<%BANNER%>

The Desire for Consumption Knowledge

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044845/00001

Material Information

Title: The Desire for Consumption Knowledge
Physical Description: 1 online resource (78 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Clarkson, Joshua John
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: expertise -- learning -- novelty-seeking -- perceptions
Marketing -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Business Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Are consumers motivated to seek out experiences that enhance their appreciation within a product category—and if so, does their level of experiential expertise (or consumption knowledge) within a product category bias the types of experiences they value and pursue? These questions are central to the present research, which explores the premise that consumers value the accrual of consumption knowledge as a means of enhancing their hedonic appreciation of future consumption experiences in a product category. Four experiments demonstrate that a consumer’s perceived level of experiential knowledge determines the types of novel consumption experiences that are sought within a product category. Specifically, novices seek a diverse set of experiences that broaden their consumption knowledge in a product category, whereas experts seek a focused set of experiences that deepen their consumption knowledge in a product category. Implications for current conceptualizations of both novelty-seeking and consumption knowledge are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Joshua John Clarkson.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Janiszewski, Chris A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044845:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044845/00001

Material Information

Title: The Desire for Consumption Knowledge
Physical Description: 1 online resource (78 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Clarkson, Joshua John
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: expertise -- learning -- novelty-seeking -- perceptions
Marketing -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Business Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Are consumers motivated to seek out experiences that enhance their appreciation within a product category—and if so, does their level of experiential expertise (or consumption knowledge) within a product category bias the types of experiences they value and pursue? These questions are central to the present research, which explores the premise that consumers value the accrual of consumption knowledge as a means of enhancing their hedonic appreciation of future consumption experiences in a product category. Four experiments demonstrate that a consumer’s perceived level of experiential knowledge determines the types of novel consumption experiences that are sought within a product category. Specifically, novices seek a diverse set of experiences that broaden their consumption knowledge in a product category, whereas experts seek a focused set of experiences that deepen their consumption knowledge in a product category. Implications for current conceptualizations of both novelty-seeking and consumption knowledge are discussed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Joshua John Clarkson.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Janiszewski, Chris A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044845:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE DESIRE FOR CONSUMPTION KNOWLEDGE By JOSHUA JOHN CLARKSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIV ERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Joshua John Clarkson

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Chris Janiszewski for his patience and expertise, my committee (Alan Cooke, Rich Lutz, and John Chambers) for their guidance, Melissa Cinelli for h er contributions as a collaborator, and the UF Marketing Department for the opportunity to represent their university. Thanks also to Ed Hirt and Chris Leone for their unconditional support and to Zak Tormala, Adam Duhachek, and Derek Rucker for their exa mple. Finally, thanks to my family and friends for their prayers, encouragement, and unwavering belief in my abilities and my potential God bless.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 2 CONSUMPTION KNOWLEDGE ................................ ................................ ............. 13 Consumption Knowledge ................................ ................................ ........................ 14 Structure ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 14 Expertise Enhances Appreciation ................................ ................................ ........... 15 3 THE DESIRE FOR CONSUMPTION KNOWLEDGE ................................ .............. 16 4 HEIGHT ENING HEDONIC APPRECIATION ................................ .......................... 19 Identifying New Attributes ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Enhancing Consumption Vocabulary ................................ ................................ ...... 20 ................................ ........... 22 Expecting Enhanced Satisfaction ................................ ................................ ........... 23 5 OVERV IEW OF EXPERIMENTS ................................ ................................ ............ 25 6 EXPERIMENT 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 26 Pretest ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 27 Experiment 1a ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 28 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 29 Participants and Design ................................ ................................ ................... 29 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 29 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 30 Experiment 1b ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 31 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 31 Participants and Design ................................ ................................ ................... 31 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 31 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 32 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 33

PAGE 5

5 7 EXPERIMENT 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 35 Experiment 2a ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 35 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 36 Participants and Design ................................ ................................ ................... 36 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 36 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 38 Experiment 2b/c ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 38 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 39 Participants and Design ................................ ................................ ................... 39 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 39 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 41 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 43 8 EXPERIMENT 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 45 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 45 Participants and Design ................................ ................................ ................... 45 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 45 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 47 Product Preference ................................ ................................ .......................... 47 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 48 9 EXPERIMENT 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 50 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 51 Participants and Desig n ................................ ................................ ................... 51 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 51 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 53 Product Preference ................................ ................................ .......................... 53 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 54 10 GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ....................... 56 New Directions I ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 56 Strategic Novelty seeking ................................ ................................ ................. 56 Managing Consumption Knowledge Acquisition Goals ................................ .... 57 S hort term vs. Long term Utility Maximization ................................ .................. 59 New Directions II ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 61 Expertise as Progressive Knowledge Acquisition Goals ................................ ... 61 The Role of Social Consensus ................................ ................................ ......... 64 Exploration versus Exploitation ................................ ................................ ........ 66 Theories of Expertise ................................ ................................ ....................... 67 Knowledge Expectancies ................................ ................................ ................. 68 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 70 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 71

PAGE 6

6 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 78

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 7 1 Results of E xperiment 2b/c ................................ ................................ ................. 41

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Consumption experience of a novice and expert. ................................ ............... 12 6 1 Results of E xperiment 1b ................................ ................................ ................... 34 8 1 Results of E xperiment 3 ................................ ................................ ..................... 49 9 1 Results of E xperiment 4 ................................ ................................ ..................... 55

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE DESIRE FOR CONSUMPTION KNOWLEDGE By Joshua John Clarkson December 2012 Chair: Chris Janiszewski Major: Business Administration Are consumers motivated to seek out experiences that enhance their appreciation within a product category and if so, does their level of experiential expertise (or cons umption knowledge) within a product category bias the types of experiences they value and pursue? These questions are central to the present research, which explores the premise that consumers value the accrual of consumption knowledge as a means of enhanc ing their hedonic appreciation of future consumption perceived level of experiential knowledge determines the types of novel consumption experiences that are sought within a product category. Specifically, novices seek a diverse set of experiences that broaden their consumption knowledge in a product category, whereas experts seek a focused set of experiences that deepen their consumption knowledge in a product category. Impli cations for current conceptualizations of both novelty seeking and consumption knowledge are discussed.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Variety's the very spice of life t hat gives it all its flavor. We have run through ev'ry change that fancy at the loom e xhausted has had genius to supply and studious of mutation still, discard a real elegance a little used f or monstrous novelty and strange disguise William C owper, The Task ha that novel consumption experiences often provide less utility than familiar, favored experiences, an observation that has received considerable empirical support (Begiri, C hase, and Bishka 2010; Keinan and Kivitz 2011; Pliner 1982; Rozin and Rozin 1981; Rozin and Schiller 1980). Consumers regularly try new wines, menu items, leisure activities, and social interactions. However, even though consumers find some of these novel consumption experiences pleasing, the majority of these experiences are not as equivalent favorites. Thus, the question invariably surfaces: Why do people consume novel experiences? Indeed, beyond attenuating the negative co nsequences of satiation, one has to wonder what benefit the pursuit of novel experiences offers the consumer. experiential consumption knowledge Consumers seek to build their experiential consumption knowledge because this knowledge has the potential to enhance their appreciation of future consumption experiences (Hoeffler, Ariely, and West 2006). Moreover, we propose that the selection of a specific type of novel experience is a function ial knowledge. To illustrate, Fi gure

PAGE 11

11 1 1 shows a simple representation of the product class experiences of a novice and expert consumer. The novice consumer has experienced one product in the product category (e. g., X), but has little knowledge about how to represent this experience (the consumer cannot yet represent dimension one and two). For this consumer, sampling from a diverse set of novel products (e.g., A, C, E, G) should create an opportunity to better re present future consumption experiences (i.e., add dimensional meaning to the experiences). Sampling from a clustered set of novel products (e.g., I, J, K, L) is less effective for enhancing the representation of future consumption experiences because these clustered experiences are difficult to differentiate from the prior experience (e.g., X) and from each other. In contrast, the expert consumer has experienced five products in the product category (e.g., X, B, D, F, H). For this consumer, sampling from a diverse set of novel consumption experiences (i.e., the basic dimensionality of the experiences is already known). Sampling from a clustered set of novel products (e.g ., I, J, K, L), preferably near an ideal point exemplar (X), should provide an opportunity for new dimensionality (e.g., a third dimension) to emerge. The idea that increases in experiential consumption knowledge can enhance appreciation of future consump tion experiences is not controversial (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982). For example, prior experience with a diversity of food flavors, as opposed to a single food flavor, should allow a person to better appreciate the flavors of foods that are eaten on futur e occasions. Similar claims can be made about the consumption of any experiential good that is frequent, varied, and subjectively

PAGE 12

12 appreciated (e.g., wine appreciation, art appreciation, music appreciation). What is novel here is the prediction that consume consumption knowledge strategically alter the desirability of different novel consumption experiences. Of course, this behavior is contingent on the motivation to enhance future consumption experiences, the belief t hat novel consumption experiences can enhance consumption knowledge, and the extent to which prior novel experiences have enhanced the appreciation for current experiences, all boundary conditions that are addressed in the general discussion. FIGURE 1 1 Consumption experience of a novice and expert N ote. Black diamond are experienced products and grey diamonds are novel products.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 2 CONSUMPTION KNOWLEDGE The literature on consumer expertise is extensive, incorporating work on the learnin g of information, the cognitive representation of this learning (i.e., cognitive structure), access to this knowledge, and the use of this knowledge in problem solving and choice (see Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Hutchinson and Eisenstein 2008 for reviews). P articularly relevant to our interests is the knowledge that accrues about the sensory experience that accompanies consumption. For instance, a consumer with no prior consumption experience in a product category has little knowledge about the array of exper iences available, the variability of these experiences, and the dimensions by which to evaluate and appreciate these experiences. As experience with a product category increases, however, the consumer can better appreciate the benefits of a consumption exp erience. For example, an oenophile can better appreciate the dish, and a classical music aficionado can more fully appreciate the instrumentation in a However, a series of assumptions are implicit to our claim that an oenophile, gourmand, and aficionado can more fully appreciate their respective consumption experiences. First, it is assumed that people can have experiential consumption knowledge. Secon d, it is assumed that this experiential consumption knowledge has structure and that the structure changes with additional consumption experience. Third, it is assumed that the changes in the structure of experiential consumption knowledge (e.g., more expe rtise) can enhance the appreciation of future consumption experiences. We provide support for each of these assumptions before discussing the hypothesis

