University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effects of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment

(USC Thesis Other)

The effects of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE EFFECTS OF CURIOSITY-EVOKING EVENTS ON CONSUMPTION
ENJOYMENT

by

Elif Isikman

_________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)

March 2014
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... III

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ IV

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 3

Consumption Enjoyment .................................................................................................... 3

Research Question .............................................................................................................. 3

Overview of Chapters ......................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTS ................................. 7

Prior Work on Consumption Enjoyment ............................................................................ 7

Consumption Enjoyment and Disruptions ........................................................................ 12

Definition of Curiosity ...................................................................................................... 16

Differentiating Curiosity from Alternative Constructs ..................................................... 18

Prior work on Curiosity .................................................................................................... 23

Objectives of This Dissertation ......................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES ................................ 26

Overview of the Conceptual Model .................................................................................. 26

Alternative Explanations ................................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION ......................................................... 31

STUDY 1 .......................................................................................................................... 31

Method .............................................................................................................................. 31

Measures ........................................................................................................................... 33

Results ............................................................................................................................... 35

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 37

STUDY 2 .......................................................................................................................... 39

Method .............................................................................................................................. 39

Measures ........................................................................................................................... 41

Results ............................................................................................................................... 41

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 44

ii
STUDY 3 .......................................................................................................................... 45

Method .............................................................................................................................. 46

Measures ........................................................................................................................... 47

Results ............................................................................................................................... 48

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 51

STUDY 4 .......................................................................................................................... 52

Method .............................................................................................................................. 52

Measures ........................................................................................................................... 53

Results ............................................................................................................................... 53

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 56

STUDY 5 .......................................................................................................................... 57

Method .............................................................................................................................. 57

Measures ........................................................................................................................... 58

Results ............................................................................................................................... 58

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER 5: GENERAL DISCUSSION .................................................................... 60

Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 60

Implications and Extensions ............................................................................................. 61

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 67

APPENDIX 1A. STUDY 1 QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................... 80

APPENDIX 1B. STUDY 1 MANIPULATION CHECKS .......................................... 84

APPENDIX 2. STUDY 2 QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................. 86

APPENDIX 3. STUDY 3 QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................. 88

APPENDIX 4. STUDY 4 QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................. 96

APPENDIX 5. STUDY 5 QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................... 103

iii
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. Differentiation of Antecedents and Consequences of Curiosity from Related
Constructs ......................................................................................................................... 22

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. The Effect of Curiosity on Consumption Enjoyment .................................... 28

FIGURE 2. Study 1: Mediation Analysis ......................................................................... 36

FIGURE 3. Study 2: Pictures of The Experiment Rooms ................................................ 40

FIGURE 4. Study 2: Mediation Analysis ......................................................................... 43

FIGURE 5. Study 3: Pictures of The Gift Boxes .............................................................. 46

FIGURE 6. Study 3: Mediation Analysis ......................................................................... 50

FIGURE 7. Study 4: Mediation Analysis ......................................................................... 55

1
ABSTRACT

Consumption experiences and enjoyment driven from these events are an integral
part of consumer behavior. Understanding the factors that influence consumption
enjoyment is critical from marketers’ perspectives. The more consumers enjoy an
experience, the more they will be likely to repeat it and the more they will likely to tell
others about it. Consumption experiences can be disrupted by other incidents. For
example, it is quite common to come across curiosity-evoking events such as phone calls,
text messages or incoming emails during consumption experiences. However, research on
curiosity especially in the consumer behavior literature is quite limited. My dissertation
examines how curiosity-evoking events influence consumption enjoyment.
This dissertation contributes to the literature by (1) showing the link between
curiosity-evoking events and consumption enjoyment, (2) articulating the components of
curiosity and separating these components from its antecedents and consequences, (3)
developing and testing a theoretical account that explains how a curiosity-evoking
experience impacts consumption enjoyment. These results add to our theoretical
understanding of curiosity and its effects on consumers. This research is also important
for marketers because it gives them opportunities to make efforts to control their
consumption environments and enhance consumption outcomes.
In five experiments I find that curiosity-evoking events that are coincident with a
consumption experience negatively impact consumption enjoyment. I explore several
mechanisms behind this effect, and show that attentional diversion is the key mediating
factor that impacts consumption enjoyment. Mediation results show that the effect of
2
curiosity on consumption enjoyment is driven by attentional diversion (studies 1, 2, 3, 4),
which is created between the curiosity-evoking event and the consumption experience,
but it is not driven by a state of negative or positive affect that is inherent in curiosity.
Attentional diversion explanation further helps to predict that curiosity-evoking events
should increase consumption enjoyment of a coincident negative consumption
experience, an effect that is observed in study 5 where I manipulate valence of the
consumption experience.

3
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Consumption Enjoyment
Consumption enjoyment is an important marketing and consumer behavior
phenomenon. Whereas some consumer behavior involves acquisition, others involve the
process of experiencing products through usage. Though it is an extensive part of
consumer behavior, research on usage experiences is limited. Within the domain of
usage, a critical factor concerns consumers’ enjoyment of the product in question.
Enjoyment is critical since it impacts repeat purchase and word of mouth, important
drivers of a brand’s profitability. Furthermore, consumption enjoyment is often an
explicit goal that motivates a consumption experience (see research on hedonic goals)
(e.g., Hirschman & Holbrook 1982; Holbrook & Hirschman 1982; Botti & McGill 2011;
Khan, Dhar & Wertenbroch 2005). Consumption experiences refer to personal
interactions with product or service related stimuli (Holbrook & Hirschman 1982).
Consumption experiences may involve activities that consumers participate in by
allocating their time or money like watching movies, or dining at a restaurant. In this
framework, consumption experience is the focal (main) task.

Research Question
Consumption environments are often subject to interruption. Some of these
interruptions can be mere disruptions that temporarily break the flow of the consumption
episode. Others, more than merely interrupting, are curiosity evoking. One’s ringing cell
phone, notification of an email message, or a text can create curiosity about who is
4
calling, for what purpose, and what they have to say. This research asks whether, how,
and why such curiosity-evoking events might impact enjoyment of a coincident
consumption experience.
In five experiments, I demonstrate for the first time that curiosity-evoking events
reduce enjoyment of positive coincident consumption experiences. These effects are
observed in studies utilizing different consumption experiences (receiving a foot
massage, playing a video game, reading a passage, watching a clip) and involving
different curiosity-evoking events (a buzzing cell phone, a gift box with unknown
contents).
I show that curiosity impacts enjoyment because the curiosity-evoking event
diverts attention away from the focal consumption experience and directs it towards the
curiosity-evoking event, sustaining it until curiosity is resolved. I find no evidence that
positive affect from interest or negative affect from uncertainty impacts consumption
enjoyment. I also test whether curiosity’s impact on diversion of attention to the
consumption experience induces a state of tension about to which positive stimulus to
attend. Again, I find no evidence that tension from this approach-approach conflict
impacts consumption enjoyment. Importantly, attentional diversion account consistently
explains how curiosity-evoking events impact consumption enjoyment.
The attentional diversion account also predicts that curiosity-evoking events
should increase consumption enjoyment of a coincident negative consumption
experience. This effect is observed in study 5 where I manipulate valence of the
consumption experience. Combined, the five studies show that curiosity evoked by
coincident events decrease enjoyment of positive consumption experiences but increase
5
enjoyment of negative consumption experiences because they divert attention away from
the consumption experience.
Theoretically, this research (a) is the first to show the link between curiosity-
evoking events and consumption enjoyment, (b) it examines the components of curiosity
and separates these components from its antecedents and consequences, (c) it develops
and tests a theoretical account that explains how a curiosity-evoking experience impacts
consumption enjoyment. These results add to our theoretical understanding of curiosity
and its effects on consumers. This research is also important for marketers because it
gives them opportunities to strategically promote or prevent curiosity during consumption
to enhance consumers’ enjoyment.
Specifically, this work is the first to examine curiosity in a context independent of
the focal consumption experience. Daily consumption experiences are full of incidents
with activities that are co-incident with, but irrelevant to, the consumption experience.
Although irrelevant to the main consumption experience, these co-incident activities can
also impact consumption enjoyment. Hence, this research will contribute to the literature
by showing whether and how a curiosity-evoking event that is unrelated to the focal
consumption experience impacts overall enjoyment. Prior work has always shown
positive effects of curiosity that is related to the entity being evaluated (e.g., curiosity
evoked from an ad increases ad responsiveness; Menon & Soman 2002). However, I
predict that the effect of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment depends on
the valence of the coincident experience and whether the curiosity-evoking incident is
incidental to or integral with the consumption experience.

6
Overview of Chapters
In the next chapter, I examine the relevant literature on curiosity and its
relationship to alternative constructs. Next, I present a detailed description of how
curiosity-evoking events might affect consumption experiences, and offer process
explanations for this effect. I then present five experiments that demonstrate the impact of
curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment. Finally, I discuss implications of
this dissertation and future research questions.

7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTS

Prior Work on Consumption Enjoyment
Enjoyment is a fundamental criterion used by consumers in judging consumption
experiences. The more consumers enjoy an experience, the more likely they are to repeat
it (Chaudhuri & Holbrook 2001; Bigné, Mattila, & Andreu 2008), and tell others about it
(Ladhari 2007). In the consumer behavior research, considerable work has examined
enjoyment in experiential (Holbrook & Hirschman 1982), hedonic (Hirschman &
Holbrook 1982), extraordinary (Arnould & Price 1993), high-risk (Celsi, Rose, & Leigh
1993), nostalgic (Schindler & Holbrook 2003), passionate (Belk, Ger, & Askegaard
2003), and frightening (Andrade & Cohen 2007) experiences.
Unfolding of the Consumption Experience. One stream of research on
consumption enjoyment examines factors that impact remembered consumption
enjoyment. Specifically, prior work looks at how the pattern of change in enjoyment and
the duration of the consumption experience influence the overall retrospective
evaluations. Researchers suggest that a combination of basic factors such as the intensity
(i.e., degree of pleasure) evoked from peak and end components of an experience
influence remembered consumption enjoyment, whereas the duration (or length) of the
consumption experience is shown to affect enjoyment minimally (Ariely 1998; Ariely &
Carmon 2000; Baumgartner, Sujan, & Padgett 1997; Fredrickson & Kahneman 1993;
Kahneman et al., 1993; Redelmeier & Kahneman 1996; Varey & Kahneman 1992).
Researchers attribute this effect to inaccurate or incomplete memory of prior experiences,
where individuals mostly rely on “gestalt moments” (Ariely & Carmon 2000) such as
8
peak and end components rather than evaluating an experience as a whole. Although
duration seems to have minimal influence on retrospective evaluations (Fredrickson &
Kahneman 1993), duration knowledge (i.e., how long a consumer experience will be)
affects consumption enjoyment. Specifically, duration knowledge boosts positive
experiences, but deteriorates negative experiences (Zhao & Tsai 2011). Another
interesting finding reveals that subjective time progression can also influence
consumption enjoyment. For example, when people are led to believe that time passes
unexpectedly fast, they evaluate the consumption enjoyment more positively (Sackett et
al. 2010).
Pace is another factor that impacts remembered consumption enjoyment. Some
research looks at how the pace at which individuals consume things influences
consumption enjoyment. In general, individuals like to reconsume enjoyable experiences
(Russell & Levy 2012). However, reconsumption can lead to satiation due to repeated or
prolonged exposure to a stimulus (Loewestein & Angner 2003). Recent work suggests
that people satiate when they consume rapidly and enjoy experiences less (Coombs &
Avrunin 1977; Galak, Kruger, & Loewenstein 2013). Satiation has been observed in
repeat consumption of food (Rolls, van Duijvenvoorde, & Rolls 1984), music (Ratner,
Kahn, & Kahneman 1999) and in socializing with the same close friend (Galak, Redden,
& Kruger 2009).
Previous Consumption Episodes. Other research examines how previous
consumption episodes and their variety impact consumption enjoyment. Researchers
argue that the sequence of hedonic consumption experiences is an important factor
influencing consumption enjoyment. Individuals prefer improving trends to deteriorating
9
trends when evaluating consumption experiences retrospectively (Ariely & Zauberman
2003; Loewenstein & Prelec 1993; Ross & Simonson 1991). For example, Tversky and
Griffin (1991) suggest that hedonic consumption experiences that occur sequentially are
subject to a contrast effect, and that the initial experience serves as a frame of reference
for the subsequent experience. However, the importance of sequence matters more for
retrospective evaluations (Novemsky & Ratner 2003) than for real-time ratings (Ratner et
al. 1999; Schreiber & Kahneman 2000).
Research examining the impact of variety on enjoyment suggests that although
individuals enjoy variety seeking, they are often not good at determining what will
maximize their enjoyment (Kahneman 1997; Kahneman et al. 1993). For example,
research on variety seeking argues that individuals tend to choose less preferred options
thinking that they would enjoy consuming different options more than repeatedly
consuming a more preferred option, a phenomenon known as the diversification bias
(Galak, Kruger, & Loewenstein 2013; Ratner, Kahn, & Kahneman 1999; Read and
Loewenstein 1995; Simonson 1990). However, consumption of different, but less
preferred options eventually produces less enjoyment than consumption of a more
preferred option.
Delays Prior to an Experience. In addition to previous consumption episodes,
delays prior to an experience can also impact enjoyment. Depending on the perceived
duration and valence of the expected consumption experience, delay might increase
(Caplin & Leahy 2001;Loewenstein 1987; Loewenstein & Prelec 1993; Nowlis, Mandel,
& McCabe 2004), or decrease (Dellaert & Kahn 1999; Houston, Bettencourt, & Wenger
1998; Osuna 1985) consumption enjoyment. Researchers suggest that this happens
10
because delaying, for instance waiting for a table in a restaurant, can increase enjoyment
by increasing anticipation (Nowlis, Mandel, & McCabe 2004), but it can also decrease
enjoyment by inducing stress and uncertainty (Houston, Bettencourt, & Wenger 1998;
Osuna 1985).
Consumption Episodes and Uncertainty. Another stream of research examines
how uncertainty regarding the consumption experience influences enjoyment. For
example, prior work suggests that individuals prefer watching live television broadcasts
over tape-delayed broadcasts (Vosgerau, Wertenbroch, & Carmon 2006) as the
indeterminacy of live broadcasts make the experience more exciting. However, a number
of researchers examining the differences between actual and predicted outcomes (Gilbert
et al. 1998; Gilbert & Wilson 2000; Kahneman & Snell 1992; Loewenstein & Schkade
1999) suggest that consumers are often not good at predicting their future enjoyment
(Patrick, MacInnis, & Park 2007, Ratner, Kahn, & Kahneman 1999; Wilson et al. 2000).
Although consumers prefer live broadcasts (Vosgerau, Wertenbroch, & Carmon 2006),
suspense (Mullet et al. 1994), surprise (Mellers 2000) and positive uncertainty over
certainty (Wilson et al. 2005), researchers suggest that consumers tend to avoid uncertain
situations as they induce anxiety and stress (Arai 1997; van den Bos 2001; Wu 1999). For
example, a finding suggests that surprising wins enhance happiness more than expected
wins, however, surprising losses produce more disappointment than expected losses
(Mellers et al. 1997). Consistent with this finding, consumers who make predictions
about uncertain events enjoy experiencing those events significantly less than those who
do not make predictions due to anticipated regret (Mandel & Nowlis 2008).
11
Positive Uncertainty. More specifically, recent research suggests that positive
uncertainty (i.e., not knowing a gift giver) prolongs pleasure from a positive event (i.e.,
receiving an unexpected gift) more so than certainty does (Wilson et al. 2005).
Researchers suggest that this effect is observed because the uncertainty regarding the gift
focuses people’s attention on the gift longer after they receive it. Another study similarly
showed that compared to certainty, positive uncertainty (i.e., winning a lottery, but not
knowing how much the prize is) can increase and prolong pleasure (Lee & Qiu 2009).
Both of these studies propose greater pleasure with positive uncertainty.
Uncertainty Reduction. A recent study examining the effects of spoilers (i.e.,
movie summaries) revealed that contrary to what most people believe, spoilers in fact
increase enjoyment of stories (Leavitt & Christenfeld 2011). Although not tested,
researchers speculate that spoilers ease uncertainties within stories by increasing
engagement with the other aspects of the story (e.g., character development, word
choice).
Presence of Others. Although numerous studies examine the factors influencing
consumption enjoyment (Fredrickson & Kahneman 1993; Redelmeier & Kahneman
1996), the presence of others is also an important factor affecting consumption enjoyment
(Goulding et al. 2009). Recent research stream in social psychology finds that people
adopt each other’s emotions when they interact (Gump & Kulik 1997; Hatfield &
Cacioppo 1994; Howard & Gengler 2001). A simple example to this emotional contagion
or mimicry is that people tend to smile in response to smiles, which then may give rise to
shared feelings of happiness. Building on this work, Ramanathan & McGill (2007)
suggest that the presence of others results in higher coherence in moment-to-moment
12
evaluations and thereby higher retrospective evaluations of consumption experiences.
Consistent with this finding, Raghunathan & Corfman (2006) argue that enjoyment of
shared experiences depends on agreements about the experience such that congruence of
opinions enhances, but incongruence of opinions impairs the enjoyment of the shared
stimuli.
Co-Incident Activities. The abovementioned studies examined how factors
directly relevant to the consumption experience influence consumption enjoyment.
However, less work has looked at how activities that are co-incident with, but irrelevant
to the consumption experience itself might impact consumption enjoyment. Interestingly
such consumption experiences, where a secondary activity competes for attention with
the focal task, are quite common. For example, with the integration of the internet and
mobile devices such as smart phones into our daily lives, it has become increasingly
common to watch TV, listen to music or even work (focal task) while surfing the Internet
(co-incident and irrelevant activity), responding to email, or sending a text. In the next
section, I summarize how and why co-incident activities impact consumption enjoyment.

