which would mainly involve broadly thinking about or imagining taking the vacation. As previous research shows, people are happier when they think about positive experiences such as taking vacations, and as such we can easily assume that making decisions about a vacation is based solely on emotions of happiness and pleasure. However, we posit that consumers’ preferences for certain vacation choice options are formed using not only holistic processing, evoked by emotions such as excitement for something new, but also analytic processing, which relies on more detailed information, such as the specific activities one can engage in while on vacation. We also suggest that available vacation information allows consumers to have different levels of perceived variety. More specifically, consumers can perceive vacation-related variety at either a broad level or a specific level, which in turn can influence the relative importance they give to two common vacation-related criteria: novelty of the vacation destination (i.e., spatial distance) and activities to engage in while there (e.g., Assaker and Hallak 2013; Bello and Etzel 1985; Dai and Zhang 2013; Keinan and Kivetz 2011; Lee and Crompton 1992; Qu, Kim, and Im 2011).

Therefore, we propose that consumers seek variety either at a broad level based on only spatial distance information (i.e., how close or distant vacation places are from their current location) or at a specific level by focusing on activities and attractions available at different vacation destinations. In the initial stage, which consists of imagining taking a vacation, consumers will seek variety and novelty by thinking more broadly. They will prefer to think about taking a vacation to a more distant place as opposed to a closer location. However, what happens when consumers start planning and evaluating a vacation combining information on both the spatial distance of the destination and the number of recreational activities available? Which factor will be dominant? Although consumers would prefer more distance during initial vacation planning, in later stages when more detailed information on specific activities is available, focus shifts to these attractions as they provide a more vivid sense of variety. Thus, we suggest that the more specific level of variety (i.e., number of activities) dominates the broader level of variety (i.e., spatial distance) when considering a vacation itinerary. Our findings contribute new insights to the literature of variety seeking and vacations, and give strategic direction for vacation marketers.

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development

Variety-Seeking in Experiential Purchases

Consumers’ variety-seeking behavior refers to “the tendency of individuals to seek diversity in their choices of services or goods” (Kahn 1995, p. 130). Previous research indicates that consumers are attracted by a variety of products (e.g., Kahn 1995; Ratner and Kahn 2002; Ratner, Kahn, and Kahneman 1999) because they desire novelty (Menon and Kahn 1995; Raju 1980) and sensational pleasure (Zuckerman 1994). Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) also suggest that sensation seeking is important in experiential consumption. Variety seeking helps consumers manage uncertain future preferences by gathering relevant information, including the less preferred option (Kahn and Lehmann 1991), and reduce satiation (McAlister 1982; Read and Loewenstein 1995). Earlier research by McAlister and Pessemier (1982) classified varied behavior as either derived or direct, and suggested that direct variety-seeking behaviors occurred because of the desire for novely or satiation reduction associated with product attributes.

Even though most of the studies on variety seeking heavily focus on material purchases (e.g., Kahn 1995; Ratner and Kahn 2002; Ratner, Kahn, and Kahneman 1999), there are several studies suggesting that consumers seek variety when making experiential purchases (e.g., Shah and Alter 2014; Keinan and Kivetz 2011; Sood and Dreze 2006). For example, consumers tend to increase perceived variety and happiness by treating positive events discretely rather than as part of a larger group (Shah and Alter 2014). Keinan and Kivetz (2011) show that consumers are attracted to novel experiences because of productivity orientation. In other words, consumers perceive time as scarce and valuable and feel compelled to accomplish more in their limited time. By engaging in a greater variety of experiences, they feel as if they are spending time in a more productive and efficient way. Sood and Dreze (2006) also examine consumers’ variety-seeking behavior in the context of movies. They find that consumers prefer dissimilar (vs. similar) movie sequels because they want to experience diversity, which maximizes their joy. Also consumers want to engage in different experiences that could not replace a special experience they have stored in memory (Zauberman, Ratner, and Kim 2009). Consumers’ happiness increases when they actually consider consuming a wider variety of leisure activities (Dai and Zhang 2013).

Tourism literature also shows that travelers tend to seek variety for their vacations. For example, consumers consider a variety of options (e.g., different types of parks), including seasonality, as important factors when choosing vacations and theme parks (Kemperman et al. 2000; Kemperman, Borgers, and Timmermans 2002). Consumers show greater intentions to revisit a specific place when they experience something new and novel (Jang and Feng 2007) and consumers’ variety seeking plays an important role as a moderator between satisfaction and the revisit intention (Assaker and Hallak 2013). Consumers also show variety-seeking behaviors when they choose travel bundle packages under the combined-choice condition (Kim, Kim, and Kim 2018). Particularly, consumers prefer to choose variety options among different travel products (i.e., airline ticket and hotel). Consumers can feel satiated from long vacations with intensive experiences, but they perceive positive experience value when participating in a different number of activities which results in greater intention to return (Antón, Camarero, and Laguna-García 2018). Moreover, consumers want to enjoy new and different activities while taking vacations to escape from routine life (Iso-Ahola 1983). Other research shows an exception to the above in consumers who prefer to engage in similar vacation activities to those they participate in at home (Brey and Lehto 2007; Smith, Pitts, and Litvin 2012). This research argues that while vacationing golfers tend to play golf in varied locations, they are still engaging in the same general experience. However, the authors note that the relationship between at-home and vacation activity participation is strongly influenced by the nature of the activity, and such activity requires a higher level of specialization and skill. Since this high level of involvement in specific activities would limit our research scope to a specific segment of consumers, we made the decision to embrace all consumers’ general preferences for vacation activities. We attempt to capture these consumers in our study by including activities that are popular but require higher levels of specialization.

The bulk of prior studies examining experiential categories, including vacations, suggest that consumers prefer more variety as a means to increase their happiness and pleasure. These studies are helpful in confirming variety-seeking tendencies are important to vacation choice. Thus, in the current study, we explore the nature of variety seeking in vacations by investigating how consumers perceive and seek variety based on the information available about the potential vacations.

Variety-Seeking at Different Levels (Broad vs. Specific) for Vacations

Prior research shows that consumers perceive variety at different levels (see Kahn, Weingarten, and Townsend 2013)—specifically, as a whole by scanning assortments at a broad level or more concretely by comparing alternatives within an assortment (Broniarczyk, Hoyer, and McAlister 1998; Hoch, Bradlow, and Wansink 1999). When consumers are not actively processing information in a store to make their choices (Dickson and Sawyer 1990), they expend minimal cognitive effort by quickly screening the alternatives (Broniarczyk, Hoyer, and McAlister 1998). However, consumers also engage in deeper analytic processing (i.e., pairwise comparisons) when engaging with organized product displays, which helps them perceive more product variety (Hoch, Bradlow, and Wansink 1999). Correspondingly, the current study argues that consumers can perceive variety at both a broad and a specific level, not only for tangible products but also for intangible products, such as taking vacations. In the initial steps of thinking about a vacation, consumers are not likely to engage in analytic, thoughtful processing; instead, they engage in broad-level processing and might think about how spatially distant and, thus, how dissimilar a vacation destination is relative to their current location. Consumers can perceive greater novelty and variety when they imagine distant places because they can easily image these distant places as being different from their current locations. Thus, relying only on spatial distance information, when consumers conceptualize and initially think about their vacations, they will likely seek variety at a broad level by engaging in holistic information processing.