PAGE 14

14 that consumers with different levels of consumption knowledge will select different types of novel cons umption experiences in the expectation that these experiences will enhance their appreciation of future consumption experiences. Consumption Knowledge At the most fundamental level, consumers must be able to retain knowledge about consumption experiences. Indeed, brand preferences for experiential products (e.g., food, entertainment, services) could not exist without this knowledge. Yet, this knowledge could consist of nothing more than coarsely defined hedonic responses ree findings suggest consumption knowledge is more extensive. First, Cowley and Janus (2004) show that more experience with a product category (juice) resulted in more refined consumption knowledge that was less susceptible to misinformation from advertisi ng. Second, consumers develop an experiential consumption vocabulary as their experience grows (Latour and Latour 2010; West, Brown, and Hoch 1996). There would be no incentive for a consumer to develop a consumption vocabulary if there was no experiential knowledge that corresponded to the vocabulary. Third, Joy and Sherry (2003) show that consumers can develop consumption knowledge that is comprised of embodied experiences. They show that art knowledge includes an experiential component that consists of e mbodied perceptions of balance, orientation, motion, and force. Structure As consumers increase their knowledge in a product category, their representation of the knowledge becomes more refined (Hughson and Boakes 2009; Nosofsky 1986; Solomon 1997). Refine ment consists of a better differentiation of known features (Hughson and Boakes 2009; Nosofsky 1986) and the emergence of new

PAGE 15

15 features (Goldstone 1998; Solomon 1997; Schyns and Rodet 1997). Similar changes should occur with the representation of consumptio n knowledge (Hughson and Boakes 2009; Solomon 1997). For example, increased consumption knowledge about wine might allow a consumer to better differentiate wines on the dimensions of fruitiness (e.g., the level of fruitiness), while at the same time allowi ng new fruit flavors (e.g., apple, kiwi, melon, pineapple) or flavor dimensions (e.g., oak, grass, mineral) to emerge. The differentiation of stimulus properties should also allow a person to develop more finely tuned preferences (e.g., ideal points) (Cook e et al. 2004). Expertise Enhances Appreciation Consumption knowledge leads to greater appreciation for experiences in the consumption domain. Investigations into art appreciation, for instance, suggest that the ability to classify and describe art increas es with experience. This enhanced knowledge, in turn, allows a consumer to appreciate structure in the art (e.g., organization, style, content) and increases the overall aesthetic appreciation of the art (Leder et al. 2004). This aesthetic appreciation can be a fluency experience that accrues from a familiar structure, a feeling of knowing experience owing to structural similarity, or a reasoned interpretation that depends on declarative knowledge about the structure (Gordon and Holyoak 1983; Leder et al. 2 meaning they assign to the consumption experience is also critical to the appreciation of classical music (Brandt 2007), wine (Ballester et al. 2008), and poetry (Peskin 1998). In effect, consumptio n knowledge allows a consumer to derive more meaning from a specific consumption experience, which in turn increases appreciation (Jacobsen 2010).

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 3 THE DESIRE FOR CONSUMPTION KNOWLEDGE The foregoing discussion suggests that consumers can benefit from increasing their knowledge about the consumption experiences afforded by a product category. This conclusion is consistent with the assumptions of dynamic utility maximization models (Meyer et al. 1997). Dynamic utility maximization is a process by wh ich consumers recognize that the utility derived from future consumption experiences is contingent on prior experiences and adjust accordingly, as exemplified by the lower utility choices that characterize variety seeking (Ratner, Kahn, and Kahneman 1999; Simonson 1990). Consequently, consumers may choose a lower utility option, an unfamiliar option, or an option that is substantially different from a known favorite because these options provide information or establish a standard for evaluation (Meyer et a l. 1997). Indeed, consumers may choose to sacrifice utility in the present to enhance utility in the future (Lowenstein and Prelec 1993). Consumers may even go as far as to make choices so as to yield a managed set of preferences (Gibbs 1997). We propose that there are occasions where consumers are motivated to increase their appreciation of future experiences in a product category. This motivation encourages consumers to enhance their consumption knowledge. An effective strategy for enhancing this consump tion knowledge is to make the cognitive representation of a consumption experie nce more refined. As shown in Fi gure 1 1 expertise should influence the type of novel experiences that are preferred (i.e., that are anticipated to be us eful for enhancing experiential knowledge). Novice consumers typically have a poor understanding of the range of experiences available within a domain. An increased appreciation for the breadth of

PAGE 17

17 consumption experiences should allow these consumers to (a ) better isolate the dimensions that differentiate exemplars (Oakes and Spalding 1997), (b) identify other clusters of preferred products (Hoeffler et al. 2006), and (c) set standards for the evaluation and appreciation of specific exemplars (Tse and Wilto n 1988). Thus, novice consumers should prefer to enhance their breadth of consumption knowledge in a product category by experiencing products that (a) are substantially different on a currently known dimension or (b) provide information on a unique dimens ion. H1 : Novice consumers should prefer novel breadth over novel depth consumption experiences within a product category. Expert consumers should already have fairly broad consumption knowledge and, therefore, should be confident they can differentiate exemplars, identify preferred clusters of products, and accurately evaluate consumption experiences. As a consequence, expert consumers should view additional breadth consumption experiences as non informative (e.g., redundant with the existing knowledge structure). Instead, experts should focus on developing a better understanding of the subtleties of consumption experience within a preferred cluster of products and, thus, allow new dimensions of experience to emerge. To the extent these new dimensions of experience emerge, future consumption experiences should be more richly represented and the appreciation for these experiences should be enhanced. Thus, expert consumers should prefer to enhance their depth of consumption knowledge in a product category b y experiencing products that (a) are similar to currently known favorites and (b) are likely to suggest new dimensions of experience. H2 : Expert consumers should prefer novel depth over novel breadth consumption experiences within a product category.

PAGE 18

18 In summary, novices and experts seek to more richly represent consumption experiences (i.e., develop their consumption knowledge) and, consequently, enhance their appreciation of future consumption experiences. What differs is the tactic for developing their consumption knowledge (i.e., consuming novel breadth vs. novel depth experiences).

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 4 HEIGHTENING HEDONIC APPRECIATION As stated, we believe consumers are motivated to selectively accrue consumption knowledge as a means of enhancing their hedonic appreciation of subsequent consumption experiences. Thus, after sampling a novel experience that enhances their current knowledge base (e.g., novices/breadth experiences, experts/depth experiences), consumers should not only anticipate greater appreciatio n during future consumption but in fact experience greater appreciation during future consumption. This link between selective experiential trial and future hedonic satisfaction may be due to several sensory or psychologically based processes, such as: ( preferences, or (4) generating the expectation of enhanced satisfaction. Identifying New Attributes On e potential consequence of consumption knowledge acquisition is that consumers become more calibrated to the types of knowledge that further enhances their existing knowledge. As noted, greater experience with a product category results in more refined con consumption knowledge becomes more refined, the possibility exists that knowledge accrual further calibrates consumers to new attributes that meet their knowledge acquisition goals. That is, novices should be more calibrated to identify attributes that signal breadth knowledge and experts should be more calibrated to identify attributes that signal depth knowledge. For instance, novices may be better able to identify new experiences that develop thei r sensory differentiation across a product category (e.g.,

PAGE 20

20 knowing the differences between a Pinot Grigio and a Cabernet Sauvignon). Conversely, experts may be better able to identify new experiences that refine the sensitivity of their sensory structure a round a preferred exemplar (e.g., knowing the subtleties of different Cabernet Sauvignons). experiential knowledge can enhance their appreciation of future consumption experienc es (Hoeffler, Ariely, and West 2006; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982). Here, however, the contention is that knowledge accrual further calibrates novices and experts to new experiences and thus the identification of new attributes that further meet their knowl edge consumption pursuits. In short, then, the acquisition of knowledge may beget the ability to more accurately identify new knowledge and, consequently, further enhance the appreciation of the consumption experience. Enhancing Consumption Vocabulary An a lternative means by which knowledge acquisition can increase future consumption satisfaction is by enhancing the consumption vocabulary of novices and experts. Formally, a consumption vocabulary is a structure that allows consumers to identify product feat ures and evaluate those features with respect to their evaluation of the product (Hoch and Deighton, 1989). Informally, a consumption vocabulary is what allows consumers to encode prior consumption experiences as well as then express their reactions to cur rent consumption experiences. For instance, a consumption vocabulary aids an avid sports fan by providing a readily available structure to understand the features of a game and facilitate the expression of those features (and any preferences to those featu res) to others. Importantly, we posit that the selective knowledge pursuits of novices and experts should enhance their consumption

PAGE 21

21 vocabulary by providing additional features of breadth or depth knowledge, respectively. abulary should develop as they gain new experiential knowledge (Latour and Latour 2010). spontaneous learning (West et al. 1996). Specifically, the presence of a consumption vocabulary c additional, previously unknown attributes. In their research, West et al. (1996) showed that consumers provided with an existing consumption vocabulary developed that vocabulary over time. The reason for this temporal enhancement in vocabulary, they argued, was that an existing consumption vocabulary provides consumers the opportunity to immediately assimilate new attributes into this existing structure. As such, this process of emergent learnin g and the heightened consumption vocabulary it engenders may allow consumers to identify new attributes in future consumption experiences. Thus, enhancing the consumption vocabulary of novices and experts through their selective knowledge pursuits should a llow both types of consumers to identify new and relevant attributes in future consumption experiences that offer the potential to heighten their appreciation. As an aside, it might also be possible that a consumption vocabulary provides a structure to mor e readily identify the impo rtant or critical attributes in the consumption consumption vocabulary heightens the salience of the most critical attributes to the consumpti on experience. Though purely speculative, this possibility would suggest that is enhanced

PAGE 22

22 attributes with the greatest probability to increase the hedonic value of the experience during f different dimensions of the consumption experience may in turn heighten the salience of those attributes that greatly improve the hedonic value of the experience. The result should still be greater appreciation, though in this latter case the appreciation occurs absent the identification of new attributes. Additionally, psychological processes may also exert an important infl uence on this process. Indeed, an alternative means by which the accrual of consumption knowledge can enhance future consumption appreciation is by reinforcing the reasons that underlie an existing prefere nce (i.e., an ideal point: see F igure 1 1 ). Conside r, for instance, a novice who tries a new Syrah. Though this novel experience may not identify new attributes nor enhance the salience of critical attributes, it may reinforce the a fruity flavor really is important to my preference for Merlot). That is, novel trial might heighten The possibility that experiences can reinforce the reasons underlying an existing p reference is not new. For instance, the ease with which reasons come to mind (Briol, Petty, and Tormala 2006; Clarkson, Tormala, and Leone 2011), the amount of time 2012), and the credibility of the source of the reasons (Briol, Petty, and Tormala 2004) preference (for a review, see Briol and Petty 2009). Here, however, the argument is speci fic to the validating role of different types of novel experiences specifically, that