Consumption Enjoyment and Disruptions
Co-incident activities can occur in the form of disruptions such as interruptions
and distractions. In general, interruptions refer to the act of breaking the continuity of
stimuli (e.g., breaking a massage experience with a pleasant song; Nelson & Meyvis
2008). Distractions can occur during a consumption experience and draw attention away
from a concurrent activity. Therefore, contrary to interruptions, distractions can occur
while the consumption experience continues.
13
Interruptions Increase Consumption Enjoyment. Cowley (2007) demonstrates that
interruptions can positively influence retrospective evaluations. In this study,
interruptions (i.e., affective vs. non-affective screen shots from the movie) did not occur
during the consumption experience (watching a movie). Individuals viewed the screen
shots after the movie experience, but before the overall evaluations were taken. In this
sense, the consumption experience took place without any interruptions, but overall
evaluations were disrupted with an interruption. In this work, however, I concentrate on
experience interruption rather than evaluation interruption.
Several studies suggest that disruptions during a consumption experience can
increase consumption enjoyment. Moreover, there have been a number of psychological
explanations posited to induce this effect.
Excitation Transfer. In an earlier study, researchers observed an increase
in enjoyment when a news broadcast was disrupted by commercials (two arousing fast
paced or humorous ads). This increase in enjoyment was explained by the residual
positive arousal created by the commercials (Finn & Hickson 1986). Based on excitation
transfer argument (Zillman 1971), when commercials disrupted the consumption
experience, the residual arousal and enjoyment evoked by the commercials might transfer
to the consumption experience. As a result, enjoyment might be misattributed to the news
broadcast and enhanced enjoyment of it.
Hedonic Adaptation. Recent research suggests that disruptions to
consumption increase enjoyment because consumers adapt to hedonic experiences
(Frederick & Loewenstein 1999). Adapting to hedonic experiences can occur in a variety
of consumption contexts such as living in a beautiful place (Schkade & Kahneman 1998)
14
or eating a preferred ice cream (Kahneman & Snell 1990). When an experience is
disrupted, people tend to reset to a higher intensity of enjoyment, as disruptions tend to
slow satiation. Similarly, research finds that people enjoy unchanging hedonic
experiences such as having a massage or listening to the same song repeatedly more
when these experiences are interrupted with breaks (e.g., noise, songs) (Nelson & Meyvis
2008). Finding this effect both in positive and negative experiences, researchers argue
that breaks disrupt the adaptation process, causing individuals to enjoy positive
experiences more and negative experiences less.
Recent work examining the effects of co-incident activities on
consumption enjoyment suggests that disruptions in the form of commercials increase
consumption enjoyment of the focal task (Nelson, Meyvis, & Galak 2009) contrary to
what people generally believe. This effect, which is explained by the hedonic adaptation
account, is observed regardless of the nature of the interruption, though researchers
avoided using commercials that might induce extreme affective reactions.
Distractions Increase Consumption Enjoyment. Similar to interruptions,
distractions also increase consumption enjoyment. However, the account responsible for
this effect is different than the effect of interruptions.
Heightening the Weight of the Affective Component. One stream of
research argues that distractions increase consumption enjoyment by increasing the
weight of affective components rather than information components on overall
evaluations. Shiv and Nowlis (2004) examined the effects of distractions (i.e., cognitive
load) in somatosensory experiences. They found that when consumers were distracted
(i.e., they had to keep an 8-digit number vs. 2-digit number in memory during a food
15
sampling experience), subsequent choice (i.e., chocolate) favored the sampled item. This
effect was mediated by the pleasure during the consumption. The authors argue that
enjoyment derived from the food item depends on two components: informational and
affective. Distractions are posited to limit the cognitive component, which increases the
impact of affective component on evaluations. This finding builds on research in the pain
literature. That literature suggests that when people distract themselves from a painful
experience (e.g., receiving a shot), they experience higher intensities of pain (Ahles,
Blanchard, & Leventhal 1983; Dar & Leventhal 1993; Read & Loewenstein 1999). When
applied to positive hedonic experiences, consumers should enjoy tasting a food item
when distracted. This finding is consistent with the effect of interruptions (Nelson &
Meyvis 2008; Nelson, Meyvis, & Galak 2009) on consumption enjoyment. On the other
hand, research on mindfulness suggests that paying attention to, rather than being
distracted from a consumption experience, increases pleasure and happiness (Langer
2002). Consistent with the work on mindfulness, Shiv and Nowlis (2004) speculate that if
distractions have affective components (e.g., listening to music during food sampling),
then this type of distraction might reduce the weight of affective component lowering the
overall enjoyment.
In sum, prior research suggests that co-incident activities such as distractions
(Shiv & Nowlis 2004) and interruptions (Nelson & Meyvis 2008) can increase
consumption enjoyment. Contributing to this growing literature, I introduce another co-
incident activity to the consumption enjoyment literature by studying how curiosity-
evoking events impact consumption enjoyment.

16
Definition of Curiosity
Curiosity is an emotion related to exploratory behavior that is observed in humans
as well as animals (Berlyne 1954). Curiosity about why things happen plays an important
role in driving scientific research and other academic endeavors. Moreover it has
received well-deserved attention from many researchers starting with philosophers.
Curiosity has been defined in many ways. Some early philosophers viewed
curiosity as a drive that reflects an intrinsically motivated appetite for information. To
illustrate, Aristotle thought that people study science not for reward, but for intrinsic
reasons. Similarly, Cicero referred to curiosity as an internal and passionate love for
knowledge (Loewenstein 1994). This hunger for knowledge can be painful if not
satisfied. Early behavioral psychologists, on the other hand, viewed curiosity as similar to
attention. For example, based on conditioning studies, Pavlov (Loewenstein 1994)
suggested that curiosity is an investigatory reflex. This description of curiosity involves
not innateness or desire, but rather cognitive elements of attention focusing. Some
researchers describe curiosity in terms of conditions necessary to its evocation, such as
novelty, complexity, and uncertainty (Snyder & Lopez 2009). For example, Loewenstein
(1994) and Litman and Jimerson (2004) regard curiosity as a desire to know more about
new, ambiguous and complex stimuli. Others focus on curiosity’s consequences, defining
curiosity as a motivational orientation associated with approaching desired information
and experiences (Maner & Gerend 2007).
Dimensions Along Which Curiosity Can be Described. Curiosity can be described
along several different dimensions. One of the most influential researchers in the
curiosity literature, Berlyne (1954), suggested a two dimensional categorization of
17
curiosity. In the first dimension, curiosity can be described as either perceptual or
epistemic. Perceptual curiosity is defined as “a drive, which is aroused by novel stimuli
and reduced by continued exposure to these stimuli" (e.g., a desire to learn the reason of a
loud noise coming from the next door) (Berlyne, 1954a, p.180). Epistemic curiosity refers
to “a desire for knowledge and [is] applied mainly to humans” (e.g., a researcher’s
examination of fossils) (Loewenstein, 1994, p. 77). In the second dimension curiosity can
be described as specific or diversive. Specific curiosity refers to a desire for a particular
piece of information (e.g., solving a word puzzle), whereas diversive curiosity reflects
general sensation seeking associated with a desire to relieve boredom (e.g., search for a
new book to read during the holiday) (Loewenstein 1994). Curiosity can also be
described state or trait driven (Naylor 1981). Trait curiosity captures individual
differences in the capacity to experience curiosity, whereas state curiosity refers to
curiosity about a specific situation (Loewenstein 1994).
Researchers provide different definitions for curiosity. One account defines
curiosity as a feeling of interest that involves activation of positive feelings with the
anticipation of obtaining new information (Litman & Jimerson 2004). Another account
defines curiosity as a feeling of deprivation evoked as a result of an information gap in
knowledge (Loewenstein 1994). There seems to be very little that differentiates curiosity
as a feeling of interest from curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Both are evoked when
there is an information gap between an actual and desired state of knowledge. Different
than curiosity as a feeling of deprivation, curiosity as a feeling of interest entails positive
feelings with the anticipation of new and enjoyable information. Similarly, in this context
curiosity prompts motivation to seek information, and can evoke sustained attention to
18
the curiosity-evoking stimulus. However, the urgency to fill the information gap in the
curiosity as a feeling of interest is not as intense as in the curiosity as a feeling of
deprivation (Loewenstein 1994).
Curiosity in this Research. In this research I focus on curiosity that arises when
one becomes aware of an information gap in knowledge. This form of curiosity depends
on state as opposed to individual factors. Curiosity has been defined as a feeling of
interest (Litman & Jimerson 2004; Spielberger & Starr 1994) that is associated with
feelings of anticipation for acquiring novel information. Researchers have also suggested
that this state of interest reflects a gap between what is known (i.e., someone is calling
me) and what is unknown (but I don’t know who is calling, for what purpose, and what
news the caller has to share). Notably, this desire to know places individuals in a state
knowledge deprivation (Loewenstein 1994) motivating consumers to acquire relevant
information so as to close the information gap. In short, and based on these prior
perspectives, I define curiosity as a state of interest (Silvia 2008) caused by knowledge
deprivation and desire to resolve uncertainty. Importantly, while curiosity entails
uncertainty, not all states of uncertainty entail curiosity. Hence, I regard curiosity and
uncertainty as distinct constructs. With curiosity, this uncertainty is coupled with a state
of interest and a desire to acquire information that resolves uncertainty.

Differentiating Curiosity from Alternative Constructs
Curiosity is related to but distinct from constructs such as distractions, goal
tension, or uncertainty. Indeed, some of these constructs are best conceptualized as
antecedents to curiosity (information-gap), factors that are entailed in curiosity
19
(deprivation) or are outcomes of curiosity (rumination). Thus, it is important to
differentiate curiosity from these constructs. I overview these constructs and indicate how
they are different from curiosity next (see Table 1).
Uncertainty. Uncertainty refers to a lack of information about an event. It is an
aversive state that people are motivated to avoid (Bar-Anan, Wilson, & Gilbert 2009).
Uncertainty has both an informational component (i.e., information gap) and a subjective
component (i.e., a feeling of not knowing; Smith & Washburn 2005). Curiosity is evoked
when there is uncertainty in the form of an information gap and when one wants to fill
this gap. An information gap alone is not sufficient to evoke curiosity; there should also
be a desire to fill this information. For instance, people are surrounded by uncertainties;
but they are not curious by all of them (Loewenstein 1994). Furthermore, curiosity
motivates information seeking, however, not all the uncertain states (e.g., when the
opportunity to fill the information gap is low) prompt information seeking. People will
not be curious if the odds of reducing uncertainty are too low (Loewenstein 1994).
Similar to curiosity, uncertainty might create rumination (Greco & Roger 2003), which
requires sustained attention.
Task Interruption. A goal sets up a tension state, which remains until the goal is
satisfied or the individual gives up the goal (Lewin 1951). It is demonstrated in the
Zeigarnik effect (1938), where incomplete tasks are more memorable. When a task is
interrupted, it evokes goal tension. Task interruption is similar to curiosity in the sense
that it is an uncertain state as one may not be sure whether and when the goal can be
attained. In this sense, task interruptions can evoke negative feelings (Polivy 1998).
Likewise, one may find it hard to divert attention from an interrupted task, and continues
20
to think about it. Task interruption, in general, is not the same as curiosity since task
interruption does not always involve an information gap to fill (e.g., interrupting a
drawing task), hence does not induce an intense urge to fill this information gap.
Distraction. Distractions can be defined as stimuli that are coincident with the
focal consumption experience. Curiosity is like distractions in that both curiosity-evoking
stimuli and distracting stimuli can compete for consumers’ attention. However, curiosity
is stronger than a distraction because it evokes a motivated state defined by a desire to
acquire knowledge to resolve an information gap. Consequently, consumers may be
motivated to shift their attention purposefully from the consumption experience to the
curiosity-evoking stimulus, and this shift in attention may be sustained given their
motivation to close the information gap. In contrast to curiosity, distractions do not
motivate information seeking to close an information gap.
Rumination. Rumination is construed as a broad and multi-faceted process
including both cognitions and action tendencies. Nolen-Hoeksema (1991) views
rumination as maladaptive and suggests that it involves repetitive thoughts not directed at
resolving problems or reducing goal discrepancy, but rather focused on one’s negative
affective states and problems (i.e., brooding). Offering a more functional description,
some researchers define rumination as thoughts instigated by a discrepancy between
one’s current position and a desired goal (Martin & Tesser 1996).
The gap in knowledge induced by curiosity may bring to mind unresolved
questions. To illustrate, a consumer whose cell phone rings while she is watching a movie
may wonder—who is calling? What do they want? Could it be good news or bad news?
Positive rumination occurs when one responds to positive affective states with thoughts
21
about positive self-qualities and affective experiences that might amplify the positive
affect (Johnson, McKenzie, & McMurrich 2008). When curiosity is evoked, individuals
are motivated to seek information to close the information gap. This motivation might
lead individuals to think about the curiosity-evoking event. Specifically, they might
ruminate on how to resolve this information gap, and hence remove the feeling of
deprivation. This rumination might be accompanied by sustained attention. In this
research, I refer to rumination as a process by which an individual mulls over unresolved
issues and feelings (Nolen-Hoeksema 1991).
Sustained Attention. Sustained attention is defined as the ability to maintain a
state of concentration for a long period of time (Parasuraman 2000; Posner & Rothbart
1992). Sustained attention to the curiosity evoking stimulus occurs when one become
motivated to seek information as a result of being curious. With the motivation to seek
information, individuals divert attention away from the focal consumption experience and
direct it towards the curiosity-evoking event, sustaining it until curiosity is resolved. This
shift in sustained attention is an outcome of curiosity, but it is not the same as curiosity
since attention alone does not need to motivate information seeking.