However, when consumers begin to learn more detailed information, they will engage in analytic processing and thus will perceive variety at a more specific level by focusing on the activities and attractions they can enjoy. During the time period where consumers are evaluating different vacation destinations, consumers are likely to be more analytic because they are processing information at a more granular level (Townsend and Liu 2012). Thus, consumers seek variety by focusing on more detailed and concrete information, such as the activities and attractions offered by the vacation destination, which allows them to perceive greater variety in more objective and real terms.

Variety-Seeking and the Dominant Influence of Activities in Vacations

Consumers seek variety and novelty by engaging in different activities to increase their happiness (e.g., Dai and Zhang 2013; Keinan and Kivetz 2011; Sood and Dreze 2006). In taking vacations, the perceived dissimilarity between their current state and the options they can choose is critical to increasing satisfaction. Consumers want to experience something new and different while on vacation (Lee and Crompton 1992). Since we suggest that distant places will be perceived as more different from their current locations, consumers will prefer to go to a more distant destination. Thus, when consumers only have information on spatial distance, more distant places will be more attractive than closer locations.

However, another important question we address is what happens when consumers have access to both distance and activity-related information. Will one dominate the other? Although consumers generally prefer distant places, we argue that this preference will be moderated by the different information-processing styles they are likely to engage in when initially envisioning a vacation, versus detailed planning at later stages. In these later stages, we posit that consumers will fulfill their desire for variety by focusing on more detailed information, such as potential available activities (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Therefore, even though spatial distance is an important criteria in tourism (e.g., Nicolau, Zach, and Tussyadiah 2018), when consumers are informed about the spatial distance of a vacation place, along with the number of activities available to them, the latter will dominate the former because concrete information helps consumers conceptualize the vacation place more vividly and perceive greater variety. Hence, offering diverse activities and attractions will encourage consumers to perceive more variety, which in turn will affect the way they form their vacation preferences by effectively negating the siren song of distance. Thus, spatial distance, which allows consumers to perceive variety in a broad way, will not be a decisive factor when a more specific variety of activities and attractions is available. Theoretically, this point is important because consumers making material purchases can be overwhelmed by too many choices (e.g., Iyengar and Lepper 2000; Schwartz 2000), while conversely being attracted and satisfied by a higher number of activities for experiential purchases, particularly vacations. Thus, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1: When only spatial distance information is available, consumers will prefer distant vacation places to close vacation places.

Hypothesis 2: When both spatial distance and activity information are available, consumers will prefer vacation places with more (vs. fewer) activities/attractions, regardless of the spatial distance of the vacation destination from the current place.

Experiments

Pretest: Dissimilarity of Distant Vacation Places

Method

The pretest examines whether consumers perceive distant (vs. close) places as being dissimilar from (vs. similar to) their current locations. Forty-three undergraduate students at a public university in the northeastern United States participated in an online survey that asked them to imagine, in a single between-subjects factor design, that they had graduated, were working in a good city, and were planning to take a vacation to either place A, which is 80–100 miles away (i.e., a close place), or place B, which is 600–700 miles away (i.e., a distant place). After completing the manipulation check for spatial distance—“Please indicate whether the vacation place is closer or farther from your current place?” (1 = “very close,” 7 = “very far”)—participants rated the perceived similarity/dissimilarity of the vacation destination relative to their current town (“How similar/dissimilar do you believe the vacation place will be to your current town?”) on a 7-point scale (1 = “very similar,” 7 = “very dissimilar”).

Results and Discussion

The manipulation check confirmed that participants found 600–700 miles away to be far from their current location and 80–100 miles away to be close (M_{600-700 miles} = 5.5 vs. M_80-100miles = 4.4); F(1, 41) = 4.96, p < 0.05. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicates that participants viewed the close place as being more similar to their current location than the distant place (M_close = 3.4 vs. M_distant = 2.4); F(1, 41) = 4.11, p < 0.05. Participants did not receive any other information (e.g., name of the city), only the distance of the place, so the results strongly affirm a causal relationship between spatial distance and perceived similarity/dissimilarity. This is an important finding and provides an underlying reason as to why consumers prefer to go on vacation further away from home. Prior literature suggests that consumers want to experience something new and different while taking vacations (Lee and Crompton 1992; Keinan and Kivetz 2011). The result of this study shows that consumers perceive a distant place as being more different from their current location than a close place. Therefore, this allows us to argue that consumers will be more likely to go to the distant destination for a vacation in order to seek more variety and experience something new. We test this notion further in the following studies. The perception of dissimilarity allows consumers to imagine more variety and is positively valued during vacation choice.

Study 1: Preference for Distant Vacation Places

In addition to testing consumers’ preference for distant versus close vacation places, we include a temporal distance factor (i.e., leave soon vs. leave later) in study 1. By including the temporal distance factor, this study can confirm that consumers strongly prefer distant places regardless of when they leave for a vacation, and that dissimilarity (i.e., difference) is positively valued in vacation decisions. In addition, this factor will help us rule out construal-level theory (CLT) in choice for a vacation destination. CLT would predict that consumers will prefer a closer (distant) place if the vacation in proximal (distal) in temporal distance because psychological distances are interrelated (i.e., close spatial distance, social relationship, and the near future all fit together); thus, a close temporal distance is likely to evoke a concrete construal, which will make consumers prefer closer places (see Trope and Liberman 2010). However, we propose that consumers will prefer distant places regardless of when they leave for a vacation because of their variety-seeking desires.

Method

Thirty-five undergraduate students at a public university in the northeastern United States participated in this online survey. The study is a single-factor (i.e., temporal distance) between-subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups and were asked to imagine that they were planning to take a vacation in either 3 or 12 weeks. Next, participants had to choose one place to visit between two options: place A is 80–100 miles away (i.e., a close place), and place B is 600–700 miles away (i.e., a distant place). No further information about place A and place B was provided.

Results and discussion

A chi-square analysis confirms that the percentage of participants who chose a spatially distant vacation place did not differ by temporal distance, χ²(1, N = 35) = 0.73, p > 0.39. Specifically, 75% of the participants in the proximal temporal condition (i.e., 3 weeks) chose distant place B, and 87% of the participants in the distal temporal condition (i.e., 12 weeks) also chose distant place B, as Figure 2 illustrates.