PAGE 23

23 breadth and depth experiences are more or less likely to reinforce (and thus heighten confidence in) the reasons of novices and experts, respectively. Most importantly, however, this confidence may in turn lead to heightened appreciation for future consumption experiences for at least four reasons. First, there is a well documented link between confidence and satisfaction across a variety of domains (e.g., Fin and Kulik 2 002; Sadler 1970; Smith and Roehrs 2009). Yet while confidence and satisfaction often highly correlate, limited evidence suggests the causal link between confidence and satisfaction is stronger than the casual link between satisfaction and confidence (Bay and Petersen 2004). Second, confidence may draw effectively on prior Hardesty, and Rose 2001 p.123). Third, confiden ce may favorably bias the perception of future performance for instance, by creating a positive illusion that people seek to confirm in subsequent experiences (e.g., Murray, Holmes, and Griffin 1996; Spreng and Page 2001). Fourth, confidence may serve as a n internal cue to satisfaction on subsequent experiences, as individuals rely not only on sensory perceptions but psychological states (e.g., mood: Weiner, Russell and Lerman 1979; Westbrook and Oliver 1991) to infer satisfaction. Expecting Enhanced Satisf action An alternative psychological mechanism is that knowledge accrual can activate expectations specific to the satisfaction of future consumption experiences. For instance, consumers who expect less return on an experience (e.g., by paying a discounted price for a product) are shown to actually derive less benefits from the experience (Shiv, Carmon, and Ariely 2005). Moreover, these expectancies have been

PAGE 24

24 shown to have direct implications for experiential satisfaction. Consider that drinks labeled with a (McClure et al. 2004). Similarly, the same meat positioned as 75% fat free as opposed to 25% fat free is also reported to taste better (Levin and Gaeth 1988). Thus, the mere expectat ion of enhanced performance (e.g., a preferred brand, a higher quality meat) resulted in enhanced hedonic satisfaction, despite no objective product differences. Though the reason for these expectancy/placebo effects is unclear, both psychological and neu rological evidence offer tentative support for these findings. Specifically, merely anticipating an event to occur increases the probability of the fulfilling prophecy (Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968) is argued to occur because individuals who believe an action to occur non consciously engage in behaviors that confirm the initial belief. Separately, evidence links similar expectancy effects to heightened activation in the medial orbitofrontal cortex, an area of the brain associa Rangel 2008). In this work, participants sampled wines they believed to be different and of various price while being scanned by an MRI. Though the wines did not vary, the area of the brain associated with experienced pleasantness showed different levels of Here, then, the acquisition of knowledge may activate an expectation of greater satisfaction. If true, then t his expectation could result in heightened hedonic satisfaction by either eliciting a belief that could serve as a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts or activating brain areas related to the experience of pleasantness.

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 5 OVERVIEW OF EXPERIMENTS Fo ur experiments document how a consumer strategically selects novel consumption experiences. In E xperiment 1, we show that novices prefer a novel product experience that is more diverse (henceforth breadth knowledge ) and experts prefer a novel product exper ience that is more clustered (henceforth depth knowledge ) (see F igure 1 1 ). Novices (experts) believe that the breadth (depth) experience will better enhance their appreciation of future consumption experiences. In E xperiment 2, we show that these preferen ces for breadth and depth consumption experiences are mediated by the desire for the type of consumption knowledge the experiences are anticipated to provide. In E xperiment 3, we provide further insight into the source of the breadth (depth) knowledge cont ained in a consumption experience. In E xperiment 4, we knowledge depends on the motivation t o better appreciate future consumption experiences.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 6 EXPERIMENT 1 Experiment 1 consisted of two studies designed to show that novices (experts) prefer novel breadth (depth) consumption experiences because these experiences have the potential to e nhance the appreciation of future consumption experiences. Experiment 1a asked participants to make a choice between novel vinaigrette salad dressings that offered either a breadth or a depth consumption experience. Consistent with hypotheses 1 and 2, we p redicted that novices (experts) would prefer novel breadth (depth) consumption experiences. Experiment 1b presented participants with a novel breadth or depth consumption experience and assessed the extent to which novices and experts believed the experien ce would increase their appreciation of future consumption experiences. Consistent with our assumption, we expected that matching breadth, expert depth) should result in an ex pectation of increased appreciation of future consumption. We posit that the motivation to try novel consumption experiences, and acquire additional experiential consumption knowledge, is a consequence of subjective consumption knowledge (Beatty and Smith 1987). Consumers must perceive that their current level of consumption knowledge is insufficient, in a specific way (e.g., novices must perceive that they lack breadth knowledge, experts must perceive that they lack depth knowledge), in order to seek out n ovel experiences. Yet, the subjective perception of a consumption knowledge deficit must depend, to a large extent, on objective consumption expertise. Thus, E xperiment 1 measured both subjective and objective expertise. We anticipated parallel results acr oss the two independent

PAGE 27

27 measures, but included both measures because of the implicit assumption that objective consumption expertise is a source of subjective perceptions of consumption expertise. Pretest Italian salad dressings that offered a breadth (si milar to product A in F igure 1 1 ) or d epth (similar to product I in Fi gure 1 1 ) consumption experience were selected using a pretest (N = 50). When choosing the breadth option, we sought an Italian dressing flavor that was atypical. We chose Wishbone Supe rberry Italian because the emphasized an uncommon flavor dimension for Italian dressings (e.g., fruit). When choosing the depth option, we sought an Italian dressing flavor that was typically Italian, but still different. We chose Wishbone the prototypic style of Italian dressing. Participa nts received a description of either Wishbone Superberry Italian or Wishbone Robusto Italian vinaigrette (absent the branding information). Participants were then asked to rate the extent to which consuming the vinaigrette would increase their breadth an d depth of experiential consumption knowledge. Measures were developed based on the reasoning presented in F igure 1 1 To assess the extent to which the experience offered breadth knowledge How much would tasting this vinaigrette help you to understand the differences between various types of vinaigrettes? this vinaigrette increas these measures emphasize the different subcategories of Italian dressings. To assess

PAGE 28

28 the extent to which the experience offered depth knowledge participants were asked: How much would t asting this vinaigrette help you to understand the similarities tasting this vinaigrette help you to categorize new vinaigrettes within your preferred type and Note that these measures emphasize a single, dominant subcategory of Italian dressings. Respons es were provided on 9 point scales anchored at Not at all Very much and averaged across the breadth composite indices of each construct. The order in which participants responded to the breadth or depth items was randomized. Responses were submitted to paired t type of knowledge acquisition separately for the breadth and depth experience. Consistent with expectations, the description of the Wishbone Superberry Itali an vinaigrette was rated as significantly more likely to offer breadth ( M = 5.56, SD = 1.71) as opposed to the depth ( M = 4.28, SD = 2.12) knowledge ( t (24) = 5.03, p < .001). Conversely, the description of the Wishbone Robusto Italian vinaigrette was rate d as significantly more likely to offer depth ( M = 5.35, SD = 1.66) as opposed to the breadth ( M = 2.88, SD = 1.83) knowledge ( t (24) = 6.40, p < .001). Experiment 1a consumpt ion expertise influenced the desire to try a novel product that would provide a breadth or a depth consumption experience.

PAGE 29

29 Method Participants and Design One hundred four undergraduate business students participated in return for extra credit. The independ ent variables (subjective and objective experiential consumption knowledge about vinaigrettes) were measured. The dependent measure was a choice between the two types of vinaigrettes. Procedure Participants were informed that the purpose of the study was t o understand consumers' desires for consuming different types of salad dressings. Participants were presented with two clear condiment cups, one containing a tablespoon of Wishbone Superberry Italian and the other containing a tablespoon of Wishbone Robu sto Italian vinaigrette. Each cup was accompanied by the same descriptions used in the pretest. Participants were asked to indicate which dressing they would like to try using a forced choice measure. To remain consistent with the cover story, participants were then asked to taste their selected product and rate the product on a series of items. Following the tasting, participants completed a questionnaire about their expertise with various products. Embedded within this questionnaire were the subjective a nd objective expertise items for vinaigrettes. For subjective expertise, participants used nine point scales to indicate their knowledge ( Not knowledgeable at all Very knowledgeable ), expertise ( Not much expertise at all A lot of expertise ), informatio n ( Not much information at all A lot of information ), and understanding ( Not much understanding at all A lot of understanding ) of vinaigrettes. For objective expertise, participants used nine point scales to indicate how many different varieties of vin aigrettes they had tried ( A small number A large number ), how often they tried

PAGE 30

30 vinaigrettes ( Rarely Frequently ), how frequently they ate vinaigrettes ( Not often at all Very often ), and how often they used vinaigrettes ( Rarely Frequently ). The objec tive expertise scale was used in lieu of an attempt to develop a scale measuring the dimensional representation of novices and experts (e.g., creamy, oily, sweet, salty, peppery, herby). It was assumed that consuming a greater variety of vinaigrettes, on m ore occasions, should result in more experiential knowledge (Park et al. 1994). The ordering of the expertise measures was randomized. Results A varimax rotation of a principal component factor analysis of the objective and subjective expertise items reve aled two dominant components. The first component (eigenvalue = 3.31) consisted of the four subjective expertise items (all loadings > .83; all other loadings < .42) and accounted for 41% of variance in responses. These items were averaged to form a compos component (eigenvalue = 2.82) consisted of the four objective expertise items (all loadings > .69; all other loadings < .36) and accounted for 35% of variance in responses. These items were averaged t o form a composite index of objective expertise significantly correlated ( r = .61, p < .001). The choice data were submitted to two logistic regressions, with subjective e xpertise (continuous, mean centered) and objective expertise (continuous, mean centered) as the predictor in each analysis, respectively. There was a significant main effect of subjective expertise ( 2 = 9.78, p < .01; hereafter all report ed are standardized) and objective expertise ( 2 = 9.26, p < .01) on choice. To help better appreciate the results, the probability of selecting the depth

PAGE 31

31 vinaigrette was calculated for a participant at one standard deviation below/above the mean level of subjective expertise. At one standard deviation below the mean (novices), the probability of selecting the depth vinaigrette was .4, whereas at one standard deviation above the mean (experts) the probability of selecting the depth vinaig rette was .74. An analysis of objective expertise showed similar effects for novices (probability = .4) and experts (probability = .73). Experiment 1b Experiment 1b was designed to show that when novices (experts) experience a novel breadth (depth) consump tion experience, novices (experts) rate the breadth (depth) experience as affording more appreciation for future consumption experiences in the product category. Method Participants and Design Three hundred fourteen undergraduate business students particip ated in return for extra credit. Participants were randomly assigned to taste a breadth (Wishbone Superberry Italian), depth (Wishbone Robusto Italian), or exemplar/control (Wishbone Italian) vinaigrette. The second independent variable (subjective and objective experiential knowledge about vinaigrettes) was measured. The dependent measure was the anticipated appreciation of the future consumption of vinaigrettes. Procedure Participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to understand consu mers' desires for consuming different types of salad dressings. Participants were presented with a single clear condiment cup containing one tablespoon of Wishbone Superberry Italian (breadth experience), Wishbone Robusto Italian (depth experience),

PAGE 32

32 or W ishbone Italian (common exemplar experience). The breadth and depth samples were accompanied by the same product description as in E xperiment 1a and the dressing and then i ndicated the extent to which they would enjoy, find satisfaction in, and appreciate eating vinaigrettes in the future on 9 point scales anchored from Not much at all to Very much Responses were averaged to form a composite index of the indicating an expectation of greater future appreciation. Finally, participants completed the same subjective and objective expertise measures used in E xperiment 1a ( r = .57, p < .001). Results The analysis revealed a significant experience type subjective expertise interaction ( = .43, t (310) = 2.89, p = .001). As i llustrated in the top panel of F igure 6 1 a spotlight analysis at /+ one standard deviation from the subjective expertise mean (following the recommendations of Aiken and West 1991) revealed that novices anticipated more future appreciation after tasting the breadth product relative to either the depth product ( = .28, t (207) = 2.88, p = .001) or the exemplar product ( = .37, t (200) = 3.82, p < .001), which did not differ from each other ( = .09, t (217) = 1.06, p = .29). Conversely, experts anticipated more future appreciation after tasting the depth product relative to either the breadth product ( = .32, t (207) = 3.49, p = .001) or the exemplar product ( = .39, t (217) = 4.38, p < .001), which did not differ from each other ( = .08, t (200) = .80, p = .43). The objective expertise analysis replicated the subjective expertise analysis. There was a significant experience type objective expertise interaction ( = .33, t (310)

PAGE 33

33 = 2.01, p < .05). As illu strated in the bottom panel of F igure 6 1 the objective expertise mean revealed that novices anticipated more future appreciation after tasting the b readth product relative to either the depth product ( = .24, t (207) = 2.50, p = .01) or the product exemplar ( = .37, t (200) = 3.93, p < .001), which did not differ from each other ( = .14, t (217) = 1.55, p = .12). Conversely, experts anticipated more future appreciation after tasting the depth product relative to either the breadth product ( = .27, t (207) = 2.86, p = .001) or the exemplar product ( = .31, t (317) = 3.58, p < .001), which did not differ from each other ( = .05, t (200) = .53, p = .59) Discussion Experiment 1 demonstrated that novices (experts) prefer novel breadth (depth) consumption experiences because these experiences were anticipated to enhance the appreciation of future consumption experiences. Experiment 1a showed that novices ( experts) preferred a novel experience that offered breadth (depth) experiential knowledge. Experiment 1b showed that when novices (experts) were forced to have a novel breadth (depth) consumption experience, this experience created a stronger expectation t hat future experiences would be more appreciated. Consumers, then, appear to have an implicit understanding of the value of different novel consumption experiences.

PAGE 34

34 FIGURE 6 1. R esults of E xperiment 1b

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 7 EXPERIMENT 2 Experiment 1 assess experience ( E xperiment 1a) and the perceived value of this experience for appreciating future consumption experiences ( E xperiment 1b). However, these experiments assume that the desire for a sp ecific type of consumption knowledge was responsible for the preferences of the novices and experts. In E xperiment 2, we directly tested this assumption in three important ways. First, we incorporated a direct operationalization of the type of experiential knowledge available in order to clarify the extent to which consumers do in fact distinguish between breadth and depth experiences. Second, we experiences but also the anticipated va lue of accruing either breadth or depth of knowledge from the experiences. Third, we manipulated (instead of measured) subjective knowledge to offer a stronger causal attribution about the consequences of experiential expertise. These procedural changes, t ested over two experiments, allowed us to assess whether specific types of novel consumption experiences are selected because they are expected to enhance a specific type of consumption knowledge (e.g., breadth knowledge versus depth knowledge). Experimen t 2a consumption expertise determines their desire for a breadth or a depth experience when the knowledge value of the experiences is explicitly described.

PAGE 36

36 Method Participants and Design One hundred twenty Mechanical Turk participants were paid a nominal fee to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to either a novice or expert knowledge condition prior to reporting their choice between a series of novel breadth and depth consumption experiences. Given the parallel results for the subjective and o bjective expertise measures in E xperiment 1, we elected to focus on subjective (rather than objective) expertise in the remaining experiments. Procedure Participants were told th ey would be completing a study about music and, as such, were immediately asked to indicate their expertise about music. Specifically, participants indicated the extent to which they considered, defined, and labeled themselves as an expert on music. Howeve r, to vary subjective expertise, participants responded to these items on biased scales so as to alter their perceived expertise (Tormala and DeSensi 2008). Thus, in the novice condition, responses were provided on 5 point scales anchored at Do not conside r myself an expert Somewhat consider myself an expert Do not define myself as an expert Somewhat define myself as an expert and Do not label myself as an expert Somewhat label myself as an expert Conversely, in the expert condition, responses were provided on 5 point scales anchored at Somewhat consider myself an expert Definitely consider myself an expert Somewhat define myself as an expert Definitely define myself as an expert and Somewhat label myself as an expert Definitely label myself as an expert To assess the efficacy of the manipulation, we conducted a pretest ( N = 60) in which participants were presented with this biased scale manipulation prior to indicating

PAGE 37

37 their subjective expertise of music on the same scale used in E xperimen t 1 (knowledge: Not knowledgeable at all Very knowledgeable expertise: Not much expertise at all A lot of expertise information: Not much information at all A lot of information and understanding Not much understanding at all A lot of understand ing manipulation ( t (58) = 7.02, p < .001), such that novices ( M = 3.86, SD = 1.52) reported significantly less subjective expertise than did experts ( M = 6 .60, SD = 1.49). Following the expertise manipulation, participants were told that people often have the opportunity to listen to, and thus experience, any type of music they want. Our intent was to better understand those preferences. We then presented p articipants with four music related choices and asked them to indicate which alternative they would prefer to experience. Each of the four choices pitted a novel breadth experience against a novel depth experience, with breadth and depth defined by our ope rationalization of the constructs. Specifically, participants were asked to indicate whether they would prefer a novel experience consisting of: (1) one or two songs from a variety of different music genres (breadth) versus a variety of songs from their pr eferred music genre (depth), (2) a selection of classic songs that defined a variety of different music genres (breadth) versus a selection of classic songs that defined their preferred music genre (depth), (3) a selection of songs that influenced a new mu sic genre (breadth) versus a selection of songs that influenced the unique features of their preferred genre (depth), and (4) a selection of songs from an emerging genre of music (breadth) versus a selection of songs from an emerging group in their preferr ed genre (depth). The choices themselves, as well as the order of the breadth and depth experiences within each pair,

PAGE 38

38 were counterbalanced, and responses were scored such that selecting a breadth experience was coded as 0 and selecting a depth experience w as coded as 1. Responses were then averaged across the four choices to create a composite index of choice ( = .73). Therefore, values on this choice index could range between 0 and 1. Results We submitted the choice index to a t test, with expertise as th e independent variable. Results indicated a significant main effect of expertise ( t (118) = 7.07, p < .001). Consistent with expectations, the preferences of novices ( M = .22, SD = .30) were significantly lower than chance ( t (59) = 7.40, p < .001), whereas the preferences of experts ( M = .61, SD = .32) were significantly greater than chance ( t (59) = 2.75, p < .01). These findings suggest that novices were more likely to choose the breadth experience, whereas experts were more likely to choose the depth expe rience. Experiment 2b/c Experiment 2b/c was designed to offer converging evidence that novices (experts) desire breath (depth) experiences because they want to enhance their breadth (depth) knowledge. Unlike E xperiment 2a, where participants were given a choice between breadth and depth experiences, participants in E xperiment 2b/c were asked to assess the appeal of the music based breadth ( E xperiment 2b) or depth ( E xperiment 2c) experiences. Afterwards, participants were asked whether they thought these ex periences would enhance their breadth knowledge, depth knowledge, heighten their consumption stimulation (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 1996; Raju, 1980), bolster their social standing (Ratner and Kahn 2002), and further justify their existing preferences. We anticipated that the desire to enhance breadth (depth) knowledge would mediate the influence of expertise on the desire to have breadth (depth) experiences,

PAGE 39

39 independent of the other motivations for having novel experiences (e.g., stimulation, social standi ng, justification). In addition, the fact that the appeal of the breadth and depth experiences was assessed in separate experiments meant that participants were unlikely to be aware of the tradeoff between listening to different / similar music, the implic ation being that all mediators should seem plausible to the participant. Method Participants and Design One hundred eighty Mechanical Turk participants were paid a nominal fee to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to a novice or expert co ndition in E xperiment 2b (assess the appeal of the music based breadth experience) or E xperiment 2c (assess the appeal of the music based depth experience). Ten participants indicated that they had not fully read the instructions or questions and were remo ved from the analysis (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko 2009). Consequently, 89 participants assessed the appeal of breadth consumption experiences ( E xperiment 2b) and 81 participants assessed the appeal of depth consumption experiences ( E xperiment 2c). Procedure in E xperiment 2a, the subjective expertise of the participants was manipulated using biased scales (Tormala and DeSensi 2008). Next, one half of the participants were asked to assess the appeal of the four novel breadth music experiences ( E xperiment 2b) and one half of the participants were asked to assess the appeal of the four novel depth music experiences ( Experiment 2c) (see E xperiment 2a for items). The appeal of the experiences was measured using a 9 point scale anchored at Would definitely not

PAGE 40

40 choose this experience Would definitely choose this experience Responses were averaged across the four breadth ( = .89) and four depth ( = .77) experiences to create c omposite indices of the appeal of the experiences, with higher values indicating a greater willingness to try the experience. Following the appeal of experience measures, participants responded to five potential mediators. Each mediator referred directly to the four experiences that had just enhance breadth knowledge and enhance depth knowledge participants responded to the breadth ( = .90) and depth ( = .85) scales described in the pretest for E xperiment 1, expectation that the experiences would heighten their level of stimulation participants were ask something merely fo ( = .84). expectation that the experiences would bolster their social standing participants were How much would these experiences enhance your ability to have more experiences increase = .88). that the experiences would further their preference justificatio n participants were asked: How much would these experiences resolve any uncertainty in your preferred music

PAGE 41

41 increase your ( = .88). Note that responses to all items were provided on 9 point scales anchored at Not much at all Very much Additionally, items were averaged to form a composite index for each potential benefit. Finally, the three items for each composite were pre sented together, though the order in which each composite was presented to participants was randomized. Results Means and standard deviations for all indices are presented in Table 7 1. All indices were submitted to a two way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), with perceived expertise as the independent variable. TABLE 7 1. Results of E xperiment 2b/c Breadth experience Depth experience Measure Novices Experts Novices Experts Experiential preference 7.10 (1.33) 6.18 (1.98) 6.37 (1.24) 7.31 (1.21) Breadth of knowledge 7.18 (1.35) 6.30 (1.92) 6.25 (1.55) 6.61 (1.96) Depth of knowledge 6.32 (1.57) 6.02 (1.65) 6.06 (1.40) 7.07 (1.29) Optimal stimulation 6.56 (1.60) 5.95 (2.04) 6.51 (1.52) 6.00 (2.04) Social interaction 5.76 (1.99) 5.38 (2.08) 5.58 (1.98) 5 .41 (1.59) Preference justification 6.89 (1.98) 5.56 (2.12) 5.76 (1.83) 6.14 (2.03) When the type of consumption experiences available were breadth experiences ( E xperiment 2b), novices ( M = 7.10) rated the experiences more appealing than experts ( M = 6 .18; F (1, 87) = 6.56, p < .05). With respect to the potential mediators, novices indicated that the experiences were more likely to enhance their breadth knowledge ( M novice = 7.18, M expert = 6.30; F (1, 87) = 5.99, p < .05), but have no influence on their d epth knowledge ( M novice = 6.32, M expert = 6.02; F (1, 87) = .75, p > .05), level of stimulation ( M novice = 6.56, M expert = 5.96; F (1, 87) = 2.39, p > .05), social standing

PAGE 42

42 ( M novice = 5.76, M expert = 5.38; F (1, 77) = .38, p > .05), or preference justificatio n ( M novice = 5.890, M expert = 5.56; F (1, 87) = .45, p > .05). To assess whether desire to enhance breadth knowledge mediated the relationship between expertise and the appeal of the breadth experiences, the INDIRECT macro was used (Hayes and Preacher 2008 2012). Following the recommendations of Preacher and Hayes (2008), we used bootstrapping procedures to simultaneously compute a confidence interval (CI) around the indirect effect of the mediators in a model that included (1) the desire to enhance breadt h and depth knowledge and (2) all five mediators. In the first model, the CI for breadth knowledge (95% CI: .96 to .06) was significantly different from zero, but the CI for depth knowledge (95% CI: .28 to .05) was not In the second model, the CI for b readth knowledge (95% CI: 1.07 to .03) was significantly different from zero, but the CIs for depth knowledge (95% CI: .30 to .04), stimulation (95% CI: .42 to .07), social standing (95% CI: .05 to .30), and preference justification (95% CI: .23 to 06) were not. Including all respondents in the model ( n = 93) did not influence the results of the first model, but made all CIs in the second model insignificant. We conclude that novices wanted breadth experiences because of their desire to enhance bread th knowledge, an influence that persisted after controlling for other potential mediating factors. When the type of consumption experiences available were depth experiences ( E xperiments 2c), experts ( M = 7.31) rated the experiences more appealing than nov ices ( M = 6.37; F (1, 79) = 11.99, p < .05). With respect to the potential mediators, experts indicated that the experiences were more likely to enhance their depth knowledge ( M novice = 6.06, M expert = 7.07; F (1, 79) = 11.38, p < .05), but have no

PAGE 43

43 influence on their breadth knowledge ( M novice = 6.25, M expert 6.61= ; F (1, 79) = .82, p > .05), level of stimulation ( M novice = 6.51, M expert = 6.00; F (1, 79) = 1.65, p > .05), social standing ( M novice = 5.58, M expert = 5.41; F (1, 79) = .18, p > .05), or preference justification ( M novice = 5.76, M expert = 6.14; F (1, 79) = .77, p > .05). To assess whether desire to enhance depth knowledge mediated the relationship between expertise and the appeal of the depth experiences, the INDIRECT macro was used (Hayes and Preac her 2008, 2012). Models with two sets of mediators were run: (1) the desire to enhance breadth and depth knowledge and (2) all five mediators. In the first model, the CI for depth knowledge (95% CI: .13 to .73) was significantly different from zero, but th e CI for breadth knowledge (95% CI: .04 to .21 ) was not In the second model, the CI for depth knowledge (95% CI: .16 to .84) was significantly different from zero, but the CIs for breadth knowledge (95% CI: .13 to .08), stimulation (95% CI: .31 to .03) social standing (95% CI: .06 to .15), and preference justification (95% CI: .25 to .04) were not. Including all respondents in the model ( n = 87) did not influence the results of the first or second model. We conclude that experts wanted depth experien ces because of their desire to enhance depth knowledge, an influence that persisted after controlling for other potential mediating factors. Discussion The findings across the two experiments are consistent with the findings of E xperiment 1; novices (exp erts) were more likely to choose a novel experience that offered the opportunity to accrue breadth (depth) experiential knowledge. Here, however, this difference was observed for experiences explicitly framed in a manner consistent with our definitions of breadth and depth. Indeed, expertise not only

PAGE 44

44 ( E the value of the anticipated knowledge to be gaine d ( E xperiment 2b/c). These findings, then, offer converging evidence that: (1) consumers do in fact distinguish between these different types of consumption knowledge, and (2) expertise alters the specific Moreove heighten their stimulation, bolster their social standing, or further justify their preferences. Of course, these findings do not discount these benefits as motivators of novelty seeking ; they do, however, strengthen our confidence in the unique motivating role of the desire for consumption knowledge in choosing novel experiences. Finally, we should note that the results of E xperiment 2 are especially interesting given prior work that su ggests experts are less intrinsically motivated than novices to gain new information (Wood and Lynch 2002). With respect to consumption experience, however, novices and experts were both willing to increase their knowledge, though the type of knowledge the y sought was different.

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 8 EXPERIMENT 3 In E xperiment 3, we sought to provide further evidence that consumption knowledge acquisition is a catalyst for trying novel consumption experiences. To provide this evidence, we directly manipulated the pe rceived value of the experiential information provided by the breadth or depth experience. We predicted that novices (experts) should be sensitive to this value manipulation for novel breadth (depth), but not depth (breadth), experiences. Experiment 3 also provided an additional test of the assumption that novices consume novel products in order to gain a diversity of experience (i.e., breadth), whereas experts consume novel products in order to refine the representation of a narrow set of experiences (i.e. depth) (see F igure 1 1). Consequently, we manipulated the variability of the critical experiential dimension offered by the novel product, anticipating that novices (experts) should be more willing to try a new product that offers significant knowledge o n a high (low) variability dimension. Method Participants and Design One hundred sixty undergraduate business students participated in return for extra credit. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 ( perceived expertise : novice or expert ) by 2 ( attribute variability : high or low) by 2 (anticipated knowledge potential: high or low) between participants factorial design. Procedure Participants were led to believe that the study was in collaboration with an independent marketing firm that wa

PAGE 46

46 toward a new beer called Old Oxford that was currently available in ten states and In the expert (novice) condition participants were told that we were interested in their college students, compared to the general population, have a substantial amount (base level) of knowledge about beer Consequently, for the topic of beer, college students are an excellent population to test how individuals with relatively high (low) knowledge make The effectiveness of this subjective expertise manipulation was assessed in a separate pilo t study ( N = 44). Participants were given the expertise manipulation and subsequently asked to indicate how much expertise they had about beer on a 9 point scale anchored from 1 ( Not much expertise at all ) to 9 (A lot of expertise) As expected, participan ts in the expert condition ( M = 4.83, SD = 2.32) reported having greater expertise about beer than did participants in the novice condition ( M = 3.20, SD = 1.80; t (42) = 2.57, p = .01.). Following this manipulation, all participants were then provided wit h background information about Old Oxford. This information described a fictitious attribute (i.e., the grain bill) and conveyed its supposed high level of importance to any beer recipe. Specifically, participants read: The amount of each starch source (quotes from a study reported by the New York Times in October, 2009). Indeed, this study reported that the grain bill was one of the most important components of a beer recipe.

PAGE 47

47 Additional information was used to communicate the variability of the grain bill across beers as well as the potential knowledge that could be acquired by sampling Old Oxford. Specifically, i n the high ( low) variability condition, participants further read that available to consumers. That includes beers produced both within the U.S. and high (low) knowledge potential After receiving this information, participants indicated their preference for Old Oxford (relative to their favorite beer). Participants were then debriefed and thanked for their participation. Results Product Pr eference The product preference data were submitted to a three way ANOVA, with perceived expertise attribute type and anticipated knowledge potential as independent variables. The results revealed a significant main effect of anticipated knowledge potent ial ( F (1, 152) = 10.89, p = .001), such that participants generally viewed the high knowledge product ( M = 4.43, SD = 2.85) as more attractive than the low knowledge product ( M = 3.20, SD = 2.50). However, this main effect was qualified by the predicted pe rceived expertise by attribute type by anticipated product knowledge interaction ( F (1, 152) = 12.71, p < .001). No other effects were significant (all p s > .31). This three way interaction is org anized by attribute type (see Fi gure 8 1 ). Under conditions o f high attribute variability, the perceived expertise by anticipated product knowledge interaction was significant ( F (1, 152) = 7.03, p < .01). As

PAGE 48

48 expected, novices found the product more attractive when it was expected to provide high ( M = 5.41, SD = 2.87 ) versus low ( M = 2.86, SD = 2.71) knowledge on the high variability attribute ( F (1, 152) = 10.39, p = .001). Conversely, experts were insensitive to the high ( M = 3.44, SD = 2.58) versus low ( M = 3.81, SD = 2.82) knowledge manipulation on the high variabi lity attribute ( F < 1). Under conditions of low attribute variability, the perceived expertise by anticipated product knowledge interaction was significant ( F (1, 152) = 5.91, p < .05). As expected, experts found the product to be more attractive when it w as expected to provide high ( M = 5.67, SD = 2.77) versus low ( M = 2.33, SD = 1.44) knowledge on the low variability attribute ( F (1, 152) = 11.66, p < .001). Conversely, novices were insensitive to the high ( M = 3.71, SD = 2.69) versus low ( M = 3.57, SD = 2 .24) knowledge manipulation on the low variability attribute ( F < 1). Discussion Experiment 3 demonstrated that natural facets of consumption experiences such as attribute variability can signal different types of knowledge acquisition opportunities. Spec ifically, when participants were led to believe that an attribute had high (low) variability, and that there was valuable experiential knowledge to be gained from this variability, novices (experts) were more willing to try the product. This pattern sugges ts that the high (low) variability of the attribute signaled an opportunity to gain breadth (depth) consumption knowledge. Consistent with E xperiment 2, then, these findings provide further support that the desire for consumption knowledge is driving consu seeking even when the

PAGE 49

49 knowledge benefits are conveyed through the framing of persuasive communications about the product. FI GURE 8 1. Results of E xperiment 3

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 9 EXPERIMENT 4 In E xperiment 4, we sought to confirm an implicit assumption of the first three experiments. Thus far, we have assumed that consumers are willing to vary their consumption experiences and acquire consumption knowledge because they are motivated to better appreciate future consumption experiences (see E xperiment 1). To motivation for novel consumption experiences. Sp ecifically, we presented consumers with one of three types of consumption motivations in E xperiment 4: enhanced appreciation for future consumption experiences social interaction or preference justification Our goal was to show that a preference for bre adth or depth consumption knowledge varied by consumption motive, thus, supporting the conclusion that the desire to enhance the appreciation of future consumption experiences is critical to our results. The first motivation was a desire to better appre ciate future consumption experiences. We anticipated that this motivation would result in novices (experts) preferring novel consumption experiences that enhanced their breadth (depth) of knowledge, as has been shown in prior experiments. The second motiva tion was social interaction We anticipated that a social interaction motive would encourage consumers to expand their breadth of consumption knowledge. Given that experiential learning is consequential for social competence/skill (McCrae 1996; Wolf et al. 2009), we reasoned that consumers would seek to expand the breadth of their consumption knowledge so as to be able to best demonstrate a social aptitude toward the greatest number of individuals. The third motivation was preference justification We antic ipated that a

PAGE 51

51 preference justification motive would encourage consumers to expand their depth of consumption knowledge. Given that greater complexity of information has been shown to increase evaluative certainty (Fabrigar et al. 2006), we reasoned that co nsumers would seek to expand the depth of their consumption knowledge so as to be able to reduce any uncertainty stemming from the need to justify their preferences Method Participants and Design One hundred thirty five undergraduate business students part icipated in return for extra credit. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 ( perceived expertise : novice or expert ) by 2 (consumption knowledge : breadth or depth) by 3 (consumption motivation: appreciation for future consumption, social i nteraction, or preference justification) between participants factorial design. Procedure Participants were led to believe the study was in collaboration with an preferences toward a new beer called New Haven. Similar to E xperiment 3, participants were further informed that the beer was currently available in ten states and would soon be available in locally. Following this background information, participants were exposed to the same subjective expertise manipulation as in E xperiment 3. To manipulate the opportunity for consumption knowledge, participants were then presented with an advertisement ostensibly for a New Zealand beer called New Haven. The advertisement positioned New Have n as a source of either breadth or depth of knowledge. In the breadth focused condition, participants received an ad stating New

PAGE 52

52 to suggest that the beer was substanti ally different on a meaningful consumption dimension, thus, could provide consumption information valued by novices (i.e., expand knowledge). In effect, the ad was meant to suggest the beer was like product A, C, G, or E in F igure 1 1 In the depth focused condition, participants received an ad stating New the beer was similar to generally preferred beers, thus, could provide consumption information valued by experts (i. e., enrich knowledge). In effect, the ad was meant to suggest the beer was like product I, J, K, or L in F igure 1 1 The effectiveness of the consumption knowledge manipulation was assessed in a separate pilot study ( N = 70). Participants received either t beer would increase their breadth and depth of consumption knowledge. Participants responded to the same breadth ( = .89) and depth ( = .89) scales used in E xperiment 1 and 2b but amended to relate to the product category of beer. Responses were submitted to paired t separately for the breadth and depth experience. Consis M = 6.50, SD = 1.76) as opposed to the depth ( M = 5.14, SD = 2.08) of knowledge ( t (38) = 3.64, p more likely to offer depth ( M = 6.42, SD = 1.59) as opposed to the breadth ( M = 5.38, SD = 1.88) of knowledge ( t (30) = 3.50, p = .001). After reading the advertisement, participants were asked to respond to o ne of

PAGE 53

53 You are at a party and decide to have a beer. The cooler contains a variety of familiar beers, includi ng your appreciation for future consumption motive to enjoy your favorite beer or learn more about beer so that you can bett er appreciate social interaction motive condition, the scenario also stated: that you can have more informed conversations about the taste of preference justification opportunity to enjoy your favorite beer or learn more about beer so that you can resolve articipants indicated th eir preference for New Haven (relative to their favorite beer) using a 9 point semantic differential anchored at 1 ( Definitely choose my favorite beer ) to 9 ( Definitely choose New Haven ). Afterward, participants were debriefed and thanked for their partici pation. Results Product Preference The data were submitted to a three way ANOVA, with perceived expertise consumption knowledge and consumption motivation as independent variables. Results revealed a significant main effect of consumption motive ( F (2, 1 23) = 3.54, p = .03) that was qualified by a significant consumption motive by consumption knowledge interaction ( F (2, 123) = 5.92, p < .01). Additionally, the results revealed a marginal perceived expertise by consumption knowledge interaction ( F (1, 123) = 3.15, p < .08) in a pattern consistent with E xperiment 2. These effects, however, were qualified by a significant perceived expertise by consumption knowledge by consumption motivation

PAGE 54

54 interaction ( F (2, 123) = 3.47, p < .05). No other effects were signif icant (all F s < 1). This three way interaction is organiz ed by consumption motive (see Fi gure 9 1 ). When participants were motivated by the appreciation for future consumption the perceived expertise by consumption knowledge interaction was significant ( F (2, 123) = 9.55, p < .001). As expected, novices were significantly more likely to choose New Haven when the beer was described as offering breadth ( M = 6.00, SD = 1.71), as opposed to depth ( M = 3.71, SD = 2.56), consumption knowledge ( F (1, 123) = 4.29, p = .01). Conversely, experts were significantly more likely to choose New Haven when the beer was described as offering depth ( M = 5.14, SD = 2.71), as opposed to breadth ( M = 3.07, SD = 2.16), consumption knowledge ( F (1, 123) = 5.58, p < .01). When parti cipants were motivated by social interaction they were significantly more likely to choose New Haven when it was described as offering breadth ( M = 4.81, SD = 2.32), as opposed to depth ( M = 3.04, SD = 2.10), consumption knowledge ( F (1, 123) = 6.47, p = 001). No other effects were significant (all F s < 1). When participants were motivated by preference justification they were significantly more likely to choose New Haven when it was described as offering depth ( M = 6.00, SD = 2.63), as opposed to breadth ( M = 4.40, SD = 2.18), consumption knowledge ( F (1, 123) = 5.25, p < .01). No other effects were significant (all F s < 1). Discussion novel products determined the type of con sumption knowledge that was valued. When motivated by an appreciation for future consumption experiences, novices preferred novel consumption experiences that enhanced their breadth of knowledge, whereas experts preferred novel consumption experiences that enhanced their depth of

PAGE 55

55 knowledge. When motivated by social interaction, novices and experts preferred novel consumption experiences that enhanced their breadth of knowledge. When motivated by preference justification, novices and experts preferred novel consumption experiences that enhanced their depth of knowledge. FIGURE 9 1. Results of E xperiment 4

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 10 GENERAL DISCUSSION Four experiments provide evidence that consumers try novel consumption experiences to build their experiential consum ption knowledge, knowledge they believe will enhance their appreciation of future consumption experiences. In support of this argument, novice (expert) consumers selected consumption experiences that provided breadth (depth) consumption knowledge ( E xperime preference for breadth (depth) consumption knowledge was a consequence of wanting to better appreciate future consumption experiences ( E xperiment 1b, E xperiment 4). Novice (expert) consumers were shown to place more value on a cquiring breadth (depth) knowledge ( E xperiment 2). Finally, the anticipation of valuable breadth (depth) knowledge was shown to be a function of the variability (refinement) of the attribute that defined the consumption experience ( E xperiment 3). Collectiv ely, the results show that consumers strategically pursued novel consumption experiences that help develop their consumption knowledge (Beverland and Farrelly 2010). New Directions I Strategic Novelty seeking Consumers are not indiscriminate in their choi ce of novel experiences. Consumers, for instance, have been shown to strategically make consumption choices that protect special memories (Zauberman et al. 2009) as well as diversify their collection of memories (Ratner et al. 1999). The four experiments p resented here complement this research, as participants strategically made consumption choices based on both the actual ( E xperiment 1) and anticipated ( E xperiments 2 4) acquisition

PAGE 57

57 of consumption knowledge. More specifically, participants acquired knowle dge that enhanced their existing consumption expertise. These findings suggest that novelty seeking can be a selective process (Meyer et al. 1997). That is, our participants were not indiscriminately seeking novelty as a means of reducing product satiation (McAlister 1982), meeting an optimal level of stimulation (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 1996; Raju, 1980) or variety (van Trijp, Hoyer, and Inman 1996), or fulfilling a need to change decision strategies (Drolet 2002) each of these consumption motives could have been satisfied by any novel experience. To the contrary, our participants selectively sought out new experiences as a means of achieving specific consumption motives (e.g., appreciation for future consumption experiences, social interaction, preferenc e justification). Thus, future research should consider how other characteristics of novel consumption experiences (e.g., distinctiveness, complexity, availability) interface with consumption motives to influence the desirability of these experiences. Man aging Consumption Knowledge Acquisition Goals should be viewed as a tendency, not a doctrine. Novices may prefer breadth consumption knowledge, but depth consumption knowledge i s still a useful way to enhance appreciation for the small subset of products that are regularly consumed in a category. Experts may prefer depth consumption knowledge, but breadth consumption experiences will allow the expert to find other ideal points wi thin the product category (Lee, Sudhir, and Steckel 2002). Thus, an interesting research issue is identifying the moderators that discourage novices and experts from following their consumption knowledge acquisition tendencies. To illustrate, consider the following three possibilities.

PAGE 58

58 First, negative feedback on the consequences of acquiring consumption knowledge may encourage consumers to shift knowledge acquisition strategies (Hoeffler et al. 2006). Learning theory and goal systems theory both predict th at consumers will change their choices when feedback about the consequences of those choices is not positive (van Osselaer and Janiszewski 2012). Thus, if a novice selects a series of novel breadth experiences and finds that appreciation for the consumptio n in the product category is not being enhanced, the novice may assess whether acquiring depth consumption knowledge is useful. Similarly, if an expert selects a series of depth experiences and finds no improvement in appreciation for consumption experienc es, the expert may seek out some products that offer a novel breadth experience. In this case, the breadth experiences would not enhance appreciation for the current favorites, but they would provide an opportunity to identify additional favorites (i.e., n ew ideal points). Second, choice set novelty may encourage novices (experts) to choose depth (breadth) experiences. Choice set novelty occurs when all of the options in a choice set are unfamiliar. To illustrate, consider a consumer with low expertise in wine but high expertise in American beers. The consumer relocates to France, where the array of available wines and beers includes many European options, but few American options. In this situation, the individual may initially attempt to locate a new favo rite wine by selecting wines that have grape profiles that are similar to a prior favorite (e.g., find a decent Shiraz). As a wine novice, then, the increased risk of achieving a positive consumption outcome encourages the search for an option that is simi lar to a prior favorite and, consequently, generates depth consumption knowledge. Conversely, the same individual may initially sample a wide variety of beers in an attempt to map the

PAGE 59

59 new alternatives onto an existing knowledge structure and, thus, identif y potential areas for appreciation (breadth knowledge). Finally, contextual novelty may encourage novices (experts) to choose depth (breadth) experiences. To illustrate, consider a novice (expert) wine drinker that is asked to select a wine to pair with n ovel Asian cuisine. In this context, an attempt to gather certain types of consumption knowledge will be non diagnostic. To the extent the novice understands that the novel flavors of the food will lessen the diagnosticity of a breadth experience, the novi ce may choose to consume a favorite wine. Consuming a favorite wine will allow the novice to make inferences about the influence of the context (i.e., food flavors) on the consumption experience. Thus, the novel context is allowing consumption knowledge to emerge about the favorite (i.e., depth knowledge). Conversely, an expert may believe a novel context makes it difficult to refine appreciation for a given favorite (i.e., the context product interaction is anticipated to be too large relative to the store d representation of consumption experiences). Thus, the expert may gain more diagnostic knowledge by sampling products that may become new ideal points (i.e., products that are appropriate for the novel contexts). As a consequence, the expert chooses a bre adth experience. Short term vs. Long term Utility Maximization Research shows that consumers make short term choices that fail to maximize the utility of a consumption experience (Ratner et al. 1999; Simonson 1990). Our research is consistent with this con clusion. In the last two experiments, participants were asked to assess the appeal of the novel product relative to their favorite. A proportion of consumers (i.e., consumers that selected a scale value above the midpoint) indicated that the acquisition of consumption knowledge had greater utility

PAGE 60

60 than temporary hedonic maximization. Although the proportion of consumers willing to forego temporary hedonic maximization in favor of consumption knowledge was low (ranging from 43% to 48% when the type of inform ation available was beneficial), it is meaningful because we document a new motivation for doing so; participants were willing to abandon a short term hedonic maximization goal when presented with a novel consumption experience that met their desire for a specific type of consumption knowledge. This long term approach to utility maximization is at odds with a considerable amount of research documenting impulsive behavior, hyperbolic discounting, and need to experience immediate gratification. Understanding when and why consumers adopt this longer term view of utility maximization is an opportunity for future research (Meyer et al. 1997). It has been argued that consumers are being suboptimal when they fail to maximize happiness via their choices (Hsee and Hastie 2006). This perspective has led to a plethora of research documenting the biases that lead to suboptimal decisions, with many of these biases involving an improper prediction about a forthcoming consumption experience. For example, an impact bias in volves overestimating the benefits of an experience, a projection bias involves the failure to understand the state that will accompany the experience, a memory bias puts too much emphasis on peak end experiences or unusual experiences stored in memory, an d a belief bias encourages the incorrect weighting of the benefits that will be experienced (Hsee and Hastie 2006). However, when these processes lead to a poor forecast of the utility of an experience, it could be a bias that is due, in part, to the study of domains in which participants have limited consumption expertise. That is, when there is a suboptimal choice among

PAGE 61

61 potential experiences, it may be that these biases are masquerading for an underlying motivation to develop consumption knowledge. Ironic ally, then, suboptimal short term behavior may not be a bias. Instead, it may be necessary to provide the experiences that will result in a greater appreciation of consumption experiences, which in turn will facilitate long term happiness from consumption choices (Gibbs 1997). In short, hedonically suboptimal choices may be the only means by which consumers can ultimately gain optimal happiness. New Directions II Expertise as Progressive Knowledge Acquisition Goals desire to enhance their experiential expertise. Interestingly, however, the findings across experiments suggest that novices and experts appear to prefer different types of knowledge as a means of achieve the same desire namely, enhanced consumption knowl edge. As such, we wonder about the extent to which different types of novel experiences (e.g., breadth versus depth) satisfy different knowledge acquisition goals at different levels of expertise (e.g., novice versus experts, respectively). Indeed, while expertise is often operationalized as a continuum of accumulated knowledge (e.g., Czellar and Luna 2010; Maheswaran 1994; see Mitchell and Dacin 1996), conceptualizing expertise as a progressive pursuit of knowledge acquisition goals may offer a novel appr oach to the study of expertise that offers both a new perspective on existing questions and begets intriguing new questions. For instance, conceptual learning onto their sensory experiences despite repeated trial (see Latour and Latour 2010). However, if individuals are motivated only to establish a sensory

PAGE 62

62 structure within a product category (e.g., differentiating between an IPA, a Stout, and a wheat beer), then once the knowledg e goal is satisfied and that structure is in place consumers may no longer be motivated to develop their consumption knowledge within that product category. In turn, if the satisfaction of a sensory categorization activates a subsequent need to refine the sensitivity of this structure (e.g., differentiating between different types of wheat beers), then consumers should be motivated to further enhance their consumption knowledge by identifying within product category distinctions. Additionally, defining expe rtise in terms of goal activation allows for different subcategories of expertise to emerge. For instance, novices may not necessarily be individuals with minimal information about a product but instead individuals who are: (1) not motivated to develop a s ensory structure, (2) motivated to develop a sensory structure, or (3) satisfied with a developed sensory structure but not motivated to further refine that existing structure. Similarly, experts may not necessarily be individuals with considerable informa tion about a product but instead individuals who are: (1) motivated to refine their existing sensory structure, (2) motivated to extend their refined knowledge to cross category experiences, or (3) satisfied with their refined sensory structure but not mot ivated to extend their refined knowledge to cross category experiences. These subcategories are important because consumers that may appear the same in terms of their amount of knowledge (i.e., minimal/novice, considerable/expert) should have very differen t knowledge pursuits. To illustrate, consider the difference between two novice beer drinkers. Consumer A wants to develop a sensory structure developing a sensory st ructure. Both consumer A and B would be labeled novices in

PAGE 63

63 terms of the amount of knowledge they possess (i.e., both have a minimal amount of knowledge of beer), yet these novices have very different goals that should have very different consequences for t he types of consumption experiences they seek out. That is, consumer A should selectively seek out breadth experiences to develop a sensory structure, whereas consumer B should be indiscriminate in his/her experiential preferences. Additionally, this disti nction should still hold consequences even after consumer A develops a sensory structure. Of course, o nce consumer A establishes a sensory structure, then neither consumer A and B should be actively seeking to develop their consumption knowledge. Yet even at this point, these subcategories and the differences in their prior experiential pursuits they signal should still elicit important consequences. For instance, consumer A should be more interested in updating his/her sensory structure, hold any preferenc es about beer with more strength (as the preferences will be based on an established knowledge structure based on selective experiences), and even be more open to persuasive appeals to further refine their sensory structure. Finally, it is worth noting th at the results of E xperiment 4 suggest situational subjective/objective sense of accumulated consumption knowledge; specifically, the anticipation of social interactions may structure (e.g., individuals may seek to broaden their base of knowledge to more effectively relate and communicate with as well as convey their expertise to a set of individuals with a potentially diverse and idiosyncratic set of experiences) whereas the

PAGE 64

64 structure (e.g., individuals may seek to deepen their base of knowledge to best enhance the reasons underlying their preference ) Interestingly, then, these findings suggest that knowledge structure and more by the salient goals activated by either situational or dispositional (e.g., current level of subjective expertise) factors. Thus, redefining the pursuit of expertise as the pursuit of a progressive set of knowledge acquisition goals may prove to be a more fruitful means of identifying the consequences of expertise for consumption behavior. The Role of Social Consensus A key finding in the present research is that the type of experiences novices and experts desire to enhance their consumption knowledge differs drastically, such that novices desire breadth experiences and experts desire depth exp eriences. Yet what other facets of the experiential process differentially appeal to the knowledge pursuits of novices and experts? One possibility is the level of consensus associated with a novel experience. It is well established that consumers reflect on the opinions of others as a means of validating their own attitudes (e.g., Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989; see Festinger 1954). The dominant finding is that consumers receive greater validation often in the form of greater confidence or certainty in their opinion when they perceive their attitudes are shared by others (i.e., high consensus: Petrocelli, Tormala, and effect, such that both high and low social consens

PAGE 65

65 In particular, novices may show greater desire for experiences of high perceived consensus and experts for experiences of low perceive d consensus. For instance, a novice might find greater confidence in identifying a favorable choice that has received equally favorable reviews, whereas experts might find greater confidence in identifying a favorable choice that has received favorable alb eit mixed reviews. Of course, social consensus can be inferred through a host of different means, such as whether or not the experience is popular versus rare, typical versus atypical, familiar versus unfamiliar, or traditional versus untraditional. Howeve r, the high and low social consensus associated with novel experiences should be more or less diagnostic to the knowledge acquisition goals of novices and experts, respectively. Consequently, consumers who receive diagnostic experiences (e.g., novices/high consensus, experts/low consensus) should not only report greater knowledge acquisition but also greater confidence in their choices, preferences, and beliefs. Moreover, this effect could stem from multiple sources. For instance, it is possible that novic es are more risk averse and experts are more risk seeking. If true, then novices should be more likely to choose high consensus experiences when the experience is low in risk and experts should be more likely to choose low consensus experiences when the ex perience is high in risk. Alternatively, the diagnostic value of high and low social consensus could be driven by the social identification needs of novices and experts. Individuals are socially driven by both the desire to belong with others as well as th e desire to differentiate themselves from others (see Brewer 1991). Are novices, in general, more likely to seek out belonging and experts more likely to seek out differentiation? If so, then high social consensus should be more validating to

PAGE 66

66 consumers see king social acceptance or belonging (i.e., novices), whereas low social consensus should be more validating to consumers seeking social uniqueness or differentiation (i.e., experts). Exploration versus Exploitation Recent work on goal directed cognition sh ows that individuals approach information search very differently. Specifically, while some individuals will explore the entirety of an information space, others will exploit a focal subset of the space ( Hills, Todd, and Goldstone 2008, 2010 ). Moreover, th is difference in exploration versus exploitation can be activated by situational factors and carryover to subsequent tasks. For instance, individuals can be primed by a simple foraging task with either an exploration (i.e., forage in a search space where r esources are highly distributed across the space) or exploitation (i.e., forage in a search space where resources are clumped into localized sections within the space) focus, and this mindset will affect how individuals approach a subsequent problem solvin g task (e.g., explore new words versus exploit existing words in a word scramble task). In light of the present findings, one could argue the pursuit of breadth knowledge is a type of explorative learning process whereas the pursuit of depth knowledge is a type of exploitative learning process. If true, then it may be the case that an exploration mindset is sufficient to heighten the value of breadth experiences and an exploitation mindset is sufficient to heighten the value of depth experiences. That is, p riming consumers with an exploration/exploitation mindset (Hills et al. 2010,) might be sufficient to bias the value of breadth or depth experiences and consequently alter

PAGE 67

67 Moreover, it could be the case that novices and experts are more broadly driven by these different processes of information search, such that novices are more prone to engage in exploration whereas experts are more prone to engage in exploitation. In other words, consumers may initially expl ore a product category to find an ideal preference (consumers we label novices ), yet once they've identified that preference they exploit it via exploration of variants on the features that make the preference ideal to the consumer (consumers we label expe rts ). Indeed, the results of the present work suggest that the mere perception that one is either a novice or an expert ( E xperiments 2 4) is sufficient to activate these different search patterns and alter the value placed on breadth and depth experiences. Theories of Expertise As noted in the previous section, the present research supports the premise that novices and experts are biased by different information search patterns specifically, an exploration versus exploitation process, respectively (see Hill s et al. 2010). However, this argument presumes that consumers share a similar belief about how to develop expertise. In particular, this argument presumes a sequential process whereby consumers first acquire breadth of knowledge before next acquiring dept h of knowledge. Indeed, the present research argues this sequential process is what enhances the experiential appreciation of novices and experts alike. Yet consumers might have different beliefs about how to accrue consumption knowledge and, consequently, how appreciation is defined. Specifically, consumers might endorse an alternative sequential process whereby individuals first seek to exploit more nuanced experiences within a specific dimension of a product category before then exploring more general ex periences within the broader product category. For

PAGE 68

68 instance, a consumer may first seek to experience the intricacies of Cabernet Sauvignons before then using that consumption knowledge as a standard by which to accrue consumption knowledge across different types of wine. As such, depth knowledge might me more valued by and offer more appreciation to novices, whereas breadth knowledge might be more valued by and offer more appreciation to experts. This alternative means of defining expertise offers novel pos sibilities for both novices and experts with regards to the pursuit of consumption knowledge that at first blush might not appear valuable. For instance, novices may prefer novel experiences that are highly typical and do not vary within a specific product sub category, as experiential information that is common could be construed as highly diagnostic to learning the core attributes that define that specific sub category. Understanding the similarities (as opposed to the differences) between different Stout s, then, provides the novice consumer with the core attributes that define a Stout. Alternatively, experts may prefer novel experiences that are highly typical across different sub categories, as such experiential knowledge could be construed as highly dia gnostic to learning the core attributes that define the broader product category. Understanding the similarities (as opposed to differences) between Stouts and IPAs, then, provides the expert consumer with the core attributes that define the category of be er. Thus, understanding perhaps with respect to different information search processes may offer novel insights into an alternative progression of experiences by which expertise can be developed. Knowledge Expectancie s As alluded to earlier, the novelty seeking patterns described in these experiments cannot be explained by existing work on established motivators of variety

PAGE 69

69 seeking (see Kahn and Ratner 2005) and, as such, appear unique to the benefit of consumption know ledge. Indeed, many motivators of variety seeking may in fact offer a corresponding means by which consumers can develop their consumption knowledge. Consumers seeking out social acceptance or stimulation may seek out novel consumption experiences that als o develop their consumption expertise (over novel consumption experiences that only resolve social acceptance/stimulation). In fact, given the potential for knowledge acquisition in any novel consumption experience, consumers may consciously expect certain experiences to provide knowledge in addition to satisfying alternative consumption goals. Interestingly, such expectancy biases for consumption experiences that offer multiple consumption benefits may hold important implications for consumer satisfaction. Indeed, consumers might devalue a product that does not meet their a priori knowledge expectancies. For instance, the satisfaction of an hedonic experience may decrease when consumers expect the experience to simultaneously offer knowledge acquisition. Th at is, a hedonic experience that could but does not offer new knowledge may be appreciated less than the same experience that does not offer the opportunity for knowledge acquisition. Conversely, the satisfaction of a hedonic experience may increase when t regarding hedonic and knowledge benefits. More broadly, however, understanding the dynamics underlying experiences that offer the potential to satisfy multiple consumption needs appears critical to understan d the consequences of these dynamics for subsequent evaluations of the experience.

PAGE 70

70 Conclusion experiences and the empirical evidence in support of his observation the pursuit of novel experiences can be beneficial. The purpose of the present work was to document that there is a unique benefit to be gained from novel consumption experiences namely, consumption knowledge Our findings show that consumers gain utility from the consumption knowledge accumulated across experiences. This anticipated utility leads consumers to selectively value novel consumption experiences that enhance their expertise. We hope this work encourages researchers and marketers alike to consider the val ue consumers place on novel consumption experiences.

PAGE 71

71 LIST OF REFERENCES Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March), 411 54. Aiken, Leona S. and Stephen G. West (1991), Mul tiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ballester, Jordi, Bruno Patris, Ronan Symoneaux, and Dominique Valentin (2008), Food Quality and Preference 19 (April), 267 76. Baumgartner, Hans and Jan International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (April), 121 37. Bay, Ann Helen, and Axel West Peders opinion: A Case Study of Confidence, Satisfaction, and Political Attitudes in International Journal of Social Welfare, 13 (2), 112 23. Bearden, William O., David M. Hardesty, and Randall L. Rose (2001) Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 121 34. of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 473 81. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (June), 83 95. Begiri, Mirjeta S., Nan Journal of Education for Business 85(2), 95 100. thenticity in Journal of Consumer Research 36 (February), 838 56. Brandt, Anthony (2007), Sound Reasoning http://cnx.org/content/col10214/latest/. Brewer, Marilyn Same Time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (October), 475 82. Validation Advan ces in Experimental Social Psychology ed. Mark P. Zanna, New York: Academic Press, 69 118.

PAGE 72

72 Validation of Journal of Consumer Research 30 (Mar ch), 559 73. Psychological Science 17, 200 06. Carlson, Jay P., Leslie H. Vincent, David M. Hardesty, and William O. Bearden (2009), ative Analysis of Journal of Consumer Research 35 (February), 864 76. The Influence Unpublished manuscript. Clarkson, Joshua J., Zakary L. Tormala, and Chris Leone (2011). A Self Validation Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 449 54. Cooke, Alan D. J., Chris Janiszewski, Marcus Cunha, Jr., Suzannne A. Nasco, a nd Els Journal of Consumer Research 31 (June), 112 24. Cowley, Elizabeth and Eunika Different: A Limit to the Advertising Misinf Journal of Consumer Research 31 (June), 229 35. between Implicit and Explicit Attitude Measures: An Information Availability/Accessibility Perspec Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (July), 259 73. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (December), 293 305. Fabrigar, Lee, Richard E. Petty, Steven M. Smith, and Stephen L. Crites, Jr. (2006), Behavior Consistency: The Role Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(4) 556 77. Festinger, Leon (1954) Human Relations, 7 (2), 117 40. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24 (2), 115 23.

PAGE 73

73 ing the Decision Maker versus Framing the Decision: A Consumer Marketing Letters 8 (1), 71 83. Annual Review of Psychology 49, 585 612. Gordon, Peter C. and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (September), 492 500. and Psychological Science, 19 (8), 802 08. ________ ( Journal of Experimental Psychol ogy: General, 139 (4), 590 609. Journal of Marketing, 52 (April), 1 20. Role of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (November), 215 29. Consumption: Consumer Fantasi Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September), 132 40. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (January), 31 3 7. Hughson, Agnus Relation to Wine: Short The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62 (January), 1 8. sumer Learning and Handbook of Consumer Psychology eds. Curtis P. Haugtvedt, Paul M. Herr, and Frank R. Kardes, New York: LEA/Psychology Press, 103 32. Controlle Unconscious Memory Representations in Perception eds. Istvn Czigler and Istvn Winkler, Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 245 57.

PAGE 74

74 Joy, Annamma and John F. f Art as Embodied Journal of Consumer Research 30 (September), 259 82. Diversification Motives in Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires eds. S. Ratneshwar and David G. Mick, London Collectable E Journal of Consumer Research 37 (April), 935 50. Journal of Consumer Research 37 (Decembe r), 688 97. British Journal of Psychology 95 (November), 489 508. Lee, Jack K. H., K. Sudhir, and Joel H. Steckel (2002 Journal of Marketing Research 39 (February), 73 86. Levin, Irwin P. and Gary J. Gaeth (1988). "How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attr Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (December). 374 78. Loewe Psychological Review 100 (January), 91 108. Expertise and Attribute Strength on Produ Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 354 65. Seeking Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September), 141 49. McClure. Samuel M., Jiam Li, Damon Tomli n, Kim S. Cypert, Latatie M. Montague, and P. Read Montague (2004), "Neural Correlates of Behavioral Preference for Culturally Familiar Drinks," Neuron, 44 (October), 379 87. Psychol ogical Bulletin 120 (November), 323 37.

PAGE 75

75 Meyer, Robert, Tulim Erdem, Fred Feinberg, Itzhak Gilboa, J. Wesley Hutchinson, Arahdna Krishna, Steven Lippman, Carl Mela, Amit Pazgal, Drazen Prelec, and Marketing Letters 8 (3), 349 60. Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December), 219 39. Murray, Sandra L., John G. Holmes, and Da Positive Illusions: Idealization and the Construction of Satisfaction in Close Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (January), 79 98. the Identification Categorization Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115 (March), 39 57. Infant Behavior & Development 20 (October December), 457 75. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (July), 8 67 872. Journal of Consumer Research 21 (June), 71 82. Novice Cognition and Instruction 16 (3), 235 63. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (January), 30 41. Plassmann, Hilk PNAS, 105 (January), 1050 54. Subs Appetite 3 (September), 283 90. Journal of Consumer Research 37 (June), 159 75.

PAGE 76

76 Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Behavior and Research Methods 40 (August), 879 91. Public Consumption on Variety Journal of Consumer Research 29 (September), 246 57. Journal of Consumer Rese arch 26 (June), 1 15. Journal of Consumer Research 7 (December), 272 82. Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson (1968), Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Natural History 90 (February), 6 14. Rozin, Paul and Deborah Schiller (1 Motivation and Emotion 4 (March), 77 101. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6 (3), 3 19. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23 (May), 681 96. keting Actions: Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (November), 383 93. Journal of Marketing Research 27 (May), 150 62. fidelity Simulation: Factors Correlated with Nursing Student Satisfaction and Self Nursing Education Perspectives, 30 (March), 74 8. Journal of the Learning Sciences 6 (1), 41 60.

PAGE 77

77 Psychology & Marketing, 18 (November), 1187 1204. Tormala, Zakary L. and V Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (February), 275 87. ion Formation: Journal of Marketing Research 25 (May), 204 12. Based Model of Product Journal of Consumer Research 39 (August), forthcoming. van Trijp, Hans Product Category Level Explanations for True Variety Journal of Marketing Research 33 (August), 281 92. n Emotion Process in Achievement Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (7), 1211 20. Journal of Consumer Rese arch 23 (September), 120 35. Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 84 91. Wolf, Heike, Frank M. Spinath, Rainer Riemann, Monitoring and Personality: A Behavioural Personality and Individual Differences 47 (July), 25 9. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (December), 416 26. Journal of Consumer Research 35 (February), 715 28.

PAGE 78

78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Joshua John Clarkson received his Bachelor of Arts in p sychology and M asters of Arts in general p sychology, both at the University of North Florida, before receiving a Doctorate in Philosophy from Ind iana University. His research interests focus broadly o n the social and meta cognitive processes underlying human behavior, and his research offers specific contributions to the areas of attitude strength and structure, persuasion, self regulation, and expertise. His work has been published in various journal s, including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin the Journal of Consumer Research, and the Journal of Marketing Research He is currently an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Cincinnati.