22
TABLE 1. Differentiation of Antecedents and Consequences of Curiosity from
Related Constructs

Antecedents and Consequences of Curiosity
Related Constructs
to Curiosity
Information
Gap
(antecedent)
Uncertainty
(part of the
construct)
State of
Interest
(part of the
construct)
Motivation
to Seek
Information
(proposed
consequence)
Rumination
(proposed
consequence)
Sustained
Attention
(proposed
consequence)
Curiosity
Feeling of Interest
Involves
information
gap
Involves
uncertainty
Involves
interest
Motivates
information
seeking
Involves
positive
rumination
Requires
sustained
attention
Uncertainty
A lack of
information about
an event
Involves
information
gap
N/A
Involves
interest
No need to
motivate
information
seeking
Involves
rumination
Requires
sustained
attention
Task Interruption
A break in task
activity
No need to
involve
information
gap
Involves
uncertainty
No need to
involve
interest
No need to
motivate
information
seeking
Involves
rumination
Requires
sustained
attention
Distraction
Events that co-occur
during a
consumption
experience
Involves
information
gap
Involves
uncertainty
No need to
involve
interest
No need to
motivate
information
seeking
No need to
involve
rumination
No need to
require
sustained
attention
Rumination
Process by which an
individual mulls
over unresolved
issues and feelings
No need to
involve
information
gap
No need to
involve
uncertainty
Involves
interest
No need to
motivate
information
seeking
N/A
Requires
sustained
attention
Sustained
Attention
An ability to
maintain focus of
attention and to
remain alert to
stimuli over
prolonged periods
of time
No need to
involve
information
gap
No need to
involve
uncertainty
Involves
interest
No need to
motivate
information
seeking
No need to
involve
rumination
N/A

23
Prior work on Curiosity
Research on curiosity and its impact on consumer experiences and consumption
enjoyment are limited. In the consumer behavior literature curiosity is generally
perceived as an information gap that is associated with positive outcomes. Prior
consumer research on curiosity has focused on curiosity evoked by events that are
integral to a focal experience (i.e., as when one is curious about who the perpetrator is in
a mystery novel one is reading). These prior studies suggest that curiosity has positive
effects on consumers by evoking a state of interest (Silvia 2008). Curious consumers seek
more variety and information. When curiosity is evoked, consumers watch ads for longer
periods of time (Olney, Holbrook & Batra 1991) and are more responsive to them
(Menon & Soman 2002; Steenkamp & Baumgartner 1992).
Task Relevant Curiosity Has Positive Outcomes. Prior work suggests that
curiosity has positive effects on web advertising effectiveness (Menon & Soman 2002).
In this study curiosity was manipulated with curiosity-triggering stimuli with different
degrees of an information gap. Product evaluations were based on the information
provided with these stimuli. This study suggests that a curiosity-generating advertising
strategy increases time spent and attention paid to specific information more so than a
strategy that provides detailed product information. These researchers also found better
product evaluations and greater perceived novelty with a curiosity-generating strategy. In
this study, curiosity was directly related to the main event; therefore it was not a task-
irrelevant co-incident activity.
Curiosity regarding a task-relevant co-incident event is also associated with
positive outcomes in the context of brand name placements in TV ads (MacLachlan &
24
Jalan 1985). This research shows that asking questions before presenting information
increases recall of brand names significantly. In this study curiosity was manipulated in
the form of ambiguous or unfamiliar phrases regarding an advertisement. Evidence from
this study supports the idea that curiosity regarding the advertised products is good for
brand recall.
Studies in the decision-making literature also demonstrate positive outcomes of
curiosity regarding task-relevant stimuli. For example, some research argues that
curiosity about uncertain outcomes may override regret aversion (van Dijk & Zeelenberg
2007). These authors defined curiosity as a desire to know based on the information-gap
model (Loewenstein 1994). This model suggests that the more people know the more
curious people will be about what they do not know. To operationalize this idea, they
manipulated curiosity with additional information that people would like to know in a
shopping setting. Specifically, they presented participants a decision scenario in which
they either received money or a sealed package with unknown content. In the two
curiosity conditions, participants learned that the content of the package was either round,
or not round. This research demonstrates that being curiosity about additional information
is good for consumers. Other research defines curiosity as a motivational orientation
approach and suggests that compared to fear (which is associated with judgments of
negative outcomes), curiosity is associated with judgments of positive outcomes (Maner
& Gerend 2007).
In sum, prior research finds that curiosity from task relevant stimuli has positive
outcomes. However, I examine curiosity as a co-incident and task-irrelevant event that
occurs during consumption experiences.
25
Objectives of This Dissertation
My research, described below addresses (1) how task irrelevant curiosity-evoking
events affect consumption enjoyment. I predict (2) when the effect of curiosity on
consumption enjoyment is negative (vs. positive) and I explore (3) why this effect occurs.

26
CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Overview of the Conceptual Model
My dissertation focuses on how curiosity-evoking events unrelated to the focal
consumption event impact consumers’ enjoyment of the focal consumption experience.
As noted earlier, curiosity-evoking events can be related or unrelated to the focal task.
For curiosity-evoking events related to the focal task, the information gap regarding the
unknown information can be triggered by the focal task. For example, it is possible to
become curious about the identity of the villain of a book one is reading. Curiosity can
also be induced by an external event that is not related to the focal task. For instance, a
consumer receiving a massage may feel curious if she hears a conversation in an adjacent
room but cannot discern the conversation’s content. Because the curiosity-evoking event
is coincident with the consumption experience, the consumer may be motivated to close
the information gap by thinking or ruminating about, attending to, or otherwise
processing information pertinent to the curiosity-evoking event. My dissertation focuses
on the latter and examines whether and why a curiosity-evoking event that is unrelated to
the main task affects consumption enjoyment. I refer to these events as “curiosity-
evoking events” below, however, the reader should note that in all instances below
curiosity references events that are irrelevant to consumption experience at hand.
I predict that curiosity impacts enjoyment because it motivates an impulsive
search for resolution, directing attention towards the curiosity-evoking event, and
sustaining it until the curiosity is resolved.
27
Attentional Diversion. Curiosity that is incidental to the consumption experience
may interrupt the consumption experience and direct attention from the consumption
experience to the curiosity-evoking event. Because the curiosity-evoking event and the
consumption experience are both worthy of attention, consumers choose to which
stimulus they should devote their attention -- the interesting curiosity-evoking stimulus or
the engaging consumption experience (Coull 2004; Lewin 1951). Moreover, because the
curiosity-evoking event evokes interest and a desire to acquire information to reduce
uncertainty caused by knowledge deprivation, curiosity may induce attention to the
curiosity-evoking event, which is sustained until curiosity is resolved. Attentional
diversion resulting from curiosity may decrease one’s absorption in the focal experience
and thereby reduce opportunities to process its experiential benefits (see figure 1). This
notion is consistent with prior studies that demonstrate that consumers enjoy eating
chocolate more when they do (vs. do not) attend to the sensation of eating chocolate
(LeBel & Dube 2001). Thus, curiosity that is incidental to a positive (negative)
consumption experience may hurt (help) consumption enjoyment because it distracts and
reduces absorption in and attention to the consumption experience.
Consumption experiences can be positive as well as negative. I predict that
attentional diversion account would predict an increase in enjoyment for negative
experiences. Because consumers are conflicted about where to allocate their attention,
they have less opportunity to attend to the focal positive consumption experience, and
hence to extract fewer benefits from it for positive experiences. However, when
consumers have greater motivation to process the process curiosity-evoking event, they
have fewer resources to evaluate the negative aspects of an experience. Consequently, for
28
negative experiences consumers cannot pay attention to the negative aspects of an
experience, thus evaluate it more positively. Hence I posit that:
H1: Curiosity that is incidental to the focal consumption experience will
decrease (increase) enjoyment of a positive (negative) consumption
experience compared to the same experience where curiosity is not
evoked.
H2: The effect of curiosity on consumption enjoyment is mediated by
attentional diversion between the focal task and curiosity-evoking event.

FIGURE 1. The Effect of Curiosity on Consumption Enjoyment

Curiosity
Consumption
Enjoyment
Valence of the
consumption
experience
Attentional
diversion away
from the
consumption
experience
Curiosity as a state of deprivation involving uncertainty is inherently unpleasant
Motivates information
seeking
Distraction
induced by
curiosity is
tension evoking
and negative
Curiosity as a state of interest is inherently pleasant
29
Alternative Explanations
There are alternative processes depicted in figure 1 that may affect whether
curiosity enhances or reduces consumers’ enjoyment of a positive coincident
consumption experience.
Curiosity is pleasant. Curiosity as a state of interest is pleasurable (Litman &
Jimerson 2004, Spielberger & Starr 1994). This state can be associated with pleasant
feelings from the anticipation of acquiring information, or pleasure from the prospect of
closing an information gap. Because curiosity is inherently pleasant, this state might
directly carry over to the coincident consumption experience (affect transfer), increasing
consumption enjoyment
Curiosity is unpleasant. Being in a state of knowledge deprivation, as occurs with
curiosity, may be unpleasant (Loewenstein 1994). Because there is a gap between what is
known (i.e., someone is calling me) and what is unknown (but I don’t know who is
calling, for what purpose, and what news the caller has to share), it creates uncertainty.
This knowledge deprivation and uncertainty may be unpleasant and can carry over
directly to coincident consumption experience (affect transfer), reducing consumption
enjoyment
Tension. Curiosity might also negatively impact enjoyment of a consumption
experience because distraction and attentional diversion may give rise to a negative
tension state that dilutes the experienced pleasure of the consumption experience (see
figure 1). That is, consumers may feel tense because of the approach-approach conflict
caused from attentional diversion. Because this tension is inherently negative, it could
bleed over to affect consumers’ evaluations of the consumption experience.
30
In five studies I show that curiosity impacts enjoyment because the curiosity-
evoking event diverts attention away from the focal consumption experience and directs
it towards the curiosity-evoking event, sustaining it until curiosity is resolved. Evidence
for the alternative explanations is not strong.
Next, I report five experiments that explore the main arguments of this
dissertation. The studies utilize various operationalizations of curiosity-evoking events
(i.e., ringing cell phones, gift boxes) and various consumption experiences (i.e., a foot
massage, a video game, a reading passage, a clip viewing). Studies 1, 2, 3 and 4
demonstrate that curiosity evoked by coincident events decrease enjoyment of positive
consumption experiences. Moreover, I find consistent evidence that the effect is due to
attentional diversion (vs. the other previously described process mechanisms), even when
using diverse measures of attentional diversion (self-report, behavioral and indirect
measures). If distraction and attentional diversion do indeed explain curiosity’s effect on
consumption enjoyment, one would predict that whereas curiosity should reduce
enjoyment of a positive consumption experience, it should enhance enjoyment of a
negative consumption experience since it lessens consumers’ focus of attention on the
negative consumption experience. Study 5 tests this idea explicitly by manipulating the
valence of the consumption experience. In Study 5, I replicate the results of studies 1, 2, 3
and 4 for the positive consumption experience and extend my findings to show that
curiosity enhances enjoyment of a negative consumption experience.
31
CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
STUDY 1

Study 1 tests whether curiosity impacts enjoyment of a coincident positive
consumption experience (hypothesis 1) and, if so, by what process (hypothesis 2). Since
individuals feel a need to immediately review and respond to incoming texts, calls, or
email messages (Balding 2012), such stimuli will be expected to be curiosity evoking.
Therefore, I operationalize curiosity by an incoming cell phone call of unknown origin.

Method
Sixty-one university students were contacted by email were asked to complete
two separate lab studies (ostensibly being conducted by different researchers) five days
hence. The “product testing study” was described as one involving a foot massage
product. The “cell phone coverage study” was described as one that aimed to assess cell
phone coverage in specific parts of the building where the experiment was held.
Respondents were asked to email their cell phone numbers and cell phone providers in
anticipation of the lab study on cell phone coverage. In reality, cell phone numbers were
collected so as to create conditions of curiosity during the upcoming “product testing”
study.
Once at the lab, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
high curiosity vs. low curiosity. They were told that they would first participate in the
“product testing study” where they would have a short foot massage and respond to
questions about their experience. They were told that they would then proceed to the “cell
32
phone coverage” study. Upon entering the room, participants were asked to leave their
cell phones on a nearby table (which was close to respondents but out of their reach).
They were also asked to put their cell phones on vibrate, so as not to disturb participants
in adjacent rooms. Participants sat in a comfortable chair and received a 3-minute foot
massage. Respondents’ feet were placed inside the massage unit, which made it difficult
for them to get up and check their cell phones.
The experimenter, who sat in an adjacent room, called participants on their cell
phones at one and then at two minutes into the massage, using the phone number that
participants had previously provided. Curiosity was operationalized using the buzzing
sound that came from participants’ cell phones. In the high curiosity condition,
participants’ phones buzzed for approximately 15 seconds during each call, resulting in
approximately 30 seconds of phone buzzing during the 3-minute foot massage. In the low
curiosity condition, participants were not called on their cell phones. Although
participants did not hear buzzing, they might still be curious about their cell phones
status, hence they were analyzed in the low curiosity condition.
To ensure that curiosity manipulation had the intended effect, a pilot study using a
separate sample of students from the same population was conducted. Participants
(N=22) completed a 10-minute study in return for $5 compensation and were randomly
assigned to one of two conditions: high curiosity and low curiosity. Procedures were
identical to those described above. Immediately following the foot massage, participants
completed a paper and pencil “product testing study” where they used 9-point scales (1 =
not at all, 9 = very much) to indicate their enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction with the
foot massage. These three items were averaged to form an overall enjoyment scale (α =
33
.96). Next, participants were asked whether or not they heard the buzz (from their phone)
and three items that measured their curiosity. They indicated whether at any point while
they were having the massage they heard anything that made them feel (1) curious, and
(2) interested in (3) intrigued by something other than the massage they were having (1 =
not at all, 9 = very much). The three curiosity items (curious, interested and intrigued;
α = .97) were averaged to create a curiosity scale. A one-way ANOVA on the curiosity
scale revealed a significant main effect of condition (F(1, 20) = 9.40, p < .01), such that
curiosity was significantly higher in the high curiosity than low curiosity (M
high
= 4.45 vs.
M
low
= 1.79). Thus, the curiosity manipulation was successful.

Measures
Consumption Enjoyment. At the conclusion of the massage, all participants rated
their enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction with the foot massage (1 = not at all, 9 = very
much). Scores were averaged to create a scale indicating overall enjoyment of the foot
massage (α = .90).
Emotions. After the consumption enjoyment questions, participants were asked to
indicate to what extent they felt positive emotions (i.e., happy, relaxed, joyful, excited,
hopeful, energetic, calm, surprised), and negative emotions (i.e., frustrated, tense, and
irritated; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much). Positive and negative emotion items were used to
test whether pleasant and unpleasant feelings evoked by curiosity directly impact
consumption enjoyment (see figure 1).