Figure 2.

Preference for distant vacation places.

The results provide support for hypothesis 1; consumers strongly prefer distant places for a vacation. Regardless of how much time they have before they leave for a vacation, they prefer distant places because of the dissimilarity (i.e., difference) from their current place, as we found in the pretest. Furthermore, this study investigates whether construal level theory (CLT) was an applicable alternative underlying theory that explains consumers’ preference for distant destinations. According to CLT, temporal distance and spatial distance are related because the increase of temporal distance evokes a more abstract construal, which influences people’s choice toward spatially distant places (see Trope and Liberman 2010). Thus, more participants would have chosen the distant destination when they believed they would be leaving in 12 rather than 3 weeks. Likewise, they would have chosen the closer destination for a vacation when told they would be leaving sooner. However, contrary to CLT’s reasoning, no effect of temporal distance on spatial preference emerged for vacation choices. As we expected, participants chose the more distant vacation destination under both temporal conditions.¹ Vacations are prototypical of the experiential category and allow consumers to focus on variety and novelty, resulting in preference for a more distant destination. Thus, we ruled out CLT as a possible explanation. From the results of the pretest and study 1, we conclude that consumers are attracted by the novelty of distant locations as vacation destinations.

Study 2: Preference for More Activities

The number of available activities is an important factor when evaluating vacations because consumers want to engage in as many activities as possible to increase their happiness, as well as to spend their time more productively (Keinan and Kivetz 2011; Dai and Zhang 2013). Thus, before we conducted study 2 to test the relative dominance of activities over spatial distance when choosing vacation destinations (hypothesis 2), we conducted a pilot study to confirm that the variety of activities available is a critical factor when choosing vacation destinations.²

Method

One hundred twenty-eight undergraduate students at a public university in the northeastern United States participated in this online survey. They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (close vs. distant place) × 2 (more activities vs. fewer activities) between-subjects design. Participants were asked to imagine going on a vacation to either a spatially close or a spatially distant place with less or more activities and attractions.

Next, to ascertain whether spatial distance evoked construal level, participants performed a sorting task with 20 grocery items. Participants were asked to indicate the number of groups they could generate using those 20 items, based on their best judgments about which products are similar to and distinct from each other. After the sorting task, the participants were given an activity list, which included either more (20) or fewer (10) activities. We searched vacation websites to generate the list of activities and attractions (e.g., Trip Advisor, Expedia). Last, the participants evaluated the attractiveness of the place on a 7-point scale (1 = “very unattractive,” 7 = “very attractive”) and their willingness to go to the place on a 7-point scale (1 = “not at all willing to go,” 7 = “very much willing to go”).

Results and discussion

A 2 × 2 ANOVA reveals a significant main effect of the number of activities, suggesting that more activities increase the attractiveness of the place, F(1, 124) = 7.11, p < 0.05, and willingness to go, F(1, 124) = 19.02, p < 0.001. More important, neither the main effect of spatial distance, F(1, 124) = 0.33, p > 0.57, nor the spatial distance × activities interaction, F(1, 124) = 0.10, p > 0.75, was significant. Thus, the participants appeared more attracted to a place that provides more activities, regardless of spatial distance (M_{more activities} = 5.5 vs. M_{fewer activities} = 4.8), F(1, 124) = 7.11, p < 0.05, and were more willing to go to that place (M_{more activities} = 5.6 vs. M_{fewer activities} = 4.6), F(1, 124) = 19.02, p < 0.001, regardless of spatial distance (see Figure 3). These findings lend support to hypothesis 2.

Figure 3.

The dominant influence of activities.

As we suggested, information regarding specific activities provide vivid information for vacation planning. This concrete information might enable consumers to imagine their vacation experiences more clearly. Prior studies also suggest that consumers tend to seek variety for their vacations (e.g., Keinan and Kivetz 2011; Jang and Feng 2007; Assaker and Hallak 2013). Consumers want to have different and novel experiences during vacations, and this variety of experiences allows them to better enjoy their time. Our findings also confirm that consumers seek variety based on activity information when choosing vacation destinations. Even though consumers prefer distant locations for vacations because they are perceived as new and different, this perceived variety at a broad level is mitigated when consumers perceive specific variety by imagining available activities. When both spatial distance and activity information for vacations are available, consumers focus more on the information related to activities, which is concrete, vivid, and provides specific perceived variety. By doing so, consumers’ focus on the number of activities and the information concerning location distance became less important.

From the results of the sorting task, we found that the participants created a similar number of groups in both conditions (M_{600-700 miles} = 4.6 vs. M_{80-100 miles} = 4.4), F(1, 124) = 0.04, p > 0.84, which implies that spatial distance does not influence construal level. According to CLT (see Trope and Liberman 2010), individuals who have had a sense of abstract construal evoked from considering distant spatial distance tend to classify and organize options within a broader category, compared to individuals thinking with concrete construal. Therefore, if CLT explains our theory, participants who have had a distant location condition evoked would generate a lower number of groups in the sorting task than participants with a close location condition. However, as consistent with the results in study 1, we found that participants in both conditions created a similar number of groups. Therefore, we confirm that spatial distance does not evoke different levels of construal of consumers, and CLT does not provide an adequate explanation of consumers’ spatial preference in a vacation context.

Studies 3A and 3B: Importance of Total Number of Activities

The key objective of these studies is to gain a better understanding of what makes the number of activities and attractions such an important factor when consumers form their preference for a vacation destination. Researchers argue that alignable versus nonalignable product assortment type influences a brand’s market share and consumer satisfaction (Gourville and Soman 2005; Herrmann et al. 2009). According to Gourville and Soman (2005), alignable product assortment requires tradeoffs within a single attribute, while nonalignable product assortment requires tradeoffs across attributes. They find that alignable assortment increases market share when it has a wide variety of attributes, but nonalignable assortment decreases market share when it has a wide variety of attributes. Herrmann et al. (2009) extend these findings by showing that consumers experience increased satisfaction when confronting a greater variety of products with alignable attributes. Along these lines, the alignability of attributes (i.e., categorization of activities) can influence consumers’ decisions. Thus, our study investigates whether or not grouping activities affect vacation choice by examining whether consumers focus on the number of activities, or the degree of diversity when formulating preference for a vacation place.

Method

Two separate studies were conducted. In study 3a, 153 participants completed the study online via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and were compensated $0.80 for their participation. The average age of participants was 39.7 years, and 48% were men (N = 73). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (close vs. distant place) × 2 (more activity groups vs. fewer activity groups) between-subjects design. Participants imagined that they were working in a good city and were planning to go on a vacation to a destination either 80–100 miles away or 600–700 miles away from their current location. Half the participants were provided with 20 activities clustered into eight small groups (with 2–3 activities per group). The other half were provided with four large groups that consisted of 20 activities (with 5 activities per group). In other words, we varied only the number of groups in which the same number of activities was distributed (i.e., four groups vs. eight groups of 20 activities).

Study 3b varied only the number of activities but kept the number of groups fixed (i.e., 8 activities vs. 20 activities in four groups). In study 3b, 103 participants completed the study online via MTurk and were compensated $0.80 for their participation. The average age of the participants was 37 years, and 46% were men (N = 47). Participants were randomly assigned into one of four conditions in a 2 (close vs. distant place) × 2 (4 groups with more activities vs. 4 groups with fewer activities) between-subjects design. Similar to study 3a, participants imagined that they were working in a city and were planning to go on a vacation to either a close or a distant place. In both study 3a and study 3b, after reading the scenario, participants rated the attractiveness of the place with the same scales as in study 2.

Results and discussion

When this study varied only the number of groups of activities (i.e., four groups vs. eight groups, both with 20 activities) in study 3a, we found no significant main effect by the number of groups on attractiveness of the vacation destination (M_{more groups} = 5.6 vs. M_{fewer groups} = 5.6), F(1, 149) = 0.03, p > 0.86, no significant main effect imparted by distance on attractiveness (M_close= 5.5 vs. M_distant = 5.6), F(1, 149) = 0.16, p > 0.70, and no significant interaction effect. However, when study 3b varied only the number of activities (i.e., 8 activities vs. 20 activities) but retained four groups, the participants felt more attracted to a place when it provided more activities (M_{more activities} = 5.5 vs. M_{fewer activities} = 5.0), F(1, 99) = 3.22, p = 0.07. The findings from these two studies confirm that participants are focused on the number of available activities.

In studies 2 and 3, we found that activity information dominated consumers’ preferences for vacation destinations. Therefore, we investigated if groupings of similar activities would reduce the dominant status of available activity information. We followed Gourville and Soman (2005) to apply the theory that product assortments based on similar attributes influence consumer decisions. In the results, we found that consumers ignore the grouping information and focus instead on the number of available activities, which dominates their preferences. More important, the findings suggest that consumers consider each activity unique, and want to engage in as many as possible. This implies that consumers use piecemeal assessment (i.e., analytic processing) of activity information and seek more variety by counting up the total number of activities available.

Study 4A: Ruling Out the Specificity of Place Description as a Potential Explanation

Our previous studies provide detailed information about activities, but only in relation to the spatial distance of the destination. Thus, the question remains as to whether a lack of additional specific descriptions about a vacation destination results in the selection process being dominated by information regarding available activities. To rule out this alternative explanation, we provided more specific information about the location in study 4.

In the previous studies, we presented no other information besides the relative proximity of the vacation destination, except when listing activities and attractions. Thus, in study 4, we provide a moderately positive and more elaborate description of the destinations. By doing so, we hope to confirm that a merely vague description of a destination is not responsible for making activities and attractions the main reason for deciding on a vacation preference.

Method

Three hundred twenty-three participants completed the study online via MTurk and were compensated $0.80 for their participation. The average age of the participants was 35.2 years, and 59.4% were men (N = 192). We employed a three-factor between-subjects experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned into one of eight conditions in a 2 (close vs. distant place) × 2 (more vs. fewer activities) × 2 (replications of specific descriptions of the vacation destination: national park vs. beach town). The procedure was similar to the previous studies except for the description of the places.

We did not provide a specific name of the vacation destination to control for participants’ current attitudes/evaluation of the destination and whether they might have already visited the destination. We also took precautions to ensure that the specific description of the destination did not compromise its identity (e.g., geysers and Yellowstone National Park). We expected that participants would perceive the two destinations as having a similar level of specificity in terms of their description. A list of activities and attractions was provided according to the characteristics of the vacation destination. For example, the national park condition included mountain biking, while the beach town condition included sunbathing. Activities and attractions provided in the scenario were selected from well-known vacation websites, such as Expedia.com or TripAdvisor.

After reading the scenario and activities, participants evaluated the specificity of the description of vacation destination on four items (i.e., general, ambiguous, clear, and credible) using a 7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree”). Then, participants rated the attractiveness of the place, as in study 2.

Results and Discussion

Participants reported the description of destinations in the two replicates to be equally specific (M_park = 5.04 vs. M_{beach town} = 4.8), F(1, 321) = 3.5, p > 0.06. Because the manipulation works for the level of specificity of two places and the replicate factor did not interact with the other two factors or their interaction, we combined the two replications for further analysis. We ran a 2 (close vs. distant place) × 2 (more activities vs. fewer activities) ANOVA, which revealed a significant main effect only on the number of activities in the dependent variable, suggesting that more activities increase the attractiveness of the destination, F(1, 319) = 8.7, p < 0.05. Thus, even when the description of the vacation destination is specific and moderately positive, participants were attracted to the place that provided more activities, regardless of its spatial distance (M_{more activities} = 5.9 vs. M_{fewer activities} = 5.6), F(1, 319) = 8.7, p < 0.05.

The results provide evidence that an abstract, or nonspecific, description and information about the destination is not the reason for the dominant influence of number of activities and attractions on choosing a vacation destination. Although we provided the same specific description of the place and varied the closeness or distance of the destinations and the number of activities, consumers still focused on the number of activities and attractions. Thus, engaging in different activities helps consumers take part in more variety, so specific variety is dominant over a broad level of perceived variety. From this finding, we realize that the specific description of the places provided greater perceived variety due to the difference from participants’ current location than when we provided only spatial distance information but did not change the dominant influence of activities. Thus, we can confirm that activity information allows consumers to perceive variety at a more specific, concrete level with analytic thinking, while differences in the distance of the place to consumers’ current place enables them to perceive variety at a broader level by engaging in holistic thinking.

Study 4B

We conducted an additional experiment (1) to replicate the findings in previous studies, and (2) to confirm that there is no significant difference between a general and specific description of the place. In study 4B, we provided either a general description of spatial distance or a specific description of the vacation destination. By doing so, we can test if descriptions of vacation destinations do not significantly influence consumers’ preference.

Method

We recruited 320 participants via Amazon MTurk for our experiment and they were compensated $0.80. We included two attention check questions in the middle of the survey and three participants failed. Therefore, a total of 317 participants were included in the analysis. Eighty-five percent of participants were 25–55 years old and 56.9% were men (N = 181). We employed a three-factor between-subjects experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned into one of eight conditions in a 2 (close vs. distant place) × 2 (more vs. fewer activities) × 2 (descriptions of the vacation destination: general vs. specific). The procedure of this study is similar to previous experiments.

As in study 4A, we controlled for participants’ current attitudes or experiences toward famous vacation spots by omitting specific destination names. First, participants read the scenario. They were asked to imagine that they have been working and living in a vibrant city and were considering taking a vacation. Participants were also provided spatial distance information of vacation places either close or distant (80–100 miles away vs. 600–700 miles away). Participants in the general description condition were provided the same purely spatial distance information as in study 2 . In contrast, specific description condition participants read the specific location descriptions that had been provided to study 4A (see Appendix C). After reading the scenario, participants were asked to answer manipulation check questions. We expected that participants would perceive the two places as having different levels of specificity in terms of the description. Participants evaluated the specificity and vividness of the vacation destination description on six items (i.e., general, clear, credible, imagine, visualize, picture) using a 7-point bipolar scale. After reading the scenario and activity information, participants rated the attractiveness of the place as in study 2.

Results and discussion

As we expected, the manipulation checks showed participants perceived the different levels of specificity regarding the places. Particularly, participants perceived descriptions of the vacation place in specific condition as more vivid and specific (M_general = 4.8 vs. M_specific = 4.4), F(1, 315) = 4.8, p < 0.05. Moreover, we found consistent results that participants in distant place condition considered the place to be more different and dissimilar (M_distant = 5.2 vs. M_close = 4.9), F(1, 315) = 4.1, p < 0.05. We ran a 2 (close vs. distant place) × 2 (more activities vs. fewer activities) × 2 (general description vs. specific description) ANOVA, and the results revealed only a significant main effect of the number of activities on the dependent variable regardless of its spatial distance. Specifically, participants felt more attracted toward the vacation place, which provided a greater number of activities (M_{more activities} = 5.7 vs. M_{fewer activities} = 5.4), F(1, 315) = 4.4, p < 0.05. Likewise, participants were more excited about a vacation destination when they were offered more available activities (M_{more activities} = 5.6 vs. M_{fewer activities} = 5.1), F(1, 315) = 7.5, p < 0.05.

The results confirm the dominant influence of activities on choosing where to vacation are not simply due to the general descriptions given in our earlier studies. Even though consumers can visualize a vacation spot with specific descriptions, they still consider activity information the most critical factor when choosing a vacation. Neither a specific nor general description of the vacation place mitigates the influence of activities, especially when the location is not well known. Indeed, consumers tend to have a greater preference uncertainty for future consumption because of anticipating changes or available options at the time of consumption (Simonson 1990; Salisbury and Feinberg 2008). Thus, consumers might still rely on the variety of activities when choosing a destination as they are unable to determine which activities they will enjoy beforehand. Finally, study 4B along with 4A helps us confirm that consumers focus on the number of activities available for vacations, and engaging in different activities provides greater perceived variety. Since the activity information is more specific and concrete than spatial distance information, we further investigate if consumers involve analytic information processing based on concrete activity information in choosing their vacations.

Underlying Mechanism

Analytic Thinking and Choice of Vacation Places

To provide evidence of underlying analytic versus holistic processing and its effect on consumer variety seeking at a more specific (i.e., activities) versus a broad (i.e., spatial distance) level, respectively, we use a prime of money versus time when thinking about taking vacations. While prior research has identified several differences between time and money (e.g., Lee et al. 2015; Liu and Aaker 2008; Mogilner and Aaker 2009; Su and Gao 2014), the current study is specifically interested in research that shows how priming money and time influences consumers’ thinking processes differently. Specifically, priming money induces consumers to evaluate and choose a product using an attribute-based strategy (i.e., analytic processing); in contrast, thinking about time makes consumers use a more holistic evaluation (Lee et al. 2015; Su and Gao 2014). If the posited process is true, the dominance of activities over spatial distance should be mitigated when we prime time as consumers will use more holistic thinking, which in turn should reduce the importance of the number of activities when choosing a vacation place. In contrast, priming money should continue to reflect the dominance of activities over spatial distance in the evaluation of vacation options, because it reflects the default analytic processing that operates in consumers’ minds when they make vacation decisions . Formally, we offer the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: (a) Under a money prime, consumers will prefer a vacation destination with more (vs. fewer) activities, while (b) under a time prime, the dominance of activities will be mitigated, and consumers will prefer places with more versus fewer activities equally.

Study 5: Analytic Processing for Vacation

We designed study 5 to examine whether consumers would use different thinking processes after being primed by time versus money. We expect priming money to evoke analytic processing (Lee et al. 2015), which is the same processing we posit as the underlying mechanism for the dominating effect of activities. Therefore, the number of activities should continue to dominate in the money prime condition. In contrast, priming time should evoke holistic thinking, and we expect the dominance of activities/attraction to be mitigated as participants account for the vacation’s context or distance. Thus, no significant difference should occur in consumers’ interest in a vacation place with more or fewer activities after being primed to think of time.

Method

Three hundred nineteen participants completed the study online via MTurk and were compensated $0.80 for their participation. The average age of the participants was 33.8 years, and 58.9% were men (N = 188). The study was a 2 (close vs. distant place) × 2 (more activities vs. fewer activities) × 2 (priming time vs. priming money) between-subjects experiment to test hypothesis 3 regarding underlying analytic versus holistic processing.

Participants were told to imagine that they had been working in a good city for several years and were planning to go on a vacation to a place that is either 200–300 miles away or 900–1,000 miles away from their current location.³ In the money (time) prime condition, participants were asked to think about all the money (time) they will spend at the vacation place. Then, as in the previous studies, they read information about each vacations’ activities and evaluated respective attractiveness.

Results and discussion

A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA revealed the number of activities had a significant main effect, suggesting that more activities increase the vacation destination’s attractiveness (M_{more activities} = 5.8 vs. M_{fewer activities} = 5.5), F(1, 311) = 7.7, p < 0.05. More important, the activities × time/money interaction was significant, F(1, 311) = 4.4, p < 0.05. Specifically, participants found the place with more versus fewer activities more attractive only in the money prime condition (M_{more activities} = 5.9 vs. M_{fewer activities} = 5.3, p < 0.05) (see Figure 4). When participants were primed with time, the number of activities did not influence the attractiveness of the place (M_{more activities} = 5.7 vs. M_{fewer activities} = 5.6, p > 0.1), in support of hypothesis 3.

Figure 4.

Analytic processing for vacations.

When thinking of taking vacations, consumers consider their available resources such as time and money. Prior research suggests that priming of time versus money alters consumer decisions by evoking different mindsets (e.g., Lee et al. 2015; Liu and Aaker 2008; Su and Gao 2014). Particularly, individuals think more analytically when money primed, and more holistically when time primed. Our findings show that consumers think analytically about vacations that focus on available activity information. We found that under money priming, the number of activities dominantly influence consumers’ preferences for vacation places. The findings also provide indirect evidence that consumers might evoke holistic processing with time priming. Consumers focus less on activity information when thinking about the time they would spend on vacation. As a result, the dominance of activities was mitigated and consumers had similar preference for places with more versus fewer activities. Thus, study 5 provides evidence that analytic processing (under a money prime) guides people’s preference for a vacation destination with more activities when information on both activities and spatial distance is provided.

Conclusions

Across eight (main and pilot) experiments, we find robust evidence that consumers seek variety for vacations by showing that they prefer vacation destinations, which provide more number of activities. When only spatial distance information is available, consumers in the initial stage of planning prefer distant versus close vacation destinations. In this scenario, people use holistic processing to find distant places more dissimilar to (i.e., more novel than) their current location. However, when information on both spatial distance and activities is available, as is the case when consumers are at a later stage of planning their vacation, they prefer a vacation destination with more versus fewer activities, regardless of the spatial distance from their current location. This finding suggests that more analytic processing is occurring. We also find that specific location descriptions do not mitigate the dominant influence of activities on choosing vacation places. This result confirms that consumers still rely a more concrete and vivid picture on a vacation’s activity information, which provides. Using a prime of time versus money, we provide exploratory evidence of the holistic versus analytic processing styles that underlie our findings. We also rule out construal-level theory (CLT) as an alternate explanation. Although we provided spatial distance information, participants did not report different levels of construal.

We believe our results are generalizable since we find the same set of results across both student and nonstudent samples of general consumers drawn from mTurk participants. As Lynch (1999) argued, findings from research employing “real” people are no more likely to generalize than findings from research employing student subjects. He suggests that external validity is better established by identifying appropriate moderator variables that interact with focal variables of the theory. Kardes (1996) and Calder and Tybout (1999) also have argued that results of studies employing college students and general consumers do not differ as long as the phenomenon being studied is relevant to both. Moreover, they argue that employing student subjects in experiments is appropriate when the research is investigating psychological process or testing theory application, as is the case with our studies.

Theoretical Implications

This research contributes to the literature in several ways. First, the findings suggest consumers seek variety in vacations, which are a prototypical category of experiential purchase. Previous variety-seeking studies focus primarily on material product purchases (e.g., Broniarczyk, Hoyer, and McAlister 1998; Hoch, Bradlow, and Wansink 1999; Iyengar and Lepper 2000; Kahn et al. 2013; McAlister 1982); for example, consumers have positive attitudes toward a retail store that carries a greater variety of goods (e.g., Broniarczyk, Hoyer, and McAlister 1998). However, in the current study, we investigate the dominant influence of variety seeking in vacations and, in doing so, expand to the variety-seeking and vacation literature. Furthermore, previous variety-seeking literature finds contradictory results regarding the relationships between perceived variety and consumer decision-making and satisfaction. Specifically, research largely accepts the notion that more options are better for consumers, arguing that consumers value larger assortments (e.g., Broniarczyk, Hoyer, and McAlister 1998; McAlister 1982; Menon and Kahn 1995) because they reduce concerns about uncertainty in their own future preferences (Kahn and Lehmann 1991; Simonson 1992)—in other words, more options lead to anticipated satiation (McAlister 1982; Read and Loewenstein 1995; Ratner, Kahn, and Kahneman 1999). However, other research streams suggest that too many options demotivate consumers from choosing and make them feel overwhelmed, resulting in lower levels of satisfaction (e.g., Chernev 2003; Iyengar and Lepper 2000; Mogilner, Rudnick, and Iyengar 2008; Shah and Wolford 2007). Iyengar and Lepper (2000) find that consumers are more likely to purchase jams, and more satisfied with the purchase, when choosing from a limited rather than extensive assortment. Other researchers find similar results when using different items such as pens (Shah and Wolford 2007), chocolate (Chernev 2003), and coffee (Mogilner, Rudnick, and Iyengar 2008). Prior research in tourism also suggests that consumers’ extensive experiences during vacation lead to a greater satiation, and satiation has negative relationship to revisit intention to the vacation place (Antón, Camarero, and Laguna-García 2018).

However, we find that consumers prefer more options for various experiences during vacation. Intuitively, we maintain that consumers prefer an experiential product that provides them with an enriched experience, which leads them to focus on the quality of the experience to optimize the enjoyment of their time. We find that consumers focus on the number of activities for their vacations. In other words, more options are better. Since previous literature on variety seeking tends to focus on material purchases, the analysis of consumer variety-seeking behavior in the experiential purchase of vacations adds needed insight.

Second, we identify the nature of variety seeking in vacation choice by examining different levels of perceived variety. Depending on the vacation information available, consumers perceive variety at a broad level based on spatial distance, and at a specific level based on quantity and type of activities. Because these different categories of information allow consumers to engage in different information-processing styles, we also extend the dual-processing (holistic vs. analytic) literature by uncovering the dominant use of analytic processing when choosing a vacation destination when activity information is provided. This finding offers new insight because one could assume that consumers use holistic thinking when choosing vacation destinations. We find that while greater spatial distance operates as a heuristic for consumers to imagine variety compared to their current location, activity information is more critical when evaluating vacation destinations.

Finally, the results show that consumers do not evoke different levels of construal with respect to taking vacations, even when they are provided with spatial distance information (close vs. distant places). This finding is important because spatial distance information tends to arouse different construal and is rigorously examined in previous studies (e.g., Baskin et al. 2014; Dhar and Kim 2007; Trope and Liberman 2010; Zhao and Xie 2011). However, the findings suggest that the vacation context is not conducive to different levels of construal. Instead, the unique characteristics of vacations cause consumers to employ different thinking styles depending on the information available.

Managerial Implications

The findings have important implications for organizations and managers providing experiences to consumers. First, local governments may want to entice tourists by providing and emphasizing a larger number of activities and attractions, as consumers feel more attracted to places they consider dissimilar relative to their current locations. Next, if local governments cannot provide a greater number of activities and attractions, they should prompt consumers to think more holistically, as we find consumers deemphasize number of activities when thinking about time (vs. money). Thus, local governments might encourage consumers to think about spending time with their families and partners at a vacation destination and to imagine different experiences. By doing so, consumers will be more attracted to the place even if it provides relatively few activities and attractions. In this case, focusing on the quality of limited vacation time, rather than discount tickets or travel budgets will be more effective in luring tourists.

Limitations and Future Research

Although we provide significant insights into consumers’ vacation purchase decisions, possible limitations open up avenues for further research. First, we only focus on two critical factors tourists consider when choosing a vacation, spatial distance and available activities. Further research could conduct empirical investigations to explore other boundary conditions. For example, researchers could examine differences when consumers travel with their family or alone. Specifically, consumers with family might prefer vacationing closer and/or to places providing fewer activities compared to consumers traveling alone, as they might value spending family time in a different location paramount, regardless of distance or number of activities. Next, we primed time versus money to investigate consumers’ different information processing when they evaluate vacation places. We asked participants to think about spending time or spending money related to vacations. Even though thinking of time and money is reasonable to examine underlying thinking process for vacation destinations, future studies could employ a method other than priming time versus money to obtain more direct evidence of the underlying process.

Supplemental Material

APPENDIX_A – Supplemental material for Variety-Seeking Behavior and Information Processing in Choosing a Vacation Destination

Supplemental material, APPENDIX_A for Variety-Seeking Behavior and Information Processing in Choosing a Vacation Destination by JungHwa (Jenny) Hong and Kalpesh Kaushik Desai in Journal of Travel Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

JungHwa (Jenny) Hong

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

JungHwa (Jenny) Hong is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Soules College of Business at the University of Texas at Tyler. She completed her PhD in the State University of New York at Binghamton and she received her Master’s degree from the University of Arizona. Her current research interests include consumer psychology, consumer well-being, and experiential purchases such as taking vacations.

Kalpesh Desai is the Professor of Marketing and Chairman of the Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. With Ph.D. in Marketing from the University of Texas at Austin and MBA from Jamnalal Bajaj, Bombay University, Desai has 5-years of industry experience in brand management. Desai’s theoretical research interests include self-regulation, time-money, construal level, social comparison, categorization, branding and retailing issues. His research has been published in several prestigious scholarly journals including Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Journal of Retailing.

References

Antón

Carmen

Camarero

Carmen

Laguna-García

Marta

. 2018. “Experience Value or Satiety? The Effects of the Amount and Variety of Tourists’ Activities on Perceived Experience.” Journal of Travel Research 57 (7): 920–35.

Assaker

Guy

Hallak

Rob

. 2013. “Moderating Effects of Tourists’ Novelty-Seeking Tendencies on Destination Image, Visitor Satisfaction, and Short- and Long-term Revisit Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (5): 600–13.

Baskin

Ernest

Wakslak

Cheryl J.

Trope

Yaacov

Novemsky

Nathan

. 2014. “Why Feasibility Matters More to Gift Receivers Than to Givers: A Construal-Level Approach to Gift Giving.” Journal of Consumer Research 41 (1): 169–82.

Bello

Daniel C.

Etzel

Michael J.

1985. “The Role of Novelty in the Pleasure Travel Experience.” Journal of Travel Research 24 (1): 20–26.

Boven

Leaf Van

. 2005. “Experientialism, Materialism, and the Pur-suit of Happiness.” Review of General Psychology 9 (2): 132–42.

Boven

Leaf Van

Gilovich

Thomas

. 2003. “To Do or to Have? That Is the Question.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:1193–202.

Brey

Eric T.

Lehto

Xinran Y.

2007. “The Relationship between Daily and Vacation Activities.” Annals of Tourism Research 34 (1): 160–80.

Broniarczyk

Susan M.

Hoyer

Wayne D.

McAlister

Leigh

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

Calder

Bobby J.

Tybout

Alice M.

1999. “Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science: A Vision of Theory, Research, and the Future of Business Schools.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (3): 359–66.

10.

Carter

Travis J.

Gilovich

Thomas

. 2010. “The Relative Relativity of Material and Experiential Purchases.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98:146–59.

11.

Chen

Chun-Chu

Petrick

James F.

2013. “Health and Wellness Benefits of Travel Experiences: A Literature Review.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (6): 709–19.

12.

Chernev

Alexander

. 2003. “When More Is Less and Less Is More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer Choice.” Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 170–83.

13.

Dai

Xianchi

Zhang.

Yan

2013. “Does Living in New York City Make People Happy with Their Leisure Life?” In NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 41, eds. Simona Botti and Aparna Labroo. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

14.

de Bloom

Jessica

Ritter

Simone

Kühnel

Jana

Reinders

Jennifer

Geurts

Sabine

. 2014. “Vacation from Work: A ‘Ticket to Creativity’?” Tourism Management 44 (October): 164–71.

15.

Dhar

Ravi

Kim

Eunice Y.

2007. “Seeing the Forest or the Trees: Implications of Construal Level Theory for Consumer Choice.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 17:96–100.

16.

Dickson

Peter R.

Sawyer

Alan G.

1990. “The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers.” Journal of Marketing 54 (3): 42.

17.

Dolnicar

Sara

Lazarevski

Katie

Yanamandram

Venkata

. 2013. “Quality of Life and Tourism: A Conceptual Framework and Novel Segmentation Base.” Journal of Business Research 66 (6): 724–29.

18.

Dolnicar

Sara

Yanamandram

Venkata

Cliff

Katie

. 2012. “The Contribution of Vacations to Quality of Life.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1): 59–83.

19.

Gourville

John T.

Soman

Dilip

. 2005. “Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires.” Marketing Science 24 (3): 382–95.

20.

Gump

Brooks B.

Matthews

Karen A.

2000. “Are Vacations Good for Your Health? The 9-Year Mortality Experience after the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Design of the MRFIT Characteristics of Participants Taking Frequent.” Psychosomatic Medicine 62:608–12.

21.

Herrmann

Andreas

Heitmann

Mark

Morgan

Robert

Henneberg

Stephan C.

Landwehr

Jan

. 2009. “Consumer Decision Making and Variety of Offerings: The Effect of Attribute Alignability.” Psychology and Marketing 26 (4): 333–58.

22.

Hoch

Stephen J.

Bradlow

Eric L.

Wansink

Brian

. 1999. “The Variety of an Assortment.” Marketing Science 18:527–46.

23.

Holbrook

Morris B.

Hirschman

Elizabeth C.

1982. “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feeiings, and Fun.” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September): 132–41.

24.

Iso-Ahola

Seppo E.

1983. “Toward a Social Psychology of Recreational Travel.” Leisure Studies 2 (1): 45–56.

25.

Iyengar

Sheena S.

Lepper

Mark R.

2000. “When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 995–1006.

26.

Jang SooCheong (Shawn)

Soo Cheong

Feng

Ruomei

. 2007. “Temporal Destination Revisit Intention: The Effects of Novelty Seeking and Satisfaction.” Tourism Management 28 (2): 580–90.

27.

Kahn

Barbara E.

1995. “Consumer Variety-Seeking among Goods and Services Review.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2 (3): 139–48.

28.

Kahn

Barbara E.

Lehmann

Donald R.

1991. “Modelling Choice among Assortments.” Journal of Retailing 67:274–99.

29.

Kahn

Barbara E.

Weingarten

Evan

Townsend

Claudia

. 2013. “Assortment Variety: Too Much of a Good Thing?” Review of Marketing Research 10:1–23.

30.

Kardes

Frank R.

1996. “In Defense of Experimental Consumer Psychology.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 5 (3): 279–96.

31.

Keinan

Anat

Kivetz

Ran

. 2011. “Productivity Orientation and the Consumption of Collectable Experiences.” Journal of Consumer Research 37 (6): 935–50.

32.

Kemperman

Astrid

Borgers

Aloys W. J.

Oppewal

Harmen

Timmermans

Harry J. P.

2000. “Consumer Choice of Theme Parks: A Conjoint Choice Model of Seasonality Effects and Variety Seeking Behavior.” Leisure Sciences 22:1–18.

33.

Kemperman

Astrid

Borgers

Aloys

Timmermans

Harry

. 2002. “Incorporating Variety Seeking and Seasonality in Stated Preference Modeling of Leisure Trip Destination Choice Test of External Validity.” Transportation Research Record 1807 (1): 67–76.

34.

Kim

Jungkeun

Kim

Peter Beomcheol

Kim

Jae Eun

. 2018. “Different or Similar Choices: The Effect of Decision Framing on Variety Seeking in Travel Bundle Packages.” Journal of Travel Research 57 (1): 99–115.

35.

Lee

Leonard

Lee

Michelle P.

Bertini

Marco

Zauberman

Gal

Ariely

Dan

. 2015. “Money, Time, and the Stability of Consumer Preferences.” Journal of Marketing Research 52 (2): 184–99.

36.

Lee

Tae-hee

Crompton

John

. 1992. “Measuring Novelty in Tourism Seeking.” Annals of Tourism Research 19:732–51.

37.

Liu

Wendy

Aaker

Jennifer

. 2008. “The Happiness of Giving: The Time-Ask Effect.” Journal of Consumer Research 35:543–57.

38.

Lynch

John G.

1999. “Theory and External Validity.” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 27 (3): 367–76.

39.

McAlister

Leigh

. 1982. “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety-Seeking Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (2): 141–50.

40.

McAlister

Leigh

Pessemier

Edgar

. 1982. “Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review.” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (3): 311–22.

41.

Menon

Satya

Kahn

Barbara E.

1995. “The Impact of Context on Variety Seeking in Product Choices.” Journal of Consumer Research 22:285.

42.

Mogilner

Cassie

Aaker

Jennifer

. 2009. “‘The Time vs. Money Effect’: Shifting Product Attitudes and Decisions through Personal Connection.” Journal of Consumer Research 36:277–91.

43.

Mogilner

Cassie

Rudnick

Tamar

Iyengar

Sheena 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 (2): 202–15.

44.

Nawijn

Jeroen

. 2011. “Determinants of Daily Happiness on Vacation.” Journal of Travel Research 50 (5): 559–66.

45.

Nawijn

Jeroen

Marchand

Miquelle A.

Veenhoven

Ruut

Vingerhoets

Ad J.

2010. “Vacationers Happier, but Most Not Happier after a Holiday.” Applied Research in Quality of Life 5 (1): 35–47.

46.

Nicolau

Juan L.

Zach

Florian J.

Tussyadiah

Iis P.

2018. “Effects of Distance and First-Time Visitation on Tourists’ Length of Stay.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 42 (7): 1023–38.

47.

Perpiña

Laura

Camprubí

Raquel

Prats

Lluís

. 2017. “Destination Image versus Risk Perception.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 43 (1): 3–19.

48.

Hailin

Kim

Lisa Hyunjung

Holly Hyunjung

. 2011. “A Model of Destination Branding: Integrating the Concepts of the Branding and Destination Image.” Tourism Management 32 (3): 465–76.

49.

Raju

P. S.

1980. “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demographics, and Exploratory Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research 7:272.

50.

Ratner

Rebecca K.

Kahn

Barbara E.

2002. “The Impact of Private versus Public Consumption on Variety-Seeking Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research 29 (2): 246–57.

51.

Ratner

Rebecca K.

Kahn

Barbara E.

Kahneman

Daniel

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

52.

Read

Daniel

Loewenstein

George

. 1995. “Diversification Bias: Explaining the Discrepancy in Variety Seeking between Combined and Separated Choices.” Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied 1:34–49.

53.

Salisbury

Linda Court

Feinberg

Fred M.

2008. “Future Preference Uncertainty and Diversification: The Role of Temporal Stochastic Inflation.” Journal of Consumer Research 35 (August): 349–59.

54.

Schwartz

Barry

. 2000. “Self-Determination. The Tyranny of Freedom.” The American Psychologist 55 (1): 79–88.

55.

Shah

Anuj K.

Alter

Adam L.

2014. “Consuming Experiential Categories.” Journal of Consumer Research 41 (4): 965–77.

56.

Shah

Avni M.

Wolford

George

. 2007. “Buying Behavior as a Function of Parametric Variation of Number of Choices: Short Report.” Psychological Science 2007;18 (5): 369–70.

57.

Simonson

Itamar

. 1990. “The Effects of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior.” Journal of Marketing Research 26 (May): 150–62.

58.

Simonson

Itamar

. 1992. “The Influence of Anticipating Regret and Responsibility on Purchase Decisions.” Journal of Consumer Research 19 (1): 105–18.

59.

Sirgy

M. Joseph

Kruger

P. Stephanes

Lee

Dong Jin

Grace B.

2011. “How Does a Travel Trip Affect Tourists’ Life Satisfaction?” Journal of Travel Research 50 (3): 261–75.

60.

Smith

Wayne W.

Pitts

Robert E.

Litvin

Stephen W.

2012. “Travel and Leisure Activity Participation.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (4): 2207–10.

61.

Sood

Sanjay

Dreze

Xavier

. 2006. “Brand Extensions of Experiential Goods: Movie Sequel Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Research 33 (3): 352–60.

62.

Lei

Gao

Leilei

. 2014. “Strategy Compatibility: The Time versus Money Effect on Product Evaluation Strategies.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 24 (4): 549–56.

63.

Tasci

Asli D. A.

Gartner

William C.

Cavusgil

S. Tamer

. 2007. “Conceptualization and Operationalization of Destination Image.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 31 (2): 194–223.

64.

Townsend

Claudia

Liu

Wendy

. 2012. “Is Planning Good for You? The Differential Impact of Planning on Self-Regulation.” Journal of Consumer Research 39 (4): 688–703.

65.

Trope

Yaacov

Liberman

Nira

. 2010. “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance.” Psychological Review 117 (2): 440–63.

66.

Yan

Huan

Chang

En Chung

Chou

Ting Jui

Tang

Xiaofei

. 2015. “The Over-Categorization Effect: How the Number of Categorizations Influences Shoppers’ Perceptions of Variety and Satisfaction.” Journal of Business Research 68 (3): 631–38.

67.

Zauberman

Gal

Ratner

Rebecca K.

Kim

B. Kyu

. 2009. “Memories as Assets: Strategic Memory Protection in Choice over Time.” Journal of Consumer Research 35 (5): 715–28.

68.

Zhao

Min

Xie

Jinhong

. 2011. “Effects of Social and Temporal Distance on Consumers’ Responses to Peer Recommendations.” Journal of Marketing Research XLVIII (June): 486–96.

69.

Zuckerman

Marvin

. 1994. Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. Melbourne: Cambridge.

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.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB