A Structural Equation Modelling Approach

for Assessing the Dimensions

of the Optimum Stimulation Level
Ildefonso Grande

ABSTRACT. The current scales for assessing the exploratory tendency

of consumers are mainly composite measures relied upon by the psychological characteristics of consumers with regard to their personality.
At the present time, the available OSL (Optimum Stimulation Level)
scales could be considered to be obsolete because they were devised
and worded years ago. The cultural environment in which they were
developed and tested is a major factor that could affect their validity
across different cultural scenes. In addition to this, there is the lack of
complete scientific rigor in some of the tests of these measures and,
consequently, their reliability could be doubtful.
The aim of this article is to review the relevant OSL measures and to
test an exploratory behavior model based on the findings of this research. This paper is carefully structured into several sections: a review
of the literature of the current OSL measures; an empirical test for
identifying the OSL subscales in a different cultural scene and a test to
verify these dimensions. Finally, and with the intention of shedding some
light on this area of consumer behavior in marketing, an exploratory
behavior model based on structural equations is proposed and tested.
[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website:
<http://www.haworthpressinc.com>]

KEYWORDS. Scales, models, consumer behavior, marketing research, structural equation models, variety seeking

Ildefonso Grande is affiliated with the Departamento de Gestin de Empresas,

Universidad Pblica de Navarra, 31006 Pamplona (Spain) (E-mail: igrande@
unavarra.es).
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12(3) 2000
E 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

INTRODUCTION
For many years, scholars and practitioners have been concerned
with exploratory behavior of consumers. This characteristic makes the
consumer switch from one brand or store to another. On the one hand,
companies may understand the switching behavior to be the result of
their marketing efforts. But, on the other hand, the explanatory reasons
for these facts may be internal as far as the individuals are concerned.
Extrinsic variety seeking is the consequence of marketing actions,
group influences or external stimuli. And intrinsic variety seeking is
an individual consumer characteristic, linked with consumers internal
motivations and the consequence of their optimum stimulation level
(OSL).
Raju (1980) defines OSL as the property that characterizes an individual in terms of his general response to environmental stimuli. Individuals do prefer a level of stimulation, termed optimum stimulation
level. When this level is low, consumers try to increase their stimulation. But when they routinize their purchase process, their stimulation
level decreases; and when this happens, they start to engage in variety
seeking in order to recover their OSL.
Such behavior, termed exploratory behavior, may lead the consumers to look for a variety of products, brands or stores to choose from.
This means switching from one brand or store to another. Variety
seeking is the main consequence of the search for OSL. In their research, Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1992) suggested that the relationship between stimulation and consumers reactions follows an
inverted U-shaped function. According to these authors, people tend
to prefer intermediate levels of stimulationOSL. And moreover, what
is considered as optimum stimulation level varies a lot among consumers. It may be expected that consumers with higher OSL engage in
exploratory behavior more intensively than those who are characterized by lower levels of OSL.
A great number of academics and practitioners from different fields
of the social sciences have researched this topic. Psychologists and
economists have devoted time and effort to understand this problem,
and they have developed measures and devised new models.
Some of the important studies which deal with intrinsic or extrinsic
seeking, or with both, are: Venkatesan (1973); Bass (1974); Faison
(1977); Laurent (1978); Moschis (1978); Holbrock and Hirschman
(1982); McAlister (1982); McAlister and Pessemier (1982); Givon

Ildefonso Grande

(1984); Joachimsthaler and Lastovicka (1984); Raju (1980, 1984);

Lattin and McAlister (1985); Alba and Marmorstein (1987); Mazursky, LaBarbera and Aiello (1987); Carlson and Grossbart (1988);
Hoyer and Brown (1990); Van Trijp and Hoyer (1991); Steenkamp
and Baumgartner (1992); Feinberg, Kahn and McAlister (1992); Keaveney (1995); Menon and Kahn (1995); Baumgartner and Steenkamp
(1996); Van Trijp, Hoyer and Inman (1996); Campo and Gijsbrechs
(1997); Bern, Mgica and Yage (1997).
Moreover, I would like to point out that some empirical models
were devised and tested by Raju (1980), Joachimsthaler and Lastovicka (1984), Kahn, Kalwani, Manohar and Morrison (1986), Mazursky, LaBarbera and Aiello (1987), Bawa (1990), Simonson (1990),
Van Trijp and Hoyer (1991), Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1992),
Crouch (1994), Trivedi, Bass and Rao (1994), Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996), Keaveney (1995) and Van Trijp, Hoyer and Inman
(1996), Bern, Mgica and Yage (1997).
In general, the tests that were conducted used data from different
product categories or services. Many of the tests focussed on external
variety seeking without integrating the two aforementioned approaches. So, in the strict sense of the word, the results cannot be
generalized to all product categories. In their research, Van Trijp,
Hoyer and Inman (1996) did emphasize the need to separate a true
variety seeking behavior (or an intrinsic motivation for switching from
one brand or store to another)an OSL derivationfrom an extrinsic
variety seeking which is externally motivated. According to these
authors, empirical studies have neglected this distinction; and it is
assumed that the switch made by the consumer from one brand or
store to another is the consequence of the true variety seeking.
EXPLORATORY TENDENCY MEASURES
Since the 1960s, some authors have devised OSL measures. The
most important scales are: Change Seeking Index (CSI) (Garlington
and Shimota, 1964); Novelty Experience Seeking (Pearson, 1970);
Arousal Seeking Tendency I (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974); Arousal
Seeking Tendency II (Mehrabian, 1978); and Sensation Seeking Scale
(Zuckerman, 1979). Table 1 summarizes these scales, subscales and
their reliability measures.
The current OSL measures were devised and tested mainly in the

10

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 1. OSL Scales

Scale

Subscales

Author/s

Reliability

ASTI

Curiosity, Risk, Unusual Stimuli, New

Environments, Search for Sensations

Mehrabian and
Russell 1974

0.87

ASTII

Repetitive Behavior Proneness, Innovation

Proneness, Risk Taking, Exploration Through
Shopping, Interpersonal Communication, Brand
Switching, Information Seeking

Mehrabian
1978

0.93

CSI

Exploratory tendencies

Garlington and
Shimota 1964

0.800.85

SSS

Thrill, Search for Adventures, Experience Seeking,

Lack of Inhibition, Boredom and Susceptibility

Zuckerman
1979

0.830.86
0.94

NES

External Sensations, Internal Sensations, External

and Internal Cognitive Processes

Pearson 1970

0.87

Source: Adapted and modified from Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1992)

USA years ago. On that point, the cultural environment in the USA is
not the same as the cultural environment in many other countries in the
world. Moreover, the consumer behavior may be different too. So,
when researchers validate scales, they should expect two things: firstly, their dimensions could vary from one cultural environment to
another; and, secondly, some of their original items could become
irrelevant.
To validate the available OSL measures in this research, a randomly
selected sample of adults was surveyed. Some data were collected
from 762 adults using a questionnaire containing a seven-point Likerttype scale to measure the level of stimulation which a person may
prefer to have. The questionnaires included a set of items belonging to
CSI, AST, NES and SSS scales and 646 of them were valid and used.
EQS is a powerful instrument for validating marketing constructs.
This software is used for purifying scales. It is also used for isolating
the dimensions of the construct, and for measuring its convergent and
discriminant validity. By using EQS, it is possible to identify what the
scales are measuring; and it is also possible to ascertain what the
relevant items are. Different exploratory factor analyses suggested the
initial dimensions of the scales. Confirmatory factor analyses, by using EQS, identified the relevant items of the scales and their contribution to the reliability, which was measured through parallel, congeneric and tau equivalent models.
Table 2 shows the results. The letter I, followed by a number,

Ildefonso Grande

11

TABLE 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of OSL Measures

Parameters

CSI

Average Absolute
0.0340
Standardized
Residuals
Average OffDiagonal
0.0437
Absolute
Standardized Residuals
SatorraBentler Scaled
6.627
ChiSquare
Probability value for
0.1218
the ChiSquare
statistic is
Bentler-Bonett
0.920
Normed Fit Index
BentlerBonett
0.919
Nonnormed Fit Index
Comparative Fit
0.926
Index (CFI)
Robust Comparative
0.933
Fit Index
Standardized Solution:
Item
l
q
I53 0.687 0.727

AST

SSS

NES

0.035

0.0327

0.0128

0.0113

0.0490

0.0213

6.8972

9.9072

1.0735

0.1312

0.07791

0.58465

0.910

0.933

0.985

0.902

0.906

0.981

0.910

0.953

0.988

0.926

0.977

0.979

Item
I6

l
0.866

q
0.500

Item
I17

l
0.838

q
0.545

Item
l
q
I1 0.601 0.799

I59

0.535 0.845

I7

0.763

0.647

I20

0.545

0.839

I41

0.754 0.657

I73

0.821 0.571

I8

0.853

0.646

I23

0.818

0.575

I42

0.456 0.890

I77

0.884 0.467

I12

1.000

0.000

I25

0.577

0.817

I45

0.686 0.728

I78

0.581 0.814

I13

0.841

0.541

I40

0.525

0.851

I86

0.526 0.851

I21

0.861

0.508

I88

0.611

I38

0.911

0.411

I94

0.568 0.823

0.792

shows the item order in the original scale in order to facilitate their
identification.
In Table 2, l and q quantify the contribution of the items to the
reliability and their errors in the estimate. These two parameters are
essential for assessing the coefficient of the reliability of the scale,
Cronbachs a, by means of this formula.
a = (Swl)2 / [(Swl)2 + (Sw2q)]
Where w is equal to 1, l/q2 or 1/q2, when the model specification is
parallel, congeneric or tauequivalent. The results of Table 2, considering
the reliability of the tested OSL scales, measured by parallel models, are
CSI; 0.858; AST, 0.7207; SSS, 0.7504; NES, 0.6697. There is hardly any
difference among the results of alternative reliability models.

12

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

The findings suggest that Arousal Seeking Tendency is a composite

measure of risk, loyalty and innovation proneness. Sensation Seeking
Scale measures risk proneness; and Novelty Experience Seeking measures external and internal sensations. These two dimensions have a
tendency to approach varied and novel experiences rather than to
avoid them. The items in CSI are grouped in a single factor. This
means that CSI is a measure of pure exploratory tendency which is
characterized by a single dimension.
This finding agrees with the research done by Steenkamp and
Baumgartner (1995). These authors consider that it is highly desirable
that researchers should have a short and valid instrument for measuring this construct. They developed a short (7-item) version of the
Change Seeker Index cross-validated in three countries (US, Belgium
and the Netherlands).
In this research, the confirmatory factor analyses conducted suggest
an alternative short (8 item) version of the CSI in Spain. This shortform of CSI appears to be an attractive alternative to the original
95-item scale for researchers who want to study the role of OSL in
human behavior in general, and in consumer behaviors with strong
exploratory elements in particular.
Note that, in a different cultural environment, the scales do not
measure the same dimensions, and the items are not characterized by
the same contribution to the scales reliability. After doing these tests,
a number of conclusions should be drawn.
S Current OSL scales are composite measures of individuals psychological characteristics with regard to the personality of the individual, and their items or subscales may be unfamiliar to marketers.
S The adequacy of a current OSL scale for measuring the exploratory tendency could be doubtful because the construct includes
a set of items worded many years ago.
S Although researchers may conduct their research works in order
to assess OSL by using questionnaires based on the scales which
are mentioned in this article, their inadequate adaptation to different cultural environments may lead to wrong conclusions. Researchers should make every effort to validate the OSL scales in
accordance with the different cultural scene they may come
across.

Ildefonso Grande

13

S A new OSL assessment should be based on some familiar marketing variables; and these variables should be different from the
psychological ones. Consumers demographic indicators could
be a matter of importance when trying to identify market segments in order to develop specific marketing strategies that will
match their current or expected behavior.
A THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE OPTIMUM
STIMULATION LEVEL DIMENSIONS
The previous discussion and the empirical test (CSI, AST, NES,
SSS) suggest that an alternative OSL scale could be a composite
measure of risk, loyalty and innovation proneness. However, and with
regard to the links found empirically, I do consider that an additional
theoretical justification of these findings is necessary before building
the model.
The basic theory of consumer behavior shows that there are links
between OSL and risk. Consumers are constantly making decisions as
regards the goods they buy and the services they need. The consequences of their decisions are often uncertain; so, the consumers face
some risks in making their decisions. When consumers engage in a
routine buying process, their stimulation level could decrease. It is
widely known that when this happens, they may try to be innovative
by changing their habits of going to the same stores and buying the
same products, or they may opt for new products or different brands of
the same product category.
The purchase process involves facing some risks. Some of the risks
are: financial risk or loss of money; physical risk to oneself or to
others which the product may pose; functional risk, in the case that the
product may be below standard (not as good as what is normal or
required); social risk, when the choice may result in a social embarrassment; psychological risk associated with unsatisfaction derived
from an unfortunate choice; time risk, when the consumers have the
feeling that the time spent in searching for the product has been
wasted. Conservative consumers are not expected to engage in exploratory behavior. By contrast, risk takers increase their stimulation level
when they explore different brands, products or stores.
Some authors associate risks with OSL. Raju (1980) found high
correlation between risk taking and OSL. Brunning, Koviac and Ober-

14

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

dick (1985) also found that some consumers enjoy taking risks when
they choose from the different alternatives open to them. Zuckerman
(1979) stated that OSL is expected to be positively related to risk-taking behavior. More evidences of this are found in Steenkamp and
Baumgartner (1992) and Van Trijp, Hoyer and Inman (1996). Then, a
first hypothesis may be stated:
H1: The greater the OSL of the consumers, the higher their risk
acceptance
In the context of this research, loyalty should be understood as an
individual characteristic or the tendency to buy the same brands at all
times or to buy things in the same store. It should not be understood as
the consequence of marketing strategies. This variable is also linked
with OSL and apart from being a topic widely researched into since
the 1960s, it is one of the cornerstones of the companys marketing.
When consumers simplify their purchase decisions, they usually
buy the same brand in the same store. When their stimulation level
decreases, they complicate their buying process by engaging in variety
seeking. This means that they go in search of different brands or
stores, or they go in search of both things at the same time. It may be
expected that consumers with a lower OSL will tend to be loyal, and
conversely, consumers with higher OSL will tend to be disloyal.
The research works developed by Farquhar (1989) and Kapferer
(1992), support the existence of links between OSL and loyalty. Then,
a second hypothesis may be stated,
H2: The higher the OSL of the consumers, the lower their overall
loyalty
Innovative behavior is the adoption of a recently introduced product,
independent of any interpersonal communication concerning experiences with the product (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). When the stimulation level of the consumers decreases, they may try to be innovative in
order to increase it. Innovative consumers show the tendency to try
goods or services on their own initiative before they are told of other
consumers experiences and reports. Some authors have done research
works which support the links between the OSL and the innovative
behavior [see, for example, Schiffman (1972); Leavitt and Walton
(1975); Raju (1980); Price and Ridgeway (1983); Foxall and Bathe
(1991); Burns and Krampf (1992); and Steenkamp and Baumgartner

Ildefonso Grande

15

(1992)]. In their research works, they came to the conclusion that there
is a strong relationship between OSL and innovative behavior. Consumers characterized by a higher OSL will tend to explore among
brands to a greater extent than others who are characterized by a lower
OSL. Based on their research works, a third hypothesis may be stated.
H3: The greater the OSL of the consumers, the greater their innovation proneness
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE SCALE
FOR ASSESSING OSL
Considering the theoretical and empirical dimension of current OSL
scales, the next step will be to devise a new measure for assessing the
dimensions of the exploratory tendencies of the consumers. According
to the findings in Spain, the new instrument should be a composite
measure of risks, loyalty and innovation proneness.
The literature provides many scales for measuring these variables.
Some authors, including Craig and Gintner (1975), Leavitt and Walton
(1975), Raju (1980), Dikerson and Gentry (1983), Hawes and Lumpkin (1984), Oliver and Bearden (1985), Fisher and Price (1992), Fisher (1993) and Price and Ridgeway (1983) and Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991), have devised excellent scales for measuring innovation
tendency.
Many authors, like Raju (1980), Hawes and Lumpkin (1984), Hozier and Stem (1985), Beatty and Kahle (1988), Carlson and Grossbart
(1988), Litchenstein, Netemeyer and Burton (1990), devised different
measures for assessing the propensity of a human being to be loyal to
goods, brands, services or stores. And some authors, like Murray
(1985), Murray and Slachter (1990), Venkatraman and Price (1990)
and Venkatraman (1991), have devised measures for assessing perceived risk.
The new OSL measure proposed in this paper, ETS, (Exploratory
Tendency Scale) has been devised by using some items taken from the
above mentioned scales. After a process of trial and error based on
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, I would like to propose
the following items for an alternative OSL measure.
1. When I buy a product, I feel uncertain about it after buying it.
2. When I choose among products, I often doubt whether to take
this or that.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

16

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

I am never sure of myself after choosing a product.

Once I choose a brand, I forget the others.
Once I choose a brand, I hate changing it.
If I like a brand, I seldom change my mind just for the sake of
trying something different.
Even when the same product is available in different brands, I
tend to buy the same brand.
Modern art is a stimulant.
I like to try new and different things.
I like to try new ways of doing things.

To test ETS, a second random sample was selected. The former

sample was only used for identifying the dimensions of current OSL
measures. It was not used for testing ETS because it could cause
spurious correlation. The data for testing ETS were gathered from 689
adults; and they were recorded in a questionnaire, containing a sevenpoint Likert-type scale. The questionnaire was prepared with items
from ETS, CIS, AST, NES and SSS short version. Finally, 563 questionnaires were used.
An exploratory factor analysis of the items of ETS was done and it
grouped the items in three dimensions (see Table 3). The correlation
suggests that factor 1 is linked with risk (items 1-4), and that factors 2
(items 5-7) and 3 (items 8-10) deal with loyalty and innovation proneness. Table 4 displays the results of confirmatory factor analyses of the
subscales.
The parameter l in Table 4 is the contribution of each item to the
reliability. This value ranges from 0 to 1. The higher its value, the
TABLE 3. ETS Exploratory Factor Analysis
ITEM

F1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

0,6770
0,8128
0,7718
0,8298
0,0458
0,0149
0,1100
0,1582
0,0358
0,2058

F2
*0,1104
0,0913
0,1225
0,1204
0,8422
0,8118
0,8033
0,0150
0,0312
0,0730

F3
0,0544
0,1256
0,2032
0,0836
*0,0548
0,0958
0,0548
0,8085
0,8377
0,7820

Ildefonso Grande

17

TABLE 4. Subscales Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Subscales

T ratio

Error

RISK
1

0.863

13.375

0.506

2
3
4
LOYALTY
5
6
7
INNOVATIVENESS
8
9
10

0.803
0.794
0.846

11.692
10.766
13.407

0.596
0.608
0.534

0.842
0.861
0.771

11.600
10.780
10.543

0.540
0.508
0.637

0.761
0.533
0.516

6.243
4.823
4.486

0.649
0.846
0.856

x2

d.f.

NFI

CFI

AOSR1

3.075

0.98

0.991

0.0220

0.095

0.99

0.999

0.0049

1.265

0.98

1.000

0.0244

1 Average offdiagonal absolute standardized residuals

greater its contribution to the reliability. q measures the error in the

estimate. It ranges from 0 to 1. It is desirable to find a low q and a high
l. Anyway, l2 + q2 = 1.
For reliable results, the parameters CFI, NFI must be higher than
0.9 and AOSR must be lower than 0.05. The goodness of the fit
suggests that the items, included in the new measure for the exploratory tendency scale, are relevant.
Table 5 shows the discriminant validity test to ensure that the subscales do not share similar dimensions. If we compare the (x2 differences between the models and fix the correlation as equal to one or as
free parameter, the models are significantly different. So, there are
some evidences of discriminant validity among the subscales. One
comes to this conclusion because the x2 differences between models
are greater than critical values x2 1% /1 or x2 5% /1. This test suggests
that the different groups of items in ETS measure different dimensions.
After carrying out the discriminant validity test of the scale, the next
step is to measure its reliability. Table 6 displays the Cronbachs alpha
of the subscales fitting parallel, tau equivalent and congeneric models.
Take note of the fact that there is hardly any difference in the estimates. In fact, all the figures are high enough to justify the reliability
of the scale. Table 7 displays the joint reliability of ETS.
At this stage, one may come to the conclusion that ETS is a reliable
scale; but it is necessary to test its convergent validity with other OSL

18

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 5. Discriminant Validity Tests

Test between subscales . . .

Constrained Model

No constrained model

x2 Differences

Loyalty and Innovativeness

Loyalty and Risk
Innovativeness and Risk

18.83 (7 d.f.)
28.75 (7 d.f.)
19.53 (7 d.f.)

13.50 (6 d.f.)
18.38 (7 d.f.)
13.04 (6 d.f.)

5.33 **
10.36*
6.49 **

* x2 1%/1 = 6,63
** x2 5%/1 = 3,84

TABLE 6. ETS Subscales Cronbachs Alpha

Subscales

Parallel

Tau equivalent

Congeneric

Loyalty

0,8961

0,8992

Innovativeness

0,6360

0,6730

0,8993
0,6810

Risk

0,8649

0,8710

0,8712

TABLE 7. ETS Estimated Cronbachs Alpha

Scale

Parallel

Tau equivalent

Congeneric

ETS

0,9340189

0,9470087

0,9463151

measures. Table 8 displays the correlation matrix, standard deviation

and p-values, among CSI, AST, NES, SSS and ETS. Correlation supports convergent validity among current OSL scales and the new
instrument, ETS.
AN EXPLORATORY BEHAVIOR MODEL
The next step in this research was to build and to test an exploratory
behavior model linking OSL, risk, loyalty and innovation proneness.
The theoretical and empirical justification of the dimensions and their
links have been shown in sections 3 and 4. According to what was said
in those sections, the proposed exploratory behavior model in this
research is shown in Figure 1.
The short 8 items Spanish version of CSI was used for measuring
OSL, and related variables were measured from the items of ETS
measuring risk, loyalty and innovativeness. The data come from the

Ildefonso Grande

19

TABLE 8. OSL Scales Correlation Matrix

CSI
CSI

AST

NES

SSS

ETS

AST

0.335
(0.089)
p = .000

NES

0.365
(0.079)
p = 0.000

0.387
(0.068)
p = 0.000

SSS

0.312
(0.172)
p = 0.046

0.449
(0.098)
p = 0.000

0.316
(0.059)
p = 0.000

ETS

0.309
(0.067)
p = 0.002

0.281
(0.023)
p = 0.000

0.234
(0.071)
p = 0.009

1
0.319
(0.078)
p = 0.000

second sample sized 563 individuals. The goodness of the fit of the
causal model appears in Table 9.
The model equations are,
Risk = 0.712 CSI + 0.567 Innovativeness + 0.580 e1
(0.02)
(0.03)
Loyalty = 0.743 risk 0.653 CSI 0.456 Innovativeness + 0.453 e2
(0.01)
(0.000)
(0.04)
Innovativeness = 0.770 risk + 0.638 CSI + 0.367 e3
(0.001)
(0.02)

Numbers in parentheses show p-values.

These results trust the goodness of the fit, and the signs of the
coefficients are the expected. Note that risk is positively and strongly
linked with OSL and innovation proneness. This means that consumers characterized by high OSL and innovators are more risk takers
than others.
As expected, the second equation suggests that risk avoiders, conservative consumers and those who are characterized by lower OSL
tend to be loyal.
Finally, the third equation shows that risk takers and consumers
characterized by higher levels of OSL tend to be more innovators than
others.
The stated hypotheses in paragraph 3 cannot be rejected. It may be
concluded that,

20

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

S The greater the OSL of the consumers, the higher their risk acceptance.
S The higher the OSL of the consumers, the lower their overall loyalty.
S The greater the OSL of the consumers, the greater their innovation proneness.

FIGURE 1. A Structural Relationship Among OSL and Related Variables

RISK

CSI

LOYALTY

INNOVATIVENESS

TABLE 9. Goodness of the Fit of the Structural Model Linking OSL and Related
Variables
Average Absolute Standardized Residuals
Average OffDiagonal Absolute Standardized Residuals
SatorraBentler Scaled ChiSquare
Probability Value for the ChiSquare Statistic Is
BentlerBonett Normed Fit Index
BentlerBonett Nonnormed Fit Index
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Robust Comparative CFI Index

0.0127
0.0212
1.3481
0.245
0.986
0.934
0.989
0.998

Ildefonso Grande

21

CONCLUSIONS
This research began with a discussion of the most used scales for
measuring the exploratory tendencies of consumers. These constructs
were developed in a particular cultural environment, and they are
supposed to be adapted to other contexts. It was proved that the dimensions which they give in the USA do not agree with the dimensions they give in Spain. So, and from an international perspective,
there are differences between consumers in one country and consumers in another country.
On the other hand, the scales used for measuring the exploratory
tendencies of consumers do have a strong sociological component.
They may be now obsolete, and their wording may not be very familiar to those who are in charge of marketing in the companies.
These discoveries account for the development of an alternative
scale for measuring the Optimum Stimulation Level. The new instrument has taken the dimensions detected in Spanish consumers, and the
deficiencies observed in the former scales, into consideration.
The new scale is based on the theoretical basis of the consumer
behavior. From a methodological perspective, the scale was validated
by using statistical methods like confirmatory factor analysis and
structural equation models. The results show the convergent and discriminant validity of this scale. From the scope of marketers, this
instrument has a big advantage over the previous scales. This scale is
simple, short and reliable.
The proposed model supports the stated hypotheses. The results
match the theory of consumer behavior. It may be concluded that OSL
is a relevant variable that explains how consumers behave, because it
affects the risk acceptance, the loyalty and the innovation proneness.
Additionally, higher OSL affects positively new products diffusion.
The marketers are concerned with the market segmentation. They
want to identify groups of consumers in order to prepare adequate
strategies for them. One of the most useful criteria for segmenting the
markets is the loyalty of the consumers. The scale which was developed in this research measures the exploring tendencies, an undesirable characteristic in consumer behavior which is against the tendency
to be loyal.
The application of this instrument can make it possible for the
managers to identify the profiles of the consumers, variety seekers and
those who show loyalty. In that case, it will be sufficient to include

22

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

indicators of sociodemographic nature about buying habits, together

with a scale proposed in this research, in the questionnaire. The scale
which is proposed in this research is very simple to respond to and it
will not make the consumers get bored. The information can be analyzed together, and the consumer profiles related to OSL can be obtained by means of multivariate analyses.
In this way, companies can identify the characteristics of the consumers and their buying behavior. This will contribute to improve the
plan of the strategies for marketing, pricing, product design, promotion and placement.
If the marketers knew how to identify two market segments, loyal
consumers and variety seekers, it would be possible for them to design
loyalty strategies for those consumers with slight or moderate exploratory tendencies. On the contrary, consumers with high levels of OSL
do change from one brand or store to another; and this behavior is not
due to the actions of the companies because the strategies of consumer
retention are not so efficient.
REFERENCES
Alba, J. and Marmorstein, H. (1987). The Effect of Frequency Knowledge on Consumer Decision Making, Journal of Consumer Research, 14, June, 14-25.
Bass, F. (1974). The Theory of Stochastic Preference and Brand Switching, Journal
of Marketing Research, February, 14-23.
Baumgartner, H. and Steenkamp, J. B. (1996). Exploratory Consumer Buying Behaviour: Conceptualization and Measurement, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 13.
Bawa, K. (1990). Modeling Inertia and Variety Seeking Tendencies in Brand Choice
Behavior, Marketing Science, Vol. 9, Summer, 263-278.
Beatty, S. and Kahle, L. (1988). An alternative Hierarchies of the Attitude-Behavior
Relationship: The Impact of Brand Commitment and Habit, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, Summer, 1-10.
Bern C., Mgica, J. M., and Yage, M. J. (1997). Intrinsic Variety Seeking as a
Moderator of Loyalty, 26th EMAC Conference, 1542-1562.
Brunning, E., Koviac, M. and Oberdick, L. (1985). Segmentation Analysis of Domestic Airline Passenger Markets, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
13, Winter, 17-31.
Burns, D., and Krampf, R. (1992). Explaining Innovative Behaviour: UniquenessSeeking and Sensation-Seeking, International Journal of Advertising, 11,
227-237.
Cacciopo, J. T. and Petty, R. E. (1982). The Need for Cognition, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1, 116-131.

Ildefonso Grande

23

Campo, K. and Gijsbrechs, E. (1997). Variety Seekers and Variety Avoiders Reactions to Different Type of In-Store Promotions, 26th EMAC Conference,
1522-1541.
Carlson, L. and Grossbart, S. 1988. Parental Style and Consumer Socialization of
Children, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, June, 77-94.
Craig, C. S. and Gintner, J. L. (1975). An Empirical Test of a Scale for Innovativeness, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2, 555-562.
Crouch, J. (1994). Variety-Seeking and On-Premises Beer Selection, Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35, February, 80-81.
Dikerson, M. and Gentry, J. W. (1983). Characteristics of Adopters and Non-Adopters of Home Computers, Journal of Consumer Research, 10, September, 225-235.
Faison, E. (1977). The Neglected Variety Drive, Journal of Consumer Research, 4,
(December), 172-175.
Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing Brand Equity, Marketing Research, September,
7-12.
Feinberg, F., B. Kahn and L. McAlister (1992). Market Share Response When Consumers Seek Variety, Journal of Marketing Research, 29, May, 227-237.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20, September, 303-315.
Fisher, R. J. and Price, L. (1992). An Investigation into the Social Context of Early
Adoption Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 19, (December), 477-86.
Foxall, G. and Bathe, S. (1991). Cognitive Style: Personal Involvement and Situation
as Determinants of Computer Use. Technovation, 11, Vol. 3, 183-199.
Garlington, W. R. and Shimota, H. (1964). The Change Seeker Index: A Measure of
the Need for Variable Stimulus Input, Psychological Reports, Vol. 14, 919-924.
Givon, M. (1984). Variety Seeking Through Brand Switching, Marketing Science, 3,
1, 1-22.
Goldsmith, R. and Hofacker, L. (1991). Measuring Consumer Innovativeness, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, Summer, 209-221.
Grossbart, S., Carlson, L. and Walsh, A. (1991). Consumer Socialization and Frequency of Shopping with Children. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, Summer, 155-163.
Hawes, J. and Lumpkin, J. (1984). Understanding the Out-shopper, Journal of Academy Marketing Science, Fall, 200-218.
Holbrock, J. and Hirschman, E. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption:
Consumer Fantasies, Feeling and Fun, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, (September), 132-140.
Hoyer, W. and Brown, S. (1990). Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a
Common Repeat Product, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, September,
141-148.
Hozier, G. and Stem, D. (1985). General Retail Patronage Loyalty as a Determinant
of Consumer Outshopping Behavior, Journal of Academy Marketing Science, 13,
Winter, 32-46.
Jacoby, J. (1978). Consumer Research. A State of Art Review, Journal of Marketing,
April, 87-96.

24

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R. (1978). Brand Loyalty Measurement, John Wiley and
Sons.
Joachimsthaler, E. A., and Lastovicka, J. L. (1984). Optimum Stimulation LevelExploratory Behavior Models, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, (3), 830-835.
Kahn, B. E. and Louie, T. A. (1990). Effects of Retraction of Price Promotions on
Brand Choice Behavior for Variety Seeking and Last-Purchase-Loyal Consumers,
Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 279-289.
Kahn, B. E. and Raju, P. S. (1991). Effects of Price Promotions on Variety Seeking
and Reinforcement Behavior, Marketing Science, 10, 4, 316-337.
Kahn, B., Kalwani, E., Manohar, U. and Morrison, D. G. (1986). Measuring VarietySeeking and Reinforcement Behaviors Using Panel Data, Journal of Marketing
Research. Vol. 23, May, 89-100.
Kapferer, J. N. (1992). Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating
and Evaluating Brand Equity. London: Kogan Page.
Keaveney, S. (1995). Customer Switching Behavior in Services Industries: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Marketing, 59, April, 71-82.
Lattin, J. and McAlister, L. (1985). Using a Variety Seeking Model to Identify
Substitute Complementary Relationships Among Competing Products, Journal of
Marketing Research, 22, August, 330-339.
Laurent, G. (1978). A Study of Multiple Variant Consumption for Frequently Purchased Consumer Products. Phd. Sloan School of Management. MIT.
Leavitt, C. and Walton, J. (1975). Development of a Scale for Innovativeness, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2, 545-554.
Litchenstein, D., Netemeyer, R and Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness: An Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54, July, 54-67.
Mazursky, D. and P. LaBarbera and Aiello, A. (1987). When Consumers Switch
Brands. Psychology and Marketing, 4, 1, 141-150.
McAlister, L. (1982). A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety Seeking
Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, September, 141-151.
McAlister, L. and Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Consumer Research, December, 311-322.
Mehrabian, A., 1978. Individual Reactions to Preferred and Unpreferred Environments. Journal of Personality, 40, December, 717-731.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Menon, S. and Kahn, B. (1995). The Impact of External Context on Variety Seeking
in Product Choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, December, 285-289.
Midgley, D. and Dowling, G. (1978). Innovativeness: The Concept and its Measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, March, 2229-2242.
Moschis, G. (1978). Acquisition of the Consumer Role by Adolescents, Research
Monograph 82, Georgia State University.
Muelhing, D., Stoltman, J. and Grossbart, S. (1990). The Impact of Comparative
Advertising on Levels of Message Involvement, Journal of Advertising, 19, Vol.
4, 4-50.

Ildefonso Grande

25

Murray, K. B. (1985). Risk Perception and Information Source Use for Products
Differing in Service Attributes, PhD, Arizona Sate University: Temple, Arizona.
Murray, K. B. and Slachter, J. (1990). The Impact of Services vs. Goods on Consumers Decision Strategies, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, June, 29-37.
Oliver, R. and Bearden, W. (1985). Crossover Effects in the Theory of Reasoned
Action: A Moderating Influence Attempt, Journal of Consumer Research, 12,
December, 324-340.
Pearson, P. H. (1970). Relationship Between Global and Specified Measures of
Novelty Seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 2, 199-204.
Price, L. and Ridgeway, N. M. (1983). Development of a Scale to Measure Use
Innovativeness. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, 679-684.
Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality,
Demographics and Exploratory Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7,
December 1980, 272-282.
Raju, P. S. (1981). Theories of Explanatory Behaviour: Review and Consumer Research Implications. Research in Marketing, 4, 223-249.
Raju, P. S. (1984). Exploratory Brand Switching: An Empirical Examination of its
Determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology, 5, 201-221.
Raju, P. S., Srinavasan, S. and Lal, R. (1990). The Effects of Brand Loyalty on
Competitive Price Promotional Strategies. Management Science. Vol. 36, No. 3,
March, 276-304.
Schiffman, L. G. (1972). Perceived Risk in New Trial by Elderly Consumers. Journal
of Marketing Research, February, 106-108.
Simonson, I. (1990). The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking
Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 27, May, 150-162.
Steenkamp, J. B. and Baumgartner, H. (1992). The Role of Optimum Stimulation
Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19,
December, 434-48.
Steenkamp, J. B. and Baumgartner, H. (1995). Development and cross-cultural validation of a short form of CSI as a measure of optimum stimulation level. International Journal of Research in Marketing. Vol. 12, July, 97-104.
Steenkamp, J. B. and Van Trijp, H. (1991). The Use of LISREL in Validating Marketing Constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing. Vol. 8, November,
283-299.
Trivedi, M., Bass, F. and Rao, R. C. (1994). A model of stochastic Variety-Seeking.
Marketing Science. Vol. 13, Summer, 274-297.
Van Trijp, H. (1995). Variety-Seeking in Product Choice Behavior. Theory with
Applications in the Food Domain. (Thesis.) University of Wageningen.
Van Trijp, H. and Hoyer, W. (1991). A New Model for Variation in Consumer
Behavior. 20th EMAC Conference.
Van Trijp, H. Hoyer, W., and Inman, J. J. (1996). Why Switch? Product CategoryLevel Explanations for True Variety Seeking Behaviour. Journal of Marketing
Research. August, 1996, 281-292.
Venkatesan, M. (1973). Cognitive Consistency and Novelty Seeking. In Consumer
Behavior: Theoretical Sources, eds. Scott Ward and Thomas Robertson, Prentice
Hall.

26

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Venkatraman, M. P. (1991). The Impact of Innovativeness and Innovation Type of

Adoption. Journal of Retailing, 67, Spring, 51-67.
Venkatraman, M. P. and Price, L. (1990). Differentiation Between Cognitive and
Sensory Innovativeness: Concepts, Measurement and Implications. Journal of
Business Research, 20, June, 293-315.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Development of a Sensation-Seeking Scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 477-482.

Submitted: November 1998

First Revision: March 1999
Second Revision: May 1999
Accepted: August 1999

HAWORTH JOURNALS
ARE AVAILABLE ON MICROFORM
All Haworth journals are now available in either microfiche or microfilm from
The Haworth Microform/Microfiche Division at the lowest possible prices.
Microfiche and microfilms are available at 25% above the library subscription rate.
For journal subscription rates, please look within the journal on the copyright pages.
For all microform subscriptions, these charges apply: outside US and Canada: 40% to total;
in Canada, 30% to total as well as 7% GST.
Microfilm specifications: 35mm; diazo or silver.
Microfiche specifications: 105mm x 184mm (4 x 6); reduction ratio: 24X;
nonsilver (diazo) positive polarity.
Microform are mailed upon completion of each volume.
For further information, contact Janette Kemmerer, Microform Contact,
The Haworth Press, Inc., 10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580;
Tel: (607) 722-5857, ext. 311; Fax: (607) 722-1424;
E-Mail: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com
Microform and microfiche are also available from Bell & Howell Information
and Learning (formerly University Microfilms International), 300 North
Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346; Tel: (800) 521-0600.