34
Attentional Diversion. Following the emotion questions, participants reported the
percent of the time spent on the massage they actually focused their attention on the
massage itself. Then, they indicated to what extent they felt absorbed in the experience of
having a massage, to what extent they felt distracted in the experience of having a
massage, and to what extent their mind wander away to things that are not related to the
massage they were getting; all items on 9-point scales (1 = not at all, 9 = very much).
These items served as additional indicators of attentional diversion.
Control Variables. Several additional items were also collected as possible
controls. Some individuals might be attached to their cell phones more so than others.
This attachment might create a stronger need to respond and attend to incoming texts,
calls, or email messages for these people. To control for this difference, after the attention
questions participants were asked to indicate to what extent they were attached to and
involved with their cell phones (1 = not at all, 9 = very much). Participants were also
asked to indicate when their cell phones rings or vibrates to what extent they expected the
call to be about a good or bad thing (1 = bad, 9 = good). Following the attachment
questions, participants completed the 22-item tolerance for ambiguity scale (McLain
1993). This measure was intended to use for the potential individual differences in
tolerance for ambiguity.
Finally, participants were debriefed about the objective of the study, and were told
that they would not be participating in a cell phone study. Data from three participants,
who checked their cell phones immediately after the massage experience before
completing the questionnaire, and data from four participants, who reported finding the
foot massage painful were removed from the analysis.
35
Results
Consumption Enjoyment. A one-way ANOVA on enjoyment of the foot massage
revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 52) = 4.79, p = .03, such that
enjoyment of the foot massage was significantly lower in the high curiosity condition
(M
high
= 6.38) than in the low curiosity condition (M
low
= 7.22).
Emotions. In order to test whether curiosity lead to higher positive or negative
affect, two affect measures were formed. To form the positive affect measure, happy,
relaxed, joyful, excited, hopeful, energetic, calm and surprised (α = .83) were averaged.
To form the negative affect measure frustrated, tense, and irritated (α = .73) were
averaged. A one-way ANOVA on the positive affect index showed that participants in the
high curiosity condition did not have significantly higher positive affect compared to
those in the low curiosity condition (M
high
= 5.38 vs. M
low
= 6.01; F(1, 52) = 3.37, p =
.07). A one-way ANOVA on the negative affect index revealed that participants in the
high curiosity condition did not have significantly higher negative affect compared to
those in the low curiosity condition (M
high
= 2.17 vs. M
low
= 1.84; F(1, 52) = 1.58, p =
.21). These results indicate that curiosity was not associated with high levels of positive
and/or negative affect.
Attentional Diversion. Three attention questions, to what extent participants felt
absorbed in the experience of having a massage, to what extent they felt distracted while
having a massage, and to what extent their mind wandered away to things that were not
related to the massage (α = 0.74), were averaged to form an attention index. A one-way
ANOVA on the attention index showed that participants in the high curiosity condition
36
reported significantly reduced attention compared to those in the low curiosity condition
(M
high
= 5.13 vs. M
low
= 6.38; F(1, 52) = 9.80, p = .01).
To test whether curiosity impacts consumption enjoyment through attention, a
mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro Model 4 with 5000 bootstrapped samples
(Hayes 2013) was conducted. Figure 2 shows the model coefficients. The indirect effect
of curiosity on consumption enjoyment was significant, B = -.32 (SE = .16) with a 95%
bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval that excluded 0 (95% CI [-.71, -.06]).
This result suggests that the effect of curiosity on consumption enjoyment is explained by
attentional diversion.

FIGURE 2. Study 1: Mediation Analysis

Enjoyment
High curiosity (1)
Low curiosity (0)
Enjoyment
-.53
-.32*
High curiosity (1)
Low curiosity (0)
1.25*
Attentional
diversion
-.85*
37
Control Variables. A one-way ANOVA on the attachment measure did not show
a significant effect of condition (M
high
= 6.42 vs. M
low
= 6.70; F(1, 52) = .23, p = .63).
Similarly, a one-way ANOVA did not reveal a significant difference between the high
curiosity and low curiosity conditions for the involvement measure (M
high
= 6.50 vs. M
low

= 6.47; F(1, 52) = .01, p = .96). This result shows that high curiosity and low curiosity
condition did not have a significant difference on cell phone attachment or involvement
that might have influenced the sensitivity to phone calls.
A one-way ANOVA on the expectation measure did not show a significant
difference between the high curiosity and low curiosity conditions (M
high
= 6.17 vs. M
low

= 6.13; F(1, 52) = .01, p = .93). This finding shows that when their cell phones rings even
if participants expect the call to be about a slightly good thing, this positive expectation
does not carry over to the overall enjoyment as curiosity condition in fact has a
significantly lower enjoyment.
After transforming the reverse coded items, the 22 tolerance for ambiguity items
were averaged to form a scale. A one-way ANOVA on the tolerance for ambiguity scale
did not show a significant difference between the high curiosity and low curiosity
conditions (M
high
= 4.21 vs. M
low
= 4.24; F(1, 52) = .10, p = .78).

Discussion
Overall, study 1 provides an initial demonstration that curiosity decreases
consumption enjoyment of a coincident positive experience and that this effect is driven
by attention being diverted away from the consumption experience to the curiosity
evoking event. These results show that relative to the low curiosity condition, curiosity
38
manipulation induced a state of curiosity in the high curiosity condition. Study 1 also
shows that curiosity decreases enjoyment of a positive consumption experience
(hypothesis 1), and that its effect is driven by attention diversion (hypothesis 2). In
addition, the affect measures showed that curiosity did not evoke positive or negative
affect that carried over to impact consumption enjoyment.

39
STUDY 2

Study 2 aims to replicate and extend study 1’s findings with a different
consumption experience. Study 2 also tests whether curiosity will continue to have a
distinct effect on consumption enjoyment even when the consumption experience is a
more stimulating one than the hedonic and relaxing experience used in study 1. Most
notably study 2 provides a preliminary test of the proposed process by using an objective,
behavioral measure of attentional diversion.

Method
Forty-six undergraduate university students participated in a 15-minute “product
testing study.” Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (high
curiosity, low curiosity). Participants were told that they would test a video game
console. All participants were seated in a comfortable chair and were asked to play a
Mario Kart Nintendo Wii driving game for four minutes. This game required using a
wheel shaped controller, which made it difficult for participants to place their hands on
anything other than the controller (e.g., a ringing cell phone). Participants first completed
a trial phase to familiarize themselves with the Wii wheel and buttons before moving on
to the game phase. Two individual sessions were run simultaneously in two identical
rooms. Each room contained a 40-inch plasma TV (on which the video game was
displayed), a floor lamp, a table, a chair and an iPod with speakers (see figure 2 for
pictures of the two experiment rooms adjacent to each other; pictures belong to two PhD
students pretesting the experiment design). Participants were asked to place their cell
40
phones on a table next to their chair. Participants were video recorded unobtrusively
while playing the video game, which allowed for the collection of additional behavioral
data.

FIGURE 3. Study 2: Pictures of The Experiment Rooms
(TWO SEPARATE ROOMS ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER)

To evoke curiosity, the experimenter called participants in the high curiosity
condition on their cell phones while they played the game. In the low curiosity condition,
the iPod that was placed on the table next to the participant’s chair played a neutral,
classical song (Chopin, Waltz in C-Sharp Minor Op. 64 No. 2) when remotely activated.
The duration and the timing of the music and the ringing cell phone were identical.
Hearing one’s own cell phone ring was expected to evoke curiosity whereas music played
through the iPod was expected to be less curiosity evoking. Since participants were
41
playing the video game and their hands were on the Wii wheel when the cell phone and
iPod were activated, neither of the devices could be examined during the game.

Measures
Consumption Enjoyment. Immediately following the game, participants were
asked to rate their enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction with the video game experience
(1 = not at all and 9 = very much). The average of these items indicated video game
enjoyment (α = .86).
Emotions. After the enjoyment questions participants were asked to indicate to
what extent they were feeling happy, excited, irritated, and annoyed (1 = not at all, 9 =
very much).

Attentional Diversion. Video recordings of participants while they played the
game were coded to determine the number of times participants looked at the iPod or cell
phone; these “looks” were used as an observable measure of attentional diversion induced
by wanting to both play the video game and see who might be calling (where the music
was coming from). Coder agreement was r = .92; disagreements were resolved by joint
videotape review and discussion.

Results
Consumption Enjoyment. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect
for condition, F(1, 44) = 4.19, p = .05, such that enjoyment of the videogame was
significantly lower in the high curiosity (M
high
= 6.81) than in the low curiosity (M
low
=
7.62) condition. These results replicate those of study 1.
42
Emotions. To test whether curiosity lead to higher positive or negative affect, two
affect measures were formed. To form the positive affect measure, happy, excited (α =
.70) were averaged. To form the negative affect measure annoyed and irritated (α = .92)
were averaged. A one-way ANOVA on the positive affect index showed that participants
in the high curiosity condition did not have significantly higher positive affect compared
to those in the low curiosity condition (M
high
= 6.65 vs. M
low
= 7.21; F(1, 44) = 1.88, p =
.18). A one-way ANOVA on the negative affect index revealed that participants in the
high curiosity condition did not have significantly higher negative affect compared to
those in the low curiosity condition (M
high
= 2.41 vs. M
low
= 2.40; F(1, 44) = 0.01, p =
.98). These results indicate that curiosity was not associated with high levels of positive
and/or negative affect.
Attentional diversion. A one-way ANOVA on the behavioral measure of
attentional diversion revealed a significant main effect for condition, F(1, 44) = 11.16, p
= .01, such that “looks” were significantly higher in the high curiosity (M
high
= 1.33) than
in the low curiosity (M
low
= .41) condition. These results suggest that although the music
from the iPod momentarily evoked participants’ curiosity and attention, the high
curiosity-evoking stimulus diverted attention away from the consumption experience to a
greater degree.

43
FIGURE 4. Study 2: Mediation Analysis

A mediation analysis was conducted to test whether the effect of condition on
enjoyment is explained by attentional diversion. Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro and
Model 4 with 5,000 bootstrapped samples (see Hayes 2013) was used with the high
curiosity (1) and low curiosity (0) conditions coded respectively. The indirect effect of
high curiosity on consumption enjoyment was significant, B = -.45 (SE = .25) with a 95%
bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval that excluded 0 (95% CI [-1.02, -.03]).
Figure 4 shows the model coefficients. The results confirm that the conditional indirect
effect of curiosity on consumption enjoyment through looks was significant. This result
shows that attentional diversion (as indicated by the number of looks) mediated the effect
Enjoyment
High Curiosity (1)
Low curiosity (0)
Enjoyment
-.37
-.45*
High Curiosity (1)
Low curiosity (0)
.92*
Attentional
Diversion
-.82*
44
of curiosity on enjoyment. These results replicate study 1, here using a behavioral
measure of attentional diversion.

Discussion
Study 2 shows that curiosity-evoking events significantly decrease consumption
enjoyment (hypothesis 1). These results conceptually replicate study 1’s findings using a
stimulating consumption experience (vs. the relaxing experience used in study 1).
Moreover, the mediation analysis showed that number of looks directed at the curiosity-
evoking stimulus explained the effect of curiosity on enjoyment (hypothesis 2). These
results offer additional support for the explanation that curiosity reduces enjoyment
through attentional diversion. The behavioral measure of attentional diversion used in this
study (i.e., “looks”) is informative as an indicator of the diversion of attention. As in
study 1, there was no evidence for affective carry over effects of pleasant or unpleasant
affect that might be inherent to curiosity. Study 3 aims to test the attentional diversion
explanation with an additional measure of attention, i.e. examining rumination as an
additional indicator of attentional diversion. Another goal of study 3 is to test the
negative tension that might be evoked by attentional diversion as possible process
mechanism as suggested by the path from attentional diversion to tension in figure 1.

45
STUDY 3

In study 3 I further test the account that curiosity diverts attention from
consumption experience, causing consumers to extract fewer positive benefits from it.
Study 3 augments the previous studies in several ways. First, I use an indirect measure of
attentional diversion: rumination. If consumers’ attention is indeed diverted from the
consumption experience to the curiosity-evoking event, we should see processing of the
curiosity-evoking event. Specifically, curious consumers may find themselves thinking
about the object of their curiosity given their inherent interest in the object and the fact
that their deprived state of knowledge creates a “desire to know”. The gap in knowledge
induced by curiosity may bring to mind unresolved questions. Thinking about these
questions requires attention, which will be pulled from the focal experience. I also test
whether attentional diversion induces a state of negative tension, which spills over to and
dilutes the impact of the positive consumption experience (see figure 1). Study 3 also
operationalizes curiosity with a different curiosity-evoking experience and manipulates
whether it is resolved immediately, or it is sustained in drawing attention from the focal
experience. When curiosity is resolved, consumers are no longer in a state of knowledge
deprivation. Their uncertainty has been resolved and the curiosity-evoking event should
cease to evoke interest. As a result, attention can be redirected back to the consumption
experience. Thus, I argue that consumers will enjoy the consumption experience less
when curiosity is unresolved vs. resolved.

46
Method
Seventy-eight university students participated in what was described as a 15-
minute study on reading enjoyment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two
between-subjects conditions: curiosity-unresolved vs. curiosity-resolved. The
consumption experience was a reading a passage (2274 words) from a Stanford
commencement speech by Steve Jobs (Business Insider 2011).

FIGURE 5. Study 3: Pictures of The Gift Boxes

Curiosity-resolved
Curiosity-unresolved
47
A gift box was used to manipulate curiosity. At the beginning of the second page
of the speech, participants in the curiosity-unresolved and curiosity-resolved conditions
were instructed to pull out a gift box from a paper bag adjacent to the computer. They
were told to keep the gift box in front of them but to not open it until the end of the study.
Participants in the curiosity-unresolved condition received a gift box with opaque
packaging, which did not allow them to see the gift box contents (see figure 5).
Participants in the curiosity-resolved condition received a transparent gift box, which
allowed participants to see that the box contained a pen. After they finished the reading
task, respondents were asked to indicate how much they enjoyed reading the speech.
They then responded to questions about emotions, rumination, distraction, tension, and
curiosity.

Measures
Consumption Enjoyment. Immediately after the reading task, participants were
asked to indicate their enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction with the overall experience
with the speech (1 = not at all and 9 = very much). These scores were averaged to form
an overall measure of reading enjoyment (α = .91).
Attentional Diversion. Rumination was used as an indirect measure of attentional
diversion. An open-ended question that asked participants what went through their minds
during the reading task was used to indicate rumination (Curci et. al 2013). Individuals
who attend to and ruminate about the curiosity-evoking event might mention thoughts
related to this event (i.e., receiving the gift box). Hence, the number of times participants
mentioned a gift-related thought was coded. Two coders, who reviewed the participants’
48
open-ended responses, coded number of gift-related thoughts. Coder agreement was r =
.98; disagreements were resolved by joint discussion. In addition, respondents indicated
the extent to which they felt conflicted about whether to read the speech or think about
what the gift box included, using a 7-point scale (1 = not at all and 7 = very much). If
attention is diverted from the consumption experience to the curiosity-evoking event,
consumers should feel an approach-approach conflict, owing to concurrently consuming
to reading passage while wanting to know the contents of the gift box.
Tension. To measure whether participants felt a negative state of tension from this
conflict, they were asked to indicate to what extent they felt anxious and tense about
learning what the gift box contained on 7-point scales (1 = not at all and 7 = very much).
These two indicators of tension were averaged to form the tension index (α = .69).
Curiosity Manipulation Check. As a check on the curiosity manipulation,
participants indicated the extent to which they would like to know more about and how
curious they were about the gift they had just received (1 = not at all and 7 = very much).
The two questions were averaged to form an index of curiosity (α = .92).

Results
Manipulation Check. A one-way ANOVA on the curiosity manipulation check
measure revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 76) = 7.97, p = .01, such
that curiosity was significantly higher in the curiosity-unresolved condition (M
unresolved
=
5.18) than in the curiosity-resolved condition (M
resolved
= 4.14). Hence the manipulation
of curiosity was successful.
49
Consumption Enjoyment. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect
of condition (F(1, 76) = 4.09, p < .05), such that reading enjoyment was significantly
lower in the curiosity-unresolved condition (M
unresolved
= 7.34) than in the curiosity-
resolved (M
resolved
= 7.97) condition. These results further support the attentional
diversion explanation as well as additional evidence consistent with the findings from
studies 1 and 2.
Attentional Diversion. A one-way ANOVA on the rumination measure revealed a
significant main effect of condition, F(1, 76) = 4.71, p = .03, such that gift-related
thoughts were significantly higher in the curiosity-unresolved (M
unresolved
= .66) than in
the curiosity-resolved (M
resolved
= .22) condition. However, a one-way ANOVA on the
conflict measure did not reveal a significant main effect of condition (F(1, 76) = 3.12, p =
.08; M
unresolved
= 2.88 vs. M
resolved
= 2.24). Thus, the opaque (curiosity-unresolved) box
created more thoughts about the gift than the transparent box did. These results are
consistent with the attentional diversion findings from studies 1 and 2.
To test whether curiosity impacts enjoyment through attentional diversion a serial
(multi-step) mediation analysis using Model 6 and 5000 bootstrapped samples using
rumination and conflict measures was tested (Hayes 2013). Figure 6 shows the model
coefficients. The indirect effect of curiosity-unresolved on consumption enjoyment
through rumination and conflict was significant, B = -.06 (SE = .05) with a 95% bias-
corrected bootstrapped confidence interval that excluded 0 (95% CI [-.22, -.01]). This
result suggests that the effect of curiosity on consumption enjoyment is created by
rumination about the curiosity-evoking event, which causes conflict about which stimulus
consumers should focus on. The specific indirect effects through rumination alone (95%
50
CI [-.05, .31]) and through conflict alone (95% CI [-.27, .05]) were not significant,
indicating that neither was an independent mediator of the effect of curiosity on
enjoyment. Moreover, neither switching the serial order of conflict and rumination (95%
CI [-.02, -.15]) nor testing the effects of rumination and conflict as parallel mediators
(Model 4; 95% CI [-.27, .12]) revealed significant effects. In summary, these results
support the notion that curiosity causes attentional diversion, which takes the form of
rumination, and in turn decreases enjoyment (hypothesis 2).

FIGURE 6. Study 3: Mediation Analysis

Tension. The effect of attentional diversion on consumption enjoyment could be
due to the fact that conflict about the entity to which one should direct one’s attention
Rumination
Enjoyment
Curiosity-unresolved (1)
Curiosity-resolved (0)
Enjoyment
-.59
-.06*
Curiosity-unresolved (1)
Curiosity-resolved (0)
.44*
Attentional
Diversion
.75*
-.63*
-.30 .16
51
produces a negative state of tension, which dilutes the hedonic value of the focal
experience (see figure 1). To test the possible role of tension on enjoyment, a one-way
ANOVA on the tension measure was conducted. A one-way ANOVA did not reveal a
significant main effect of condition (F(1, 76) = 2.06, p =.15; M
unresolved
= 2.78 vs. M
resolved

= 2.35). Also, using Model 4 and 5000 bootstrapped samples a mediation analysis was
tested (Hayes 2013). The indirect effect of curiosity-unresolved versus curiosity-resolved
was not significant, B = -.01 (SE = .07), NS, with a 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped
confidence interval that included zero (95% CI [-.21, .10]) and did not reveal a significant
effect. This result does not support negative tension as a mediator.

Discussion
Consistent with studies 1 and 2, study 3 demonstrates that curiosity has a negative
effect on enjoyment of a coincident positive experience (hypothesis 1), and this effect is
mediated by attentional diversion from the consumption experience to the curiosity-
arousing event (hypothesis 2). Across the studies, the effect of curiosity on consumption
experiences is robust across relaxing (e.g., a foot massage), stimulating (e.g., a video
game), and cognitively engaging (e.g., reading) consumption experiences. Study 3 offers
a more stringent test of the effect of curiosity by comparing curiosity-unresolved (opaque
gift box) to a curiosity-resolved (transparent gift box) condition. Study 3 also shows that
curiosity does not seem to induce negative tension from the conflict over the entity to
which one’s attention should be directed.

52
STUDY 4

Study 3 suggests that attentional diversion drives the effects of curiosity on
enjoyment. In this study, I did not find evidence for the possible role of tension in
reducing consumption enjoyment. Study 4 aims to replicate this process mechanism
result and conduct a stronger test to examine whether tension induced by attentional
diversion is an additional driver of the effect of curiosity on enjoyment.

Method
One hundred and thirty-five university students participated in a 15-minute study
on reading enjoyment. Study 4 employed a one-factor between-subjects design with two
conditions: curiosity-unresolved vs. curiosity-resolved. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of the two conditions.
The reading task involved a passage from an interview with an actress (Jennifer
Lawrence) in Vogue Magazine (Vogue 2013). The 1204-word passage was presented on
four pages on a computer screen. Each page had an equivalent number of words. A
surprise gift was used to manipulate curiosity. The procedures used in this study were
identical to those used for study 3 with the exception of an improved measure of negative
tension. After the reading the task, participants responded to questions about enjoyment,
tension, attentional conflict and rumination.

53
Measures
Consumption Enjoyment. Immediately following the reading experience,
participants were asked to indicate their level of enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction
with the overall experience (1 = not at all and 9 = very much). These scores were
averaged to form an index of reading enjoyment (α = .95)
Tension. To measure how much tension they felt from the curiosity-evoking
event, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they felt anxious and tense
about learning more about the gift, and the extent to which they felt anxious and tense
because they wanted to attend to the passage but at the same time they wanted to learn
more about the gift (1 = not at all and 7 = very much). These four questions loaded on a
single factor (explained variance = 86%), and hence were averaged to form an index of
tension (α = .95).
Attentional Diversion. To measure whether curiosity induced conflict about
whether one should focus one’s attention on the gift versus the interview, participants
indicated the extent to which they felt conflicted about attending to the interview versus
attending to the gift (1 = not at all and 7 = very much). An open-ended protocol was used
to measure rumination as in study 3. After the tension and conflict questions, participants
were asked to list all the thoughts that went through their minds. Coders rated open-ended
thought protocols for the number of times a gift related thought was mentioned. Coder
agreement was r = .99; disagreements were resolved by joint discussion.

Results
54
Enjoyment. A one-way ANOVA on the enjoyment measure revealed a significant
enjoyment difference between the curiosity-unresolved vs. curiosity-resolved conditions
(F(1, 133) = 3.96, p < .05) with consumers in the curiosity-unresolved condition enjoying
the consumption experience less than those in the curiosity-resolved condition (M
unresolved
= 5.96 vs. M
resolved
= 6.67), supporting hypothesis 1.
Attentional Diversion. A one-way ANOVA on the number of thoughts about the
gift revealed a significant main effect of condition (M
unresolved
= .56 vs. M
resolved
= .27, F(1,
133) = 5.51, p = .02). I used Model 6 and 5000 bootstrapped samples, as suggested by
Hayes (2013) to test the serial mediation of curiosity on enjoyment through rumination
and attentional conflict. Figure 7 presents model coefficients. The direct effect of
curiosity was not significant, Β = -.64 (SE = .36); t(133) = -1.78, NS. The indirect effect
of the curiosity-unresolved versus curiosity-resolved condition was significant, B = -.03
(SE = .03) with a 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval that excluded 0
(95% CI [-.12, -.01]). These results support the serial rumination and attentional conflict
process, replicating the mediating effect of rumination and attentional conflict observed
in study 3. The specific indirect effects through rumination (B = -.05 (SE = .08)) alone
(95% CI [-.27, .08]) and through attentional conflict (B = .01(SE = .01)) alone (95% CI [-
.18, .22]) were not significant, indicating that neither is an independent mediator of the
effect of curiosity on enjoyment.

55
FIGURE 7. Study 4: Mediation Analysis

Tension. A one-way ANOVA on the tension index alone did not reveal a
significant effect (M
unresolved
= 2.30 vs. M
resolved
= 2.35, F(1, 133) = .12, NS). A serial
mediation was run to test whether tension induced by rumination and attentional conflict
mediated the effect of curiosity on enjoyment. The total indirect effect, B = .01 (SE =
.08), revealed a confidence interval (95% CI [-.08, .01]) that included 0. It did not reveal
a significant effect of curiosity through rumination, attentional conflict and tension.
These results indicate that the effect of curiosity on enjoyment through rumination and
attentional conflict is not caused by the tension that conflict might have created. Instead,
it appears to be driven by the attentional diversion induced from rumination about the
curiosity-evoking task and conflict.
Rumination
Enjoyment
Curiosity-unresolved (1)
Curiosity-resolved (0)
Enjoyment
-.64
-.03*
Curiosity-unresolved (1)
Curiosity-resolved (0)
.29*
Attentional
Diversion
.31
-.71*
-.02 -.05
56
Discussion
The results of study 4 suggest that participants in the curiosity-unresolved
condition enjoyed the consumption experience significantly less than did those in the
curiosity-resolved condition, supporting hypothesis 1. This finding replicates the results
of the previous studies. As in study 3, the route from rumination to attentional conflict
mediated the effect of curiosity on enjoyment (hypothesis 2). Also as in study 3, there
was no evidence that tension from attentional diversion mediated the effect of curiosity
on enjoyment. These findings suggest that curiosity-evoking events decrease
consumption enjoyment by inducing attentional diversion between the focal consumption
experience and the curiosity-evoking event. Attentional diversion decreases enjoyment
because it diverts attention from the focal consumption experience, not because it induces
a negative state of tension. These results are also consistent with studies 1 and 2.
If attentional diversion mediates the effect of curiosity on enjoyment, then
attending less to the consumption enjoyment should increase enjoyment for the negative
experiences owing to the fact that consumers may process the consumption experience
less deeply. Thus, confidence in this explanation would be increased by demonstrating
the positive effect of curiosity for negative consumption experiences.

57
STUDY 5

Based on the results of the prior studies, I predict that curiosity-evoking events
decrease consumption enjoyment for positive experiences but increase consumption
enjoyment for negative experiences. Study 5 tests this prediction explicitly. Study 5 also
tests the effects of curiosity with a less cognitively engaging experience compared to the
experience used in studies 3 and 4.

Method
One hundred and five university students participated in a 15-minute study on
video clip enjoyment. Study 4 employed a 2 (valence: positive vs. negative) x 2
(curiosity: unresolved vs. resolved) between subjects design. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of the four conditions.
The consumption experience involved watching a YouTube video of a singer
performing a song. Valence of the consumption experience was manipulated by the
quality of the video. In the positive valence condition, we used the original,
professionally recorded clip of the song “Elements” by the artist Lindsey Stirling. In the
negative valence condition, we used a non-professional recording of a live performance
of the same song, performed by the same artist, which had a bad sound and picture
quality. The same gift box manipulation in Study 2 was used to manipulate curiosity.
After viewing the clip, participants indicated their enjoyment of the consumption
experience.

58
Measures
Consumption Enjoyment. Immediately following the reading experience,
participants were asked to indicate their level of enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction
with the overall experience (1 = not at all and 9 = very much). These scores were
averaged to form an index of reading enjoyment (α = .97)

Results
Enjoyment. A 2 x 2 ANOVA on the enjoyment measure showed a significant
valence-curiosity interaction (F(2, 103) = 11.30, p = .01) such that compared to resolved
curiosity, unresolved curiosity reduces enjoyment of a positive experience (M
unresolved
=
5.46 vs. M
resolved
= 6.82, F (1, 53) = 6.37, p = .02), but increases enjoyment of a negative
experience (M
unresolved
= 5.81 vs. M
resolved
= 4.51, F (1, 48) = 5.00, p = .03). As expected
participants in the positive valence condition (M
positive
= 6.15) had significantly higher
enjoyment compared to those in the negative valence condition (M
positive
= 5.13) revealing
a main effect of valence manipulation (F (2, 103) = 6.78, p = .01).

Discussion
The results of study 5 suggest that for the positive experience, participants in the
curiosity-unresolved condition enjoyed the consumption experience significantly less
than those in the curiosity-resolved condition. However, for those in the negative
experience condition, participants enjoyed the consumption experience more when
curiosity was unresolved than resolved. These findings further support the attentional
diversion process mechanism. When a consumption experience is positive, attentional
59
diversion to the curiosity-evoking event competes with the attention on the positive
consumption experience, dampening consumption enjoyment relative to a condition
where curiosity is resolved. When a consumption experience is negative, attentional
diversion to the curiosity-evoking event competes with the attention paid to the negative
consumption experience, making it seem less negative than is the case when curiosity is
resolved.

60
CHAPTER 5: GENERAL DISCUSSION

Summary of Findings
This research addresses an important and yet previously unexamined
conceptualization of curiosity. It is the first to examine curiosity in a context independent
of the focal consumption experience and study its effects on an outcome of significant
import to consumers and marketers—consumption enjoyment. Five studies address the
novel question of whether and how a curiosity-evoking event that is coincident with
consumption experience impacts consumption enjoyment. This question is theoretically
relevant and pragmatically significant in light of the importance of positive consumption
experiences on repeat purchase and positive word of mouth and the ubiquity of curiosity
arousing events that often accompany such experiences. Five studies consistently
demonstrate that curiosity-evoking events that are coincident with a positive consumption
experience reduce consumption enjoyment. These results were replicated using relaxing
(e.g., a foot massage), stimulating (e.g., a video game), and cognitively engaging (e.g.,
reading) consumption experiences that differ in tone (reading a serious passage vs.
viewing an upbeat clip), using different curiosity-evoking events (a buzzing cell phone, a
gift box with unknown contents) and with various controls (no stimulus, low curiosity,
resolved curiosity).
Studies 1-5 also consistently demonstrate that the negative impact of curiosity on
consumption enjoyment is driven by an attentional mechanism, whereby attentional
resources allocated to the consumption experience are diverted to the curiosity-evoking
event, thereby causing consumers to extract fewer consumption benefits from the
61
consumption experience. Evidence of this attentional diversion mechanism is provided
using a variety of different metrics, including self-report measures of attention (study 1),
behavioral measures of attention (study 2), and indirect measures involving rumination
and attentional conflict (studies 3 and 4). Study 5 provides further support for this process
mechanism, showing that whereas unresolved (vs. resolved) curiosity reduces
consumption enjoyment of a positive consumption event, it enhances enjoyment of a
negative event. This outcome is predicted since when the consumption experience is
negative; less (vs. more) attention paid to the negative the consumption experience
should make the negative experience less negative.

