The Effects of Curiosity-Evoking Events on Consumption Enjoyment

ELIF ISIKMAN

DEBORAH J. MACINNIS

GULDEN ULKUMEN

LISA A. CAVANAUGH

1

Elif Isikman is a PhD candidate at the Marketing Department of University of Southern

California, Marshall School of Business, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0808 (isikman@usc.edu).

Deborah J. MacInnis is Charles L. and Ramona I. Hilliard Professor of Business Administration,

& Professor of Marketing of University of Southern California, Marshall School of Business,

Los Angeles, CA 90089-0808 (macinnnis@usc.edu). Gulden Ulkumen is assistant professor of

marketing, University of Southern California, 701 Exposition Boulevard, Hoffman Hall 516, Los

Angeles, CA 90089-0804 (ulkumen@marshall.usc.edu). Lisa A. Cavanaugh is assistant

professor of marketing, University of Southern California, 701 Exposition Boulevard, Hoffman

Hall 517, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0804 (lisa.cavanaugh@usc.edu). This article is based on the

first author’s Ph.D. dissertation.

2

Curiosity-evoking events such as phone calls, text messages or incoming emails commonly

occur during consumption experiences. This research examines how these curiosity-evoking

events can influence consumers’ enjoyment of a coincident consumption experience. In four

experiments, we find that curiosity-evoking events decrease enjoyment of a coincident

consumption experience and that their effects are different from those of distractions. We explore

several mechanisms behind this effect and show that rumination and attentional conflict are key

mediating factors impacting consumption enjoyment.

3

Marketers aim to maximize enjoyment of a consumption experience since enjoyment

predicts favorable consumption outcomes like repeat purchase and positive word of mouth

(Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan 2008; Rust and Oliver 2000). Yet, consumers are often

exposed to things that arouse their curiosity during these experiences, whether it is a ringing cell

phone, a new email message, a pop-up on a website, or a conversation overheard from an

adjacent booth at a restaurant, among others. Despite the prevalence of such curiosity-evoking

events, we know little about whether, how, and why they might impact enjoyment of a

coincident consumption experience.

One might argue that consumers should have good intuition about factors that reduce

their consumption enjoyment. Interestingly, preliminary data collected by the authors (using an

MTurk survey of 201 respondents) examined this question in the context of cell phones. They

found that consumers prefer to keep their cell phones on during consumption experiences, even

when they know that circumstances will not allow them to check who is contacting them (see

table 1). One might infer from these results that consumers intuit that activated yet unchecked

cell phone messages have no impact on their consumption enjoyment. Somewhat consistent with

this inference, a recent Time magazine mobility survey found that the ratio of people who

reported using their cell phones during consumption experiences such as watching TV (61%),

eating at a restaurant (36%), and driving a car (32%) was noticeably high. These results are

interesting when one considers that mobile devices are increasingly prevalent in consumers' lives

(e.g., 91% carry one). Moreover, such devices can even evoke curiosity without an external

prompt; 67% of cell phone owners report checking their phone for messages, alerts, calls - even

when they do not notice their phone ringing or vibrating; Pew Research Center 2013).

4

While consumers might intuit that curiosity evoking events like ringing cell phones have

no effect on enjoyment of coincident consumption experiences, we demonstrate for the first time

that such events reduce enjoyment of positive coincident consumption experiences. These effects

are observed in studies utilizing different consumption experiences (receiving a foot massage,

reading a passage, playing a video game) and involving different curiosity evoking events (a

buzzing cell phone, a gift box with unknown contents). We predict, and empirically demonstrate

that while the construct of curiosity has a distraction component, its effect on consumption

enjoyment is different than that of mere distraction. Specifically, curiosity-evoking events

significantly reduce enjoyment of coincident consumption experiences, whereas distractions can

increase enjoyment under certain conditions (Shiv and Nowlis 2004).

We also offer several explanations for why curiosity-evoking events might negatively

impact enjoyment of coincident consumption experiences. We predict that curiosity causes

consumers to ruminate about the curiosity-arousing incident and how it might play out. Curiosity

is predicted to dampen consumption enjoyment because (1) rumination creates an attentional

conflict between the consumption experience and the curiosity-arousing event, and thereby

decreases opportunities to assess its benefits, and/or (2) tension (an inherently negative affective

experience caused by attentional conflict) dilutes enjoyment of the focal experience (see figure

1). Our findings support the notion that curiosity negatively impacts consumption enjoyment by

its impact on rumination and attentional conflict. We find no evidence for the negative tension

explanation. These mechanisms are distinct from the manner in which distractions (and

interruptions) impact consumption enjoyment. Thus, our research is also the first to explain why

curiosity-evoking events impact consumption enjoyment, and to show that these events operate

5

through different mechanisms than do other constructs. These results add to our theoretical

understanding of curiosity and its effects on consumers.

Next, we examine the relevant literature on curiosity and its relationship to alternative

constructs. We then predict that curiosity-evoking events negatively affect consumption

experiences, offer process explanations for this effect, and compare curiosity effects to those of

similar constructs (e.g., distraction). We then present four experiments that demonstrate that

curiosity-evoking events decrease consumption enjoyment. Finally, we discuss implications of

this research and future research questions.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Consumption Enjoyment

Consumption experiences and the enjoyment they evoke are integral to consumer

behavior and important to marketers. The more consumers enjoy an experience, the more likely

they are to repeat it (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Bigné, Mattila, and Andreu 2008), and tell

others about it (Ladhari 2007). Previous research has studied various factors that impact

consumption enjoyment, including previous consumption episodes (Ariely and Zauberman 2000,

2003; Loewenstein and Prelec 1993; Ross and Simonson 1991), variety (Galak, Kruger, and

Loewenstein 2012; Ratner, Kahn and Kahneman 1999; Read and Loewenstein 1995), delays

prior to consumption (Loewenstein 1987; Nowlis, Mandel and McCabe 2004), positive

uncertainty (Lee and Qui 2009; Wilson et al. 2005), the presence of others (Raghunathan and

Corfman 2006; Ramanathan and McGill 2007), distractions (Shiv and Nowlis 2004) and

6

interruptions (Nelson and Meyvis 2008; Nelson et al. 2009). Although curiosity-evoking events

often co-occur with consumption experiences, we are aware of no research that examines their

effects on enjoyment of coincident consumption experiences.

Curiosity and Its Relationship to Alternative Constructs

Consistent with Loewenstein (1994), we define curiosity as a feeling of deprivation that

arises from 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). This

feeling of knowledge deprivation creates a “desire to know.” That is, it motivates consumers to

close the information gap by acquiring relevant information.

Prior Work on Curiosity. 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,

this “desire to know” (Loewenstein 1994), has positive effects on consumers by evoking a state

of interest (Silvia 2006). Curious consumers seek more variety and information. When curiosity

is evoked, consumers watch ads for longer periods of time (Olney, Holbrook and Batra 1991)

and are more responsive to them (Menon and Soman 2002; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1992).

Moreover, marketers have observed positive outcomes for promotions that evoke curiosity. For

instance, a few hours after it was announced, Groupon reported selling out of a mystery deal that

purported to give 25% to 99% off of a randomly selected item (Business Insider 2013).

7

Whereas prior work has examined curiosity that is integral to the consumption

experience, we examine curiosity-evoking events that are unrelated to, yet coincident with, a

focal consumption experience. 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.

Work in consumer behavior on the general concept of curiosity is limited, and work on

curiosity’s impact on enjoyment of coincident consumption experiences is nonexistent as far as

we know. Understanding its effects on consumption experiences may be particularly compelling

(theoretically and pragmatically) in light of the fact that consumers frequently use curiosity-

evoking devices during coincident consumption experiences (Time U.S. 2012).

Differentiating Curiosity from Distraction. Before developing hypotheses about the

impact of curiosity evoking events on enjoyment of a coincident consumption activity, it is

important to differentiate curiosity from distraction, which previously has been studied as a

factor impacting consumption enjoyment (see table 2). Distractions are defined as stimuli that are

(1) coincident with the focal consumption experience, but (2) perceived by consumers as

irrelevant to this focal consumption experience, and (3) meant to be ignored or dismissed (Clapp

and Gazzaley 2012; Sussman, Winkler, and Schröger 2003). Whether a stimulus is regarded as

curiosity arousing or distracting depends on how individuals categorize it (as relevant vs.

irrelevant) and hence whether they are motivated to attend to or ignore it. To illustrate, while one

consumer having a massage may categorize faint voices in an adjacent room as potentially

8

curiosity evoking and hence may be motivated to attend to these voices, another consumer may

categorize these same voices as distracting and be motivated to avoid them.

Curiosity is like distractions in that both curiosity-evoking stimuli and distracting stimuli

can compete for consumers’ attention (see table 2). However, curiosity is distinct from

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.

Curiosity and Consumption Enjoyment

The consequences of curiosity have often been depicted as positive (Kashdan, Rose, and

Fincham 2004; Menon and Soman 2002; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1992). However, when it

comes to enjoyment of a coincident consumption experience, we suggest that curiosity-evoking

events have negative consequences. Several explanations shown in figure 1 motivate this

prediction. We argue that curiosity leads consumers to ruminate about the curiosity-evoking

event, creating attentional conflict. 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. Attentional conflict might also instigate an inherently

negative tension state, which decreases consumption enjoyment. Below, we elaborate further on

these accounts.

9

Rumination and Attentional Conflict. Curiosity might negatively impact enjoyment of a

consumption experience because the curiosity-evoking event stimulates rumination about the

curiosity-evoking stimulus. 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” (see figure 1). We define rumination as a process by which

an individual mulls over unresolved issues and feelings (Nolen-Hoeksema 1991). 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?

Rumination about the curiosity-evoking event may create an approach-approach

attentional conflict since consumers must choose to which stimulus they should devote their

attention -- the curiosity evoking stimulus or the engaging consumption experience (Coull 2004;

Lewin 1951). Attentional conflict might directly impact curiosity because it diverts attention

away from the consumption experience and directs attention to the curiosity-evoking event,

decreasing one’s engagement with the focal experience and thereby reducing opportunities to

process its positive 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 and Dube 2001).

___________________________

Insert figure 1 about here___________________________

10

Tension Induced by Rumination and Attentional Conflict. Curiosity might also negatively

impact enjoyment of a consumption experience because rumination and attentional conflict may

give rise to a negative tension state that dilutes the experienced pleasure of the consumption

experience (see figure 1). In this sense the state of information deprivation induced by curiosity

(e.g., in the cell phone case, uncertainty about who is calling and for what purpose) is tension

and anxiety evoking. Because this tension is inherently negative, it bleeds over to consumers’

evaluations of the consumption experience.

Thus, both of these accounts predict reduced consumption enjoyment from curiosity.

However, they differ in a subtle, yet important way. In addition to the same rumination and

attentional conflict constructs that the first account includes, the second account proposes an

additional, negative tension component. Formally, we hypothesize that:

H1: Curiosity-evoking events that are unrelated to the focal consumption experience

will decrease enjoyment of a positive consumption experience compared to the

same experience where curiosity is not evoked.

Moreover, the effect of curiosity on consumption enjoyment could be multiply

determined. Hence we posit that:

H2a: The effect of curiosity on consumption enjoyment is mediated by rumination

about the curiosity-evoking event, and the ensuing attentional conflict between

the focal task and curiosity-evoking event.

H2b: The effect of rumination and attentional conflict from curiosity on consumption

enjoyment is mediated by a state of negative tension.

11

Differential Effects of Curiosity versus Distractions on Consumption Enjoyment

Since curiosity is conceptually distinct from distractions (see table 2), we also predict that

its effects will differ from those of distractions.

Curiosity versus Distractions. We anticipate that distractions are less insidious than

curiosity-evoking events in their negative impact on consumption enjoyment. Specifically, and

as table 2 suggests, distractions have the potential to temporarily divert attention away from the

consumption experience. Since the consumption experience is meant to be enjoyed and

processed fully, distractions can be irritating and can interrupt processing of the consumption

experience’s positive benefits. Both irritation and reduced processing might negatively impact

consumption enjoyment. However, unlike curiosity, distractions involve no rumination or

approach-approach attentional conflict. Moreover, distractions neither divert attention for an

extended period of time nor induce a state of negative tension. As such, we predict that:

H3: Curiosity will have a more negative effect on enjoyment of a coincident

consumption experience than will distraction.

We next report four experiments that test our hypotheses. 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). All studies

consistently demonstrate that curiosity-arousing events decrease enjoyment of the coincident

consumption experience. In studies 1 and 2 we compare the effects of curiosity to those of

distractions and find that curiosity-evoking events have different effects on enjoyment than do

12

distractions. Building on these findings, studies 2, 3, and 4 examine the process explanation

behind this effect, and assess the rumination, attentional conflict, and tension explanations.

STUDY 1

Study 1 tests our main prediction that curiosity-evoking events reduce consumption

enjoyment (hypothesis 1) and that they do so to a greater extent than do distracting events

(hypothesis 3). Since individuals feel a need to immediately review and respond to incoming

texts, calls, or email messages (Balding 2012), we anticipate that such stimuli will be curiosity

evoking. Therefore, we operationalize curiosity by an incoming cell phone call of unknown

origin.

Method

Seventy-seven university students who were contacted by email were told that they

would 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.

13

Once at the lab, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: control,

curiosity, and distraction. 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 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.

Curiosity and distraction were each operationalized using a buzzing sound and were

implemented precisely at one and then at two minutes into the massage. In the curiosity

condition, the buzz came from participants’ cell phones. The experimenter, who sat in an

adjacent room, called participants on their cell phones, using the phone number that participants

had previously provided. Participants’ phones buzzed for approximately 15 seconds during each

call, resulting in approximately 30 seconds of phone buzzing during the 3-minute foot massage.

Distraction was operationalized using a fan located under the table in the experiment

room and visible to participants. The fan’s sound was loud enough to momentarily attract

participants’ attention. The fan was remotely operated and made a buzzing sound twice for

approximately 15 seconds each time. The timing and duration of the distraction manipulation

was equivalent to that in the curiosity condition.

Participants in the control condition were not exposed to a curiosity-evoking or

distracting event. 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

14

averaged to create a scale indicating overall enjoyment of the foot massage ( = .90). Finally,

participants were provided with debrief questions. Data from two participants, who reported that

they felt a connection between the cell phone instructions and the massage study were excluded

from the analysis (the results are consistent when data from these participants are included).

Consumption Enjoyment. A one-way ANOVA on enjoyment of the foot massage

revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(2, 72) = 3.04, p < .050, such that enjoyment of

the foot massage was significantly lower in the curiosity (Mcuriosity = 6.42) than the control (Mcontrol

= 7.22; t(72) = 2.18, p < .032) and distraction (Mdistraction = 7.26; t(72) = -2.15, p < .035)

conditions, which were not significantly different from one another (t(72) = -.11, NS). These

results support hypotheses 1 and 3.

Manipulation Checks. A separate study (N=36) was conducted to confirm that the

manipulations in study 1 were implemented successfully. A separate sample of students from the

same population participated in a 10-minute study in return for $5 compensation. Participants

were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: control, curiosity, and distraction. Procedures

were identical to those in the main study.

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 = .91)

Next, we asked participants whether or not they heard the buzz (from their phone or the

fan). Participants then responded to two items that measured their curiosity. They indicated

15

whether at any point while they were having the massage they heard anything that made them

feel (1) curious, and (2) interested in something other than the massage they were having. Two

additional items were used to measure distraction. Participants indicated whether at any point

while they were having the massage they heard anything that (1) distracted them, and (2) made

their mind wander to something other than the massage they were having. Answers to all

questions were collected on 9-point scales (1 = not at all, 9 = very much).

The two curiosity items (curious and interested; = .70) were averaged to create a

curiosity scale, and the two distraction items (distracted and wander away; = .88) were

averaged to create a distraction scale. As a check on the curiosity manipulation, we conducted a

one-way ANOVA on the curiosity scale. It revealed a significant main effect for condition (F(2,

33) = 5.83, p < .007), such that curiosity was significantly higher in the curiosity than distraction

(Mcuriosity = 4.68 vs. Mdistraction = 3.07; t(33) = 2.09, p < .045) and control conditions (Mcontrol = 1.91;

t(33) = -3.40, p < .002). The distraction and control conditions were not significantly different

from each other (t(33) = -1.51, NS). Thus, the curiosity manipulation was successful.

A one-way ANOVA on the distraction scale revealed a significant main effect for

condition (F(2, 33) = 6.17, p < .005), such that distraction was significantly lower in the control

condition (Mcontrol = 1.82) than curiosity (Mcuriosity = 4.96, t(33) = -3.48, p < .001) and distraction

conditions (Mdistraction = 3.71, t(33) = -2.23, p < .033), which were not significantly different from

one another, (t(33) = 1.45, NS).

These results show that as expected, relative to the control group (1) both the curiosity

and distraction manipulations created a sense of distraction from the consumption experience,

but (2) only the curiosity manipulation induced a state of curiosity. The results for distraction are

not surprising, since both curiosity and distraction have the capacity to divert attention from the

16

consumption experience and hence be distracting, even if the diversion of attention in the case of

a distracting stimulus is momentary whereas the diversion of attention for curiosity may be more

sustained (evoking rumination); see table 1.

Overall, study 1 provides an initial demonstration that counter to consumers’ intuitions,

curiosity decreases consumption enjoyment (hypothesis 1), and that its effects are different from

that of mere distraction (hypothesis 3).

STUDY 2

Study 2 aims to replicate and extend study 1’s findings with a different consumption

experience. Study 2 tests whether curiosity will continue to have a distinct effect on consumption

enjoyment as compared to distraction (hypothesis 3) even when the consumption experience is a

more stimulating one—playing a video game—than the 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 conflict.

Method

Eighty-six undergraduate university students participated in a 15-minute “product testing

study.” Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions (control, curiosity,

and distraction). We told participants 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 (such as a ringing cell

17

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 consumption experience). Participants were video recorded unobtrusively

while playing the video game, which allowed for the collection of additional behavioral data.

In the curiosity condition, participants placed their cell phones on a table next to their

chair. To evoke curiosity, the experimenter called participants on their cell phones while they

played the game. (We obtained participants’ phone numbers one week prior to the study through

the study sign-up system.) In the control and distraction conditions, we placed an iPod on the

table next to the participant’s chair. In the distraction condition, we used a classical song

(Chopin, Waltz in C-Sharp Minor Op. 64 No. 2; Davey et al. 2003), which was pretested (N =

31) to be neutral in valence. The iPod manipulation used in the distraction condition was

designed to be distracting but not curiosity evoking