Implications and Extensions
The findings from these studies are opposite to the results from research on
disruptions, specifically interruptions (Nelson & Meyvis 2008; Nelson, Meyvis, & Galak
2009) and distractions (Shiv & Nowlis 2004) studies. Curiosity-evoking events will have
different effects on consumption enjoyment than those of interruptions because in this
dissertation the focal experience continues, rather than stopping, when curiosity is
evoked. Contrary to the positive effects of distractions, curiosity-evoking events will
negatively impact consumption enjoyment because curiosity diverts attention for an
extended period of time.
Curiosity vs. Interruptions. As noted earlier, one stream of research shows that
interruptions can increase consumption enjoyment (Nelson & Meyvis 2008; Nelson,
Meyvis & Galak 2009). This prediction is based on the notion that interruptions disrupt
hedonic adaptation and intensify a consumption experience. This effect is observed when
62
interruptions are positive, negative or neutral. Based on this evidence, one can argue that
any break irrelevant of its nature might have the same effect as interruption. Therefore,
curiosity-evoking event that is irrelevant to the focal task could be expected to enhance
consumption enjoyment serving as a break that disrupts satiation.
I expect the effect of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment will be
different from the effect of interruptions. Research on the effects of interruptions on
enjoyment suggests that disruption of habituation (adaptation) intensifies experiences.
Habituation refers to a decrease in response as a result of repeated stimulation (Harris
1943). Therefore, disrupting habituation can increase consumers’ enjoyment in two ways:
by spontaneous recovery and/or by dishabituation.
First, spontaneous recovery suggests that removing the focal stimuli will
gradually increase sensitivity to the focal stimuli. For example, when advertisements
interrupt a movie, habituation will decrease and consumers’ sensitivity to the movie
experience will increase. As a result their enjoyment will bounce back. In this research,
curiosity-evoking events are co-incident with the consumption experience, therefore the
focal experience continues when curiosity is evoked. Contrary to what happens with
interruption (Nelson & Meyvis 2008; Nelson, Meyvis, & Galak 2009) when the focal
task continues there is no room for spontaneous recovery to take place.
Second, dishabituation (i.e., recovery of the habituated response) suggests that the
introduction of a novel stimulus will also disrupt adaptation to the stimuli, which
increases one’s response (e.g., enjoyment) to the focal stimulus. This effect is different
from spontaneous recovery because the main stimulus does not stop when the new
stimulus is presented. Similarly, when a curiosity-evoking event is introduced as a novel
63
stimulus, it might create a dishabituation effect. However, with the lack of spontaneous
recovery, dishabituation might not be sufficient to disrupt adaptation and increase
response to the stimuli (e.g., increase in enjoyment). Therefore, the effect of curiosity-
evoking events on consumption experiences may be quite different from the effect of
interruptions.
Curiosity vs. Distractions. A stream of research proposes that distractions increase
consumption enjoyment by enhancing the weight of the affective component rather than
the information component on overall evaluations (Shiv & Nowlis 2004). This finding is
observed in the pain literature, research finds that people experience higher pain when
they distract themselves from (vs. pay attention to) an experience (e.g., receiving a shot;
Ahles, Blanchard, & Leventhal 1983; Dar & Leventhal 1993; Leventhal et al. 1979; Read
and Loewenstein 1999). When applied to hedonic experiences, research demonstrates that
consumers enjoy tasting a food item more when they are distracted (Shiv & Nowlis
2004). Note that, in this prior research distraction was operationalized as cognitive load
that lacked affective elements. Indeed, authors of this study suggested that had the
distractions included affective components (e.g., listening to music during food
sampling), then this type of distraction might have reduced the weight of the affective
component, lowering overall enjoyment. This result would be consistent with the
research on mindfulness by suggesting that paying attention to an experience increases
pleasure and happiness (Langer 2005).
Numerous differences across these studies and this research make direct
comparisons between this research and those of Shiv and Nowlis (2004) difficult. To
illustrate, on the dependent variable side, whereas this dissertation focuses on the level of
64
consumption enjoyment of an ongoing and singular consumption experience, Shiv and
Nowlis (2004) focus on choice between a short-term sampled brand and another brand.
On the independent variable side, this research focuses on curiosity, which involves a
state of interest and is attentionally diverting because of its knowledge deprivation and
uncertainty elements. Although the cognitive load manipulation used to manipulate
distraction may also have a distraction element (because it diverts attention away from
the consumption experience), it is not inherently interesting nor does it entail a
motivational pull of attention. While only speculative, perhaps distraction (in the form of
cognitive load) interferes with the cognitive processing of short-term sampled
experiences. In contrast, perhaps the ongoing and engaging nature of curiosity interferes
with the one’s abilities to extract both cognitive and affective components of the
consumption experience, rendering the consumption experience itself less enjoyable.
Future research should assess these possibilities.
This dissertation contributes to the literature on consumption enjoyment by
introducing another important coincident event. Prior work has examined how coincident
activities such as distractions and interruptions impact consumption enjoyment. The
present studies add to this literature by showing how another coincident event, a
curiosity-evoking incident, influences consumption enjoyment. I demonstrate how
attentional diversion explains curiosity's unique effect, and find no evidence to support
the pleasant, unpleasant affect and tension explanations.
The findings of this research have important implications. Social forces (norms
against answering phones or emails while dining with others), legal forces (laws against
texting while driving) or physical limitations (phones that are out of reach during a
65
massage) may prohibit information resolution. Under such circumstances I anticipate that
if curiosity is evoked, the changes consumption enjoyment will occur. For example, in
movie theatres it is quite common to come across announcements to motivate audience to
turn off their cell phones during movies so as not to disturb others. My results suggest
that beyond not disturbing others, turning off cell phones might also provide benefits to
consumers’ themselves by allowing them to enjoy the movie more fully.
Future research can also examine how the presence of others might change the
effect of curiosity-evoking events on consumption experiences. The presence of others
might prime the presence of the social forces (norms against answering phones or emails
while dining with others) or legal forces (laws against texting while driving). This
priming might direct individual’s attention to the focal task by limiting the attention
diversion that curiosity evoked.
The effects of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment are important
both for marketers and consumers. By understanding how curiosity-evoking events
impact consumption enjoyment, marketers can encourage consumers to enjoy the
consumption experiences without the presence of curiosity-evoking events (i.e., cell
phone announcements in movie theatres). By knowing how curiosity-evoking events
affect consumption enjoyment, consumers may be motivated to stay away from the
possible sources of curiosity-evoking events that will adversely impact their consumption
enjoyment.
Unlike past research, this research focuses on how curiosity from a coincident
event influences enjoyment of a main consumption experience. I show that curiosity
evoked by an incidental event can either increase or decrease enjoyment, depending on
66
the valence of consumption experience. These results are whole consistent with the
results that focus on curiosity that is integral to the consumption experience. When
curiosity is integral to the consumption experience, the curiosity-evoking event captures
attention, which keeps consumers absorbed in the focal task. As a result of this attentional
absorption, consumers should enjoy a positive consumption experience more and a
negative consumption experience less. Thus, the findings of this dissertation contribute to
the literature by revealing a more complete picture of the link between curiosity-evoking
events and consumption enjoyment.

67
REFERENCES

Ahles, T. A., Blanchard, E. B., & Leventhal, H. (1983). Cognitive control of pain:
Attention to the sensory aspects of the cold pressor stimulus. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 7(2), 159–177.
Andrade, E. B., & Cohen, J. B. (2007). On the Consumption of Negative Feelings.
Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 283–300.
Arai, D. (1997). Temporal resolution of uncertainty in risky choices. Acta Psychologica,
96(1–2), 15–26.
Ariely, D. (1998). Combining experiences over time: The effects of duration, intensity
changes and on-line measurements on retrospective pain evaluations. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 11(1), 19–45.
Ariely, Dan, & Carmon, Z. (2000). Gestalt characteristics of experiences: The defining
features of summarized events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(2),
191–201.
Ariely, Dan, & Zauberman, G. (2003). Differential partitioning of extended experiences.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 128–139.
Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and the
Extended Service Encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24–45.
Balding, R. (2012). Turn Off Your Smart Phone To Beat Stress. Presented at the British
Psychological Society’s Division of Occupational Psychology Conference,
Chester, England.
Bar-Anan, Y., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2009). The feeling of uncertainty
68
intensifies affective reactions. Emotion, 9(1), 123–127.
Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1996). Exploratory consumer buying
behavior: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 13(2), 121–137.
Baumgartner, H., Sujan, M., & Padgett, D. (1997). Patterns of affective reactions to
advertisements: The integration of moment-to-moment responses into overall
judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 219–232.
Belk, R. W., Ger, G., & Askegaard, S. (n.d.). The fire of desire: A multisited inquiry into
consumer passion. Journal of consumer research, 30(3), 326–351.
Berlyne, D. E. (1954). AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF HUMAN CURIOSITY.
British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 45(4), 256–265.
Berlyne, D. E. (2011). A THEORY OF HUMAN CURIOSITY. British Journal of
Psychology. General Section, 45(3), 180–191.
Bigné, J. E., Mattila, A. S., & Andreu, L. (2008). The impact of experiential consumption
cognitions and emotions on behavioral intentions. Journal of Services Marketing,
22(4), 303–315.
Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). The Locus of Choice: Personal Causality and
Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian Decisions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 37(6), 1065–1078.
Business Insider (2011). The Full Text Of Steve Jobs' Stanford Commencement Speech.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-full-text-of-steve-jobs-stanford-
commencement-speech-2011-10.

69
Caplin, A., & Leahy, J. (2001). Psychological Expected Utility Theory and Anticipatory
Feelings. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 55–79.
Celsi, R., Rose, R., & Leigh, T. (1993). An Exploration of High-Risk Leisure
Consumption Through Skydiving. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 1–23.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and
Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of
Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.
Coombs, C. H., & Avrunin, G. S. (1977). Single-peaked functions and the theory of
preference. Psychological Review, 84(2), 216–230.
Coull, J. T. (2004). fMRI studies of temporal attention: allocating attention within, or
towards, time. Cognitive Brain Research, 21(2), 216–226.
Cowley, E. (2007). How Enjoyable Was It? Remembering an Affective Reaction to a
Previous Consumption Experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 494–
505.
Curci, A., Lanciano, T., Soleti, E., & Rimé, B. (2013). Negative Emotional Experiences
Arouse Rumination and Affect Working Memory Capacity. Emotion, 13 (5), 867-
880.
Dar, R., & Leventhal, H. (1993). Schematic processes in pain perception. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 17(4), 341–357.
Dellaert, B. G. C., & Kahn, B. E. (1999). How tolerable is delay?: Consumers’
evaluations of internet web sites after waiting. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
13(1), 41–54.
Finn, S., & Hickson, T. M. (1986). Impact of Arousing Commercials on Perceptions of
70
TV News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 369–371.
Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E.
Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology
(pp. 302–329). New York, NY, US: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Kahneman, D. (1993). Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations
of affective episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 45–
55.
Galak, J., Kruger, J., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Slow Down! Insensitivity to Rate of
Consumption Leads to Avoidable Satiation. Journal of Consumer Research,
39(5), 993–1009.
Galak, J., Redden, J. P., & Kruger, J. (2009). Variety Amnesia: Recalling Past Variety
Can Accelerate Recovery from Satiation. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4),
575–584.
Giambra, L. M. (1995). A Laboratory Method for Investigating Influences on Switching
Attention to Task-Unrelated Imagery and Thought. Consciousness and Cognition,
4(1), 1–21.
Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998).
Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 617–638.
Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2000). Miswanting: Some problems in the forecasting of
future affective states. In Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social
cognition (pp. 178–197). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Goulding, C., Shankar, A., Elliott, R., & Canniford, R. (2009). The Marketplace
71
Management of Illicit Pleasure. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 759–771.
Greco, V., & Roger, D. (2003). Uncertainty, stress, and health. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34(6), 1057–1068.
Gump, B. B., & Kulik, J. A. (1997). Stress, affiliation, and emotional contagion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 305–319.
Harris, J. D. (1943). Habituatory response decrement in the intact organism.
Psychological Bulletin, 40(6), 385-422.
Hatfield, E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1994). Emotional Contagion. Cambridge University
Press.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption:
Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2),
132–140.
Houston, M. B., Bettencourt, L. A., & Wenger, S. (1998). The relationship between
waiting in a service queue and evaluations of service quality: A field theory
perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 15(8), 735–753.
Howard, D. J., & Gengler, C. (2001). Emotional Contagion Effects on Product Attitudes.
Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2), 189–201.
Johnson, S., McKenzie, G., & McMurrich, S. (2008). Ruminative Responses to Negative
and Positive Affect Among Students Diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and Major
Depressive Disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32(5), 702–713.
Kahneman, Daniel. (1997). New Challenges to the Rationality Assumption. Legal
72
Theory, 3(02), 105–124.
Kahneman, Daniel, Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993).
When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End. Psychological
Science, 4(6), 401–405.
Kahneman, Daniel, & Snell, J. (1990). Predicting utility. In Insights in decision making:
A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (pp. 295–310). Chicago, IL, US: University of
Chicago Press.
Khan, U., Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2005). A behavioral decision theory perspective
on hedonic and utilitarian choice. Inside consumption: Frontiers of research on
consumer motives, goals, and desires, 144-165.
Kahneman, Daniel, & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a changing taste: Do people know what
they will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(3), 187–200.
Lacher, K. T., & Mizerski, R. (1994). An Exploratory Study of the Responses and
Relationships Involved in the Evaluation of, and in the Intention to Purchase New
Rock Music. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 366–380.
Ladhari, R. (2007). The effect of consumption emotions on satisfaction and word-of-
mouth communications. Psychology and Marketing, 24(12), 1085–1108.
Langer, E. (2005). Well-being. The handbook of positive Psychology, 214-230.
Leavitt, J. D., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2011). Story Spoilers Don’t Spoil Stories.
Psychological Science, 22(9), 1152–1154.
LeBel, J. L., & Dubé, L. (2001). The impact of sensory knowledge and attentional focus
on pleasure and on behavioral responses to hedonic stimuli. In 13th annual
American Psychological Society Convention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
73
Lee, Y. H., & Qiu, C. (2009). When Uncertainty Brings Pleasure: The Role of Prospect
Imageability and Mental Imagery. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 624–
633.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers (Edited by
Dorwin Cartwright.) (Vol. xx). Oxford, England: Harpers.
Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The Measurement of Curiosity As a Feeling of
Deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147–157.
Loewenstein, G. (1987). Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption. The
Economic Journal, 97(387), 666–684.
Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.
Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98.
Loewenstein, G., & Angner, E. (2003). Predicting and indulging changing preferences.
Time and decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal
choice, 351-391.
Loewenstein, G. F., & Prelec, D. (1993). Preferences for sequences of outcomes.
Psychological Review, 100(1), 91–108.
Loewenstein, G., Read, D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Time and Decision: Economic
and Psychological Perspectives of Intertemporal Choice. Russell Sage
Foundation.
Loewenstein, G., & Schkade, D. (1999). Wouldn’t it be nice? Predicting future feelings.
Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology, 85-105.
Maclachlan, J., & Jalan, P. (1985). The Effect of Pre-Questions on Advertising Recall.
74
Journal of Advertising, 14(1), 18–49.
Mandel, N., & Nowlis, S. M. (2008). The Effect of Making a Prediction about the
Outcome of a Consumption Experience on the Enjoyment of That Experience.
Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 9–20.
Maner, J. K., & Gerend, M. A. (2007). Motivationally selective risk judgments: Do fear
and curiosity boost the boons or the banes? Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 103(2), 256–267.
Mclain, D. L. (1993). The Mstat-I: A New Measure of an Individual’S Tolerance for
Ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 183–189.
Mellers, B. A. (2000). Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological
Bulletin, 126(6), 910–924.
Mellers, B., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Elation and disappointment:
Emotional responses to risky options. Psychological science, 8(6), 423-29.
Menon, S., & Soman, D. (2002). Managing the Power of Curiosity for Effective Web
Advertising Strategies. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 1–14.
Mullet, E., Hermand, D., Sastre, M. T. M., Nisot, A., & Rusineck, S. (1994). Probability,
value, and … suspense. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(3), 537–557.
Naylor, F. D. (1981). A state-trait curiosity inventory. Australian Psychologist, 16(2),
172–183.
Nelson, L. D., & Meyvis, T. (2008). Interrupted Consumption: Disrupting Adaptation to
Hedonic Experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 654–664.
Nelson, L. D., Meyvis, T., & Galak, J. (2009). Enhancing the Television‐Viewing
Experience through Commercial Interruptions. Journal of Consumer Research,
75
36(2), 160–172.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of
depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(4), 569–582.
Novemsky, N., & Ratner, R. K. (2003). The Time Course and Impact of Consumers’
Erroneous Beliefs about Hedonic Contrast Effects. Journal of Consumer
Research, 29(4), 507–516.
Nowlis, S. M., Mandel, N., & McCabe, D. B. (2004). The Effect of a Delay between
Choice and Consumption on Consumption Enjoyment. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(3), 502–510.
O’Neil, H. F., & Drillings, M. (2012). Motivation: Theory and Research. Routledge.
Olivers, C. N. L., & Meeter, M. (2006). On the dissociation between compound and
present/absent tasks in visual search: Intertrial priming is ambiguity driven. Visual
Cognition, 13(1), 1–28.
Olney, T. J., Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1991). Consumer responses to advertising:
The effects of ad content, emotions, and attitude toward the ad on viewing time.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 440–453.
Osuna, E. E. (1985). The psychological cost of waiting. Journal of Mathematical
Psychology, 29(1), 82–105.
Parasuraman, R. (2000). The Attentive Brain. The MIT Press.
Patrick, V. M., MacInnis, D. J., & Whan Park, C. (2007). Not as Happy as I Thought I’d
Be? Affective Misforecasting and Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer
Research, 33(4), 479–489.
Pavlov, I. P., & Anrep, G. V. (2003). Conditioned Reflexes. Courier Dover Publications.
76
Polivy, J. (1998). The Effects of Behavioral Inhibition: Integrating Internal Cues,
Cognition, Behavior, and Affect. Psychological Inquiry, 9(3), 181–204.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (1992). Attentional mechanisms and conscious
experience. In A. D. Milner & M. D. Rugg (Eds.), The neuropsychology of
consciousness (pp. 91–111). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
Raghunathan, R., & Corfman, K. (2006). Is Happiness Shared Doubled and Sadness
Shared Halved? Social Influence on Enjoyment of Hedonic Experiences. Journal
of Marketing Research, 43(3), 386–394.
Ramanathan, S., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Consuming with Others: Social Influences on
Moment‐to‐Moment and Retrospective Evaluations of an Experience. Journal of
Consumer Research, 34(4), 506–524.
Ratner, R. K., Kahn, B. E., & Kahneman, D. (1999). Choosing Less-Preferred
Experiences for the Sake of Variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 1–15.
Ratneshwar, S., & Mick, D. G. (2005). Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives, Goals,
and Desires. Psychology Press.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading (Vol. xi). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Read, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1995). Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in
variety seeking between combined and separated choices. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(1), 34–49.
____________ (1999). Enduring pain for money: Decisions based on the perception and
memory of pain. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(1), 1-17.
Redelmeier, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1996). Patients’ memories of painful medical
77
treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive
procedures. Pain, 66(1), 3–8.
Rolls, B. J., van Duijvenvoorde, P. M., & Rolls, E. T. (1984). Pleasantness changes and
food intake in a varied four-course meal. Appetite, 5(4), 337–348.
Ross, W. T., & Simonson, I. (1991). Evaluations of pairs of experiences: A preference for
happy endings. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(4), 273–282.
Russell, C. A., & Levy, S. J. (2012). The Temporal and Focal Dynamics of Volitional
Reconsumption: A Phenomenological Investigation of Repeated Hedonic
Experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 341–359.
Sackett, A. M., Meyvis, T., Nelson, L. D., Converse, B. A., & Sackett, A. L. (2010).
You’re Having Fun When Time Flies The Hedonic Consequences of Subjective
Time Progression. Psychological Science, 21(1), 111–117.
Schindler, R. M., & Holbrook, M. B. (2003). Nostalgia for early experience as a
determinant of consumer preferences. Psychology and Marketing, 20(4), 275–
302.
Schkade, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1998). Does Living in California Make People Happy?
A Focusing Illusion in Judgments of Life Satisfaction. Psychological Science,
9(5), 340–346.
Schreiber, C. A., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Determinants of the remembered utility of
aversive sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(1), 27–42.
Shiv, B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2004). The Effect of Distractions While Tasting a Food
Sample: The Interplay of Informational and Affective Components in Subsequent
Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 599–608.
78
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Interest—The Curious Emotion. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 17(1), 57–60.
Simonson, I. (1990). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking
behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2), 150–162.
Smith, J. D., & Washburn, D. A. (2005). Uncertainty Monitoring and Metacognition by
Animals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 19–24.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2009). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford
University Press.
Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior.
Motivation: Theory and research, 221-243.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). The role of optimum stimulation level in
exploratory consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 434–448.
Tversky, A., & Griffin, D. (1991). 12 Endowment and Contrast in Judgments of Well-
Being. Strategy and choice, 297.
van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience
on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(6), 931–941.
van Dijk, E., & Zeelenberg, M. (2007). When curiosity killed regret: Avoiding or seeking
the unknown in decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 43(4), 656–662.
Varey, C. A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Experiences extended across time: Evaluation of
moments and episodes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(3), 169–185.
79
Vogue (2013). The Hunger Games' Jennifer Lawrence Covers the September Issue.
http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/star-quality-jennifer-lawrence-hunger-
games/#1.
Vosgerau, J., Wertenbroch, K., & Carmon, Z. (2006). Indeterminacy and Live Television.
Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 487–495.
Wilson, T. D., Centerbar, D. B., Kermer, D. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). The Pleasures of
Uncertainty: Prolonging Positive Moods in Ways People Do Not Anticipate.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 5–21.
Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000).
Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 821–836.
Wu, G. (1999). Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty.
Theory and Decision, 46(2), 159–199.
Wyer, R. S. (1996). Ruminative Thoughts. Psychology Press.
Zeigarnik, B. (1938). On finished and unfinished tasks. In A source book of Gestalt
psychology (pp. 300–314). London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner &
Company.
Zhao, M., & Tsai, C. I. (2011). The Effects of Duration Knowledge on Forecasted versus
Actual Affective Experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(3), 525–534.
Zillmann, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive behavior.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(4), 419–434.

80
Appendix 1A. Study 1 Questionnaire
PRODUCT TESTING STUDY

We’d now like to ask you a set of questions about your enjoyment with the massage
experience and your feelings.

To what extent was the massage enjoyable?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To what extent was the massage pleasurable?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To what extent was the massage satisfying?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

How do you feel right now?

not at all very much
Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Relaxed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joyful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
81
Frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Hopeful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Energetic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Calm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Tense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Irritated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Surprised 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

For what percent of the time spent on the massage did you actually focus your attention
on the massage itself? (0% - 100%)
%______of the time
To what extent did you feel absorbed in the experience of having a massage?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To what extent did you feel distracted in the experience of having a massage?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To what extent did your mind wander away to things that are not related to the massage
you were getting?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
82
To what extent are you attached to your cell phone?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
How involved are you with your cell phone?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
When your cell phone rings or vibrates to what extent do you expect the call to be about a
good or bad thing?
bad good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following items.
(1= strongly disagree; 7= strongly agree; 4= neither strong disagree nor agree)
1 I don't tolerate ambiguous situations well
2 I find it difficult to respond when faced with an unexpected event
3 I don't think new situations are any more threatening than familiar situations
4 I'm drawn to situations which can be interpreted in more than one way
5
I would rather avoid solving a problem that must be viewed from several different
perspectives
6 I try to avoid situations which are ambiguous
7 I am good at managing unpredictable situations
8 I prefer familiar situations to new ones
9
Problems which cannot be considered from just one point of view are a little
threatening
10 I avoid situations which are too complicated for me to easily understand
11 I am tolerant of ambiguous situations
12 I enjoy tackling problems which are complex enough to be ambiguous
13 I try to avoid problems which don't seem to have only one best solution
14
I often find myself looking for something new, rather than trying to hold things
constant in my life
15 I generally prefer novelty over familiarity
16 I dislike ambiguous situations
17 Some problems are so complex that just trying to understand them is fun
18 I have little trouble coping with unexpected events
83
19
I pursue problem situations which are so complex some people call them "mind
boggling"
20 I find it hard to make a choice when the outcome is uncertain
21 I enjoy an occasional surprise
22 I prefer a situation in which there is some ambiguity

THANK YOU!

84
Appendix 1B. Study 1 Manipulation Checks
PRODUCT TESTING STUDY

We’d now like to ask you a set of questions about your enjoyment with the massage
experience you just had and your feelings.

To what extent was the massage experience…

not at all very much
Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Pleasurable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Satisfying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Did you hear any of the following sounds in addition to the foot massager’s sound?
 Chime
 Instant messaging
 Cell-phone messaging tone
 Fan noise
 Dishwasher noise
 Phone buzzing
 Other _____________
 I did not hear any sound.

85
At any point while you were having the massage did you hear anything that…
not at all very much
made you feel curious? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
made you intrigued by something
other than the massage you were
having?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
made you interested in something
other than the massage you were
having?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Did your cell phone buzz/ring during the massage experience?
 Yes  No
Did the fan machine located under the table started working during the massage
experience?
 Yes  No

THANK YOU!

86
Appendix 2. Study 2 Questionnaire
VIDEO GAME EXPERIENCE SURVEY

We’d now like to ask you a set of questions about your enjoyment with the video game
experience you just had and your feelings.

To what extent was the video game experience…

not at all very much
Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Pleasurable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Satisfying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

While paying the video game, to what extent did you feel…

not at all very much
Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Irritated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Annoyed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Surprised 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

87
Other than the video game’s sound, did you hear any other sound in the room while
playing the video game?
 Yes  No
If yes, what did you hear?

Did you hear any of the following sounds in addition to the video game’s sound?
 My cell phone rang/buzzed
 Noise from iPod
 Coffee machine noise
 Fan noise
 Other _____________
 I did not hear any sound.
What do you think this study was about?

What is your gender?
 Female  Male
Is English your first language?
 Yes  No
THANK YOU!
88
Appendix 3. Study 3 Questionnaire
READING STUDY
Thank you for participating in our study!
In this study you will be asked to complete several short tasks. In the following task you
will read Steve Jobs Commencement Speech at Stanford University for the class of 2005.
You will then be asked to respond to questions about your reading enjoyment and
feelings.

PAGE 1
This is a prepared text of the Commencement address delivered by Steve Jobs, CEO of
Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, on June 12, 2005.

I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest
universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest
I've ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my
life. That's it. No big deal. Just three stories.
The first story is about connecting the dots.
I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-
in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?
It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate
student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be
adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a
lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that
they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the
middle of the night asking: "We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?" They
said: "Of course." My biological mother later found out that my mother had never
graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She
refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my
parents promised that I would someday go to college.
And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as
89
expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on
my college tuition. After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I
wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out.
And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I
decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the
time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped
out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in
on the ones that looked interesting.
It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms,
I returned coke bottles for
PAGE 2
(High and Low curiosity conditions see the following text at the top of their screen:
WE HAVE A SMALL GIFT FOR YOU. THIS IS FOR YOU TO KEEP. PLEASE PULL
OUT YOUR GIFT FROM THE BLACK BAG NEXT TO THE COMPUTER. PLEASE
KEEP THE GIFT BOX IN FRONT OF YOU AND DO NOT OPEN IT UNTIL THE END
OF THE STUDY. )

the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday
night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of
what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless
later on. Let me give you one example:
Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country.
Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand
calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I
decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san
serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations,
about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in
a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating.
None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later,
when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we
designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had
never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple
typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's
likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would
have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have
the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots
looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten
years later.
Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking
90
backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You
have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has
never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.
My second story is about love and loss.
I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my
parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from
just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We
had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just
turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started?
Well, as

PAGE 3

Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with
me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began
to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors
sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my
entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.
I really didn't know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous
generation of entrepreneurs down - that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to
me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so
badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley.
But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events
at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I
decided to start over.
I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that
could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the
lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of
the most creative periods of my life.
During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named
Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went
on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the
most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple
bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the
heart of Apple's current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family
together.
I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was
awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the
head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going
was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your
91
work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the
only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way
to do
PAGE 4
great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle.
As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great
relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you
find it. Don't settle.
My third story is about death.
When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was
your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and
since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked
myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do
today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I
need to change something.
Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to
help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external
expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in
the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going
to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.
About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it
clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The
doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I
should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go
home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. It means to try
to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a
few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as
possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.
I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an
endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into
my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was
there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started
crying because
PAGE 5
92
it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had
the surgery and I'm fine now.
This was the closest I've been to facing death, and I hope it's the closest I get for a few
more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty
than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:
No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there.
And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it
should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's
change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you,
but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared
away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by
dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of
others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage
to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to
become. Everything else is secondary.
When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog,
which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart
Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch.
This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was
all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in
paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing
with neat tools and great notions.
Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it
had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age.
On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road,
the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it
were the words: "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish." It was their farewell message as they
signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And
now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.
Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.
Thank you all very much.
93
We’d now like to ask you a set of questions about your enjoyment with the speech you
just read and your feelings.
To what extent was the speech...
Not at
all
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Very
much
9
Enjoyable
m m m m m m m m m
Pleasurable
m m m m m m m m m
Satisfying
m m m m m m m m m

To what extent did you feel conflicted about whether to read the speech or think about
what the gift box included?
m 1-Not at all
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
m 6
m 7-Very much

When you were reading the speech, to what extent did you feel anxious about learning
about the gift?
m 1-Not at all
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
m 6
m 7-Very much

94
When you were reading speech, to what extent did you feel tense about learning about
the gift?
m 1-Not at all
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
m 6
m 7-Very much

Please list all the thoughts that went through your mind during the reading task.
------
When you were reading the speech, how much would you like to know more about the
gift?
m 1-Not at all
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
m 6
m 7-Very much

When you were reading the speech, how curious were you about the gift?
m 1-Not at all
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
m 6
m 7-Very much

95
What do you think this study was about?
------

Have you read or listened to this speech before?

m Yes
m No

During the study did you have any problems?
----
Before coming to the session, did you see anyone with a gift box?
----
What is your gender?
m Male
m Female

Is English your first language?
m Yes
m No

Please enter your 5-digit ID:
----
THE STUDY IS OVER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO HIDE THE GIFT IN YOUR POCKET OR BAG SO THAT
IT WILL ALSO BE A SURPRISE FOR OTHER PARTICIPANTS. WE WOULD BE
GLAD IF YOU WOULD NOT TALK ABOUT THIS STUDY AND YOUR
EXPERIENCE WITH OTHERS.

96
Appendix 4. Study 4 Questionnaire
READING STUDY

Thank you for participating in our study!

In this study you will be asked to complete several short tasks. In the following task you
will read an interview of the actress Jennifer Lawrence for the Vogue Magazine. You will
then be asked to respond to questions about your reading enjoyment and feelings
PAGE 1

Whether lighting up an indie or fronting a blockbuster franchise, Jennifer Lawrence is
the most electric talent to hit Hollywood in a generation. Jonathan Van Meter meets
America’s favorite heroine.

Leave it to J.Law to choose the Odeon, a restaurant she plucked from a list because she
liked the sound of its name. It opened on a corner in Tribeca long before Lawrence was
even born and defined a genre: Execute everything perfectly, but don’t take it all so
seriously—an apt description of Lawrence herself.

Jennifer Lawrence—unlike, say, Jennifer Aniston or Jennifer Lopez or Jennifer Garner—
never looks the same. It’s one of the reasons writers struggle to find words to describe
her, and often resort to unfortunate ones, like chameleon. David O. Russell, the man who
directed Lawrence to an Oscar in Silver Linings Playbook, remembers bumping into her
during awards season, 2011. “I would see this tall blonde at events, and I never
understood who she was,” he says. “She looked like an Orange County girl—or Malibu
Barbie. And I was like, ‘Who is that?’ And someone would say, ‘That’s Jennifer
Lawrence,’ and I would say, ‘The girl cooking a squirrel on a stick in Winter’s Bone?’ I
never recognized her! She always looks different.”

So different, in fact, that even after one of her two bodyguards comes into the restaurant
to tell me that her arrival is imminent, when she finally walks in the door, I still don’t
recognize her. To be fair, she has on pitch-black Tom Ford sunglasses, and her hair is
wet; she recently had it cut off into a Karlie chop, one that is half blonde and half brown.
(“Too skunky?” she will ask me later. “I think I need to make a decision.”). But before
she even reaches the table, I can hear that raspy voice—the deep rumble of so much
nervous energy. Yup, that’s her.

You can learn a lot about a person in seven hours. Little things, like the kinds of food
97
they don’t like—arugula, eggplant, goat cheese (“I have the taste buds of a five-year-
old”), which TV show they’re obsessed with (Homeland), the strange stuff they’re afraid
of (“I don’t have nightmares about clowns or burglars or murderers. I have nightmares
about thirteen-year-olds. They terrify me”). But you can also learn things that are
superspecific. For example, she got the nickname J.Law in seventh grade, but it was only
this spring that she met J.Lo while hanging out at a party one night with Jimmy Fallon.
“We planned out this whole thing, where we were going to spin around and over to her
and go, ‘Please dance with us!’ But at the last minute, Jimmy pooped out, and all of a
sudden I spun around by myself and said, ‘Dance with . . . me?’ And she was like,
‘Thanks, I’m just gonna watch.’ ”

And therein lies the biggest surprise about Jennifer Lawrence: She has the soul of a
comedian and can riff on just about anything that crosses her path. She did a 20-minute
monologue about sponges: “I wake up earlier in the morning when I have new sponges.

PAGE 2

(High and Low curiosity conditions see the following text at the top of their screen:
WE HAVE A SMALL GIFT FOR YOU. THIS IS FOR YOU TO KEEP. PLEASE PULL
OUT YOUR GIFT FROM THE BLACK BAG NEXT TO THE COMPUTER. PLEASE
KEEP THE GIFT BOX IN FRONT OF YOU AND DO NOT OPEN IT UNTIL THE END
OF THE STUDY. )

That counter doesn’t even see it coming.” The folks who know her best (which is to say,
other actors and directors, as she has lived from one film set to the next for most of her
adult life) all point to this playful side of Lawrence—this “giant goofball,” as one person
put it—as the most important thing about her. Her Hunger Games costar Woody
Harrelson says she creates an atmosphere on set of constant game-playing. “She is one-
of-a-kind, man. She is so herself. I love how she doesn’t censor herself.” As Russell
says, “She grew up with these two older brothers, so she will do an off-color joke that
will shock you and make you laugh so hard. And then she just moves on.” Jodie Foster,
who directed her in The Beaver a few years ago, agrees: “It’s one of the things that I love
about her the most—her rapid-fire teenage-boy-humor brain.” Moments after Lawrence
first walks into the restaurant and sits down, she takes off her shoes to show me her toes.
They are blue. She has been in Montreal all summer, shooting the fifth installment of X-
Men, in which she plays the supervillain Mystique, a hot chick with blue skin and yellow
eyes who shape-shifts into normal people in order to assassinate those involved in anti-
mutant activity (hence, the video-arcade demographic). “They paint me blue every day,”
she says, “so this is what I’m dealing with.” She sticks out her foot again and laughs.
“I’m like Blue Swan.” Although she jokes about it (“I think all mothers are a
nightmare—I don’t think you can have children and not lose your goddamn mind”), she
is close to her parents. The story of how their daughter was discovered—photographed in
Union Square in New York City by a model scout when she was visiting the city on
spring break at the age of fourteen—has been written about so much that, even though
she’s only 23, it has already ossified into myth. Could it be true? Had someone so
98
obviously gifted never really thought about acting? “Look,” she says. “I grew up in
Kentucky, I have brothers, we had to do sports, I was a horrible student, and I kept
getting grounded every time my report card came out. Acting was never an option. It
wasn’t like, ‘Oh, well, you got a C in math; you’re grounded. But you can be an actor!’
” All throughout our lunch at Odeon, the part of Lawrence that never let up was a kind of
intense engagement with the world or the person in front of her. You could practically see
her brain scanning the room, sifting through the data, and then spitting out something
dryly observed, perfectly timed, or oddly profound. (At one point she picked up my
RadioShack tape recorder and examined it: “This thing is archaic. Are you going to write
this whole thing out longhand, with, like, a pen?”) If there is a downside—and I didn’t
experience it as such—it might be that she’s so busy connecting and processing that it
overwhelms her. There were many moments when she was so

PAGE 3

excited to share the seven things that just popped into her head that it would render her
breathless and momentarily incomprehensible. As Jodie Foster says about directing her,
“It’s hard for her to be superficial, to be girly and silly and unaware. And so my direction
was often stupid things, like ‘Move your hands a lot’ or ‘Giggle,’ just trying to loosen her
up so she wasn’t as aware of her own significance.” Given her intensity, it does not come
as a surprise that Lawrence describes her childhood as an “unhappy” one—exceptional,
excitable, hot-wired kids are often misunderstood and full of anxiety. Lawrence herself
was so anxious that her parents found her a therapist. “I was a weirdo,” she says. “I
wasn’t picked on or anything. And I wasn’t smarter than the other kids; that’s not why I
didn’t fit in. I’ve always just had this weird anxiety. I hated recess. I didn’t like field
trips. Parties really stressed me out. And,” she adds, “I had a very different sense of
humor.” I ask Lawrence how that manifested itself in, say, junior high. She launches into
several tales as examples. Like the time she decided it would be funny to jump out of the
emergency exit of a moving school bus; or the time she thought it would be really funny
to announce to the entire seventh grade that she wet the bed; or this: “My family went on
a cruise, and I got a terrible haircut. FYI: Never get your hair cut on a cruise. And I had,
like, this blonde curly ‘fro, and I walked into the gym the first day back in seventh grade
and everyone was staring at me, and for some reason I thought, I know what I need to do!
And I just started sprinting from one end of the gym to the other, and I thought it was
hilarious. But nobody else at that age really did. It was genuinely weird.”

David O. Russell mentions a story that Lawrence told him about how when she was ten
years old, she would ring her own doorbell and then pretend to be someone else when her
family answered: “Hi, my name is Susan. My car broke down up the street, and I’m
wondering if I could come in and use your phone.” Given all of this, it’s hard to believe
that Lawrence—or her parents—didn’t have some inkling she was destined for show
business. “I’ve never said this before,” she says, “because there is no way to say it
without it being completely misunderstood, but ever since I was really little, I always had
a very normal idea of what I wanted: I was going to be a mom and I was going to be
a doctor and I was going to live in Kentucky. But I always knew”—here she lowers her
99
voice—“that I was going to be famous. I honest to God don’t know how else to describe
it. I used to lie in bed and wonder, Am I going to be a local TV person? Am I going to a
motivational speaker? It wasn’t a vision. But

PAGE 4

as it’s kind of happening, you have this buried understanding: Of course.” Lawrence left
school when she was fifteen to pursue acting in earnest, and by 2006, she was living in a
condo in Santa Monica with her mother. She quickly got cast in the TBS comedy The Bill
Engvall Show, which lasted only three seasons. “I know it sounds so stupid,” says
Lawrence, “but it was kind of like I finally found something people were telling me I was
good at, which I had never heard, ever. And that was a big reason why my parents let me
do this. One time, my mom was on the phone with my dad, saying, ‘We’re paying for
therapy and all this medication, and we don’t need it when she’s here. She’s happy.’
” Russell was constantly taken aback by her seeming nonchalance. “I remember Bradley
Cooper and I saying, ‘Is this kid even paying attention?’ Because she’s goofing around or
eating my potato chips or making fart jokes. And then all of a sudden, she comes in,
and bam! She’s like a lot of great athletes. You see that they stay loose, and that’s how
they can be so in-the-moment while under enormous amounts of pressure. If there’s two
minutes left in the game, they can come in and do something extraordinary because their
jaw is not getting clenched. Jen stays loose. And then she hits a three-point shot from
some ridiculous distance and we all just look at each other and go, ‘Wow.’ ” After four
hours at the Odeon, we gather our things (“Don’t forget your nineties car phone,” she
says) and then head outside. We pile into the SUV and immediately get caught in a
bumper-to-bumper snarl (“There’s too much traffic,” she says to the driver. “You’re
fired”). We are heading back to the Greenwich Hotel (owned by Lawrence’s pal De Niro,
whom she bumped into last night), where she is staying for the weekend, in a huge suite
on the sixth floor. We stand at the big windows as a summer thunderstorm rolls through
and drenches all the hapless people on the street below. “Right now I’m just a big fan of
windows,” she says. “I stand at my window at my hotel in Montreal. Like it will be
hours. It’s the only time I can look at big groups of people, and they’re not looking at
me.” Lawrence seems very aware that she’s a girl from Kentucky with uncanny talent
who happens to be riding a huge wave. At one point back at Odeon, I asked her if she
was enjoying Montreal. “A little bit. I mean . . . uh . . . yeah? Yes and no. It’s just that
I’m still getting used to everything. It still makes me a little emotional, just to see how
quickly everything kind of changes . . . that it changes so fast. So I’ve kind of been a big
homebody lately. But I think eventually, one of these days, I guess when the next
franchise starts and I’m not in it, and the new Jennifer Lawrence is born, then I’ll be able
to go outside.”

100
We’d now like to ask you a set of questions about your enjoyment with the interview you
just read and your feelings.
To what extent was the interview...
Not at
all
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Very
much
9
Enjoyable
m m m m m m m m m
Pleasurable
m m m m m m m m m
Satisfying
m m m m m m m m m

When you were reading the speech, to what extent did you feel anxious about learning
about the gift?
m 1-Not at all
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
m 6
m 7-Very much

When you were reading speech, to what extent did you feel tense about learning about
the gift?
m 1-Not at all
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
m 6
m 7-Very much

101
To what extent did you feel anxious because you wanted to attend to what you were
reading, but at the same time, you also wanted to learn about the gift?
m 1-Not at all
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
m 6
m 7-Very much

To what extent did you feel tense because you wanted to attend to what you were
reading, but at the same time, you also wanted to learn about the gift?
m 1-Not at all
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
m 6
m 7-Very much

To what extent did you feel conflicted about attending the interview versus attending to
the gift?
m 1-Not at all
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
m 6
m 7-Very much

Please list all the thoughts that went through your mind during the reading task.
------
102
What do you think this study was about?
------

Have you read this interview before?
m Yes
m No

During the study did you have any problems?
----
Before coming to the session, did you see anyone with a gift box?
----
What is your gender?
m Male
m Female

Is English your first language?
m Yes
m No

Please enter your 5-digit ID:
----
THE STUDY IS OVER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO HIDE THE GIFT IN YOUR POCKET OR BAG SO THAT
IT WILL ALSO BE A SURPRISE FOR OTHER PARTICIPANTS. WE WOULD BE
GLAD IF YOU WOULD NOT TALK ABOUT THIS STUDY AND YOUR
EXPERIENCE WITH OTHERS.

103
Appendix 5. Study 5 Questionnaire
CLIP EXPERIENCE STUDY

We’d now like to ask you a set of questions about your enjoyment with the clip
experience and your feelings.

To what extent was the clip enjoyable?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

To what extent was the clip pleasurable?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

To what extent was the clip satisfying?
not at all very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

THANK YOU!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Consumption experiences and enjoyment driven from these events are an integral part of consumer behavior. Understanding the factors that influence consumption enjoyment is critical from marketers’ perspectives. The more consumers enjoy an experience, the more they will be likely to repeat it and the more they will likely to tell others about it. Consumption experiences can be disrupted by other incidents. For example, it is quite common to come across curiosity‐evoking events such as phone calls, text messages or incoming emails during consumption experiences. However, research on curiosity especially in the consumer behavior literature is quite limited. My dissertation examines how curiosity‐evoking events influence consumption enjoyment. ❧ This dissertation contributes to the literature by (1) showing the link between curiosity‐evoking events and consumption enjoyment, (2) articulating the components of curiosity and separating these components from its antecedents and consequences, (3) developing and testing a theoretical account that explains how a curiosity‐evoking experience impacts consumption enjoyment. These results add to our theoretical understanding of curiosity and its effects on consumers. This research is also important for marketers because it gives them opportunities to make efforts to control their consumption environments and enhance consumption outcomes. ❧ In five experiments I find that curiosity‐evoking events that are coincident with a consumption experience negatively impact consumption enjoyment. I explore several mechanisms behind this effect, and show that attentional diversion is the key mediating factor that impacts consumption enjoyment. Mediation results show that the effect of curiosity on consumption enjoyment is driven by attentional diversion (studies 1, 2, 3, 4), which is created between the curiosity‐evoking event and the consumption experience, but it is not driven by a state of negative or positive affect that is inherent in curiosity. Attentional diversion explanation further helps to predict that curiosity‐evoking events should increase consumption enjoyment of a coincident negative consumption experience, an effect that is observed in study 5 where I manipulate valence of the consumption experience.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Savoring future experiences: antecedents and effects on evaluations of consumption experiences

PDF

Powerful brand influentials: conceptualization, measurement, and distinctiveness of a brand’s influential consumers

PDF

Creation and influence of visual verbal communication: antecedents and consequences of photo-text similarity in consumer-generated communication

PDF

How sequels seduce: consumers' affective expectations for entertainment experiences

PDF

Forgiveness: elucidating the underlying psychological processes that foster brand forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness

PDF

The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers

PDF

Scale construction and effects of brand authenticity

PDF

Emotion, attention and cognitive aging: the effects of emotional arousal on subsequent visual processing

PDF

Reward substitution: how consumers can be incentivized to choose smaller food portions

PDF

How do consumers use brands for identity signaling: Impact of brand prominence on consumers' choice and social interaction

PDF

Essays on consumer product evaluation and online shopping intermediaries

PDF

Essays on bounded rationality and revenue management

PDF

Marketing strategies with superior information on consumer preferences

PDF

Leveraging social normative influence to design online platforms for healthy eating

PDF

Mechanisms of stress effects on learning and decision making in younger and older adults

PDF

The curse of loyalty: interdependent self construal and support for corruption

PDF

Novelty versus familiarity: divergent effects of low predictability and low personal influence

PDF

Who manages the firm matters: the incremental effect of individual managers on accounting quality

PDF

Empirical essays on relationships between alliance experience and firm capability development

PDF

The effects of a customer's comparative processing with positive and negative information on product choice

Asset Metadata

Creator Isikman, Elif (author)

Core Title The effects of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Business Administration

Publication Date 10/25/2014

Defense Date 04/25/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag attention,consumer experience,consumption enjoyment,curiosity,emotion,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Macinnis, Deborah J. (committee chair), Ulkumen, Gulden (committee chair), Cavanaugh, Lisa (committee member), Mather, Mara (committee member), Wood, Wendy (committee member)

Creator Email esicim@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-384405

Unique identifier UC11295898

Identifier etd-IsikmanEli-2419.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-384405 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-IsikmanEli-2419.pdf

Dmrecord 384405

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Isikman, Elif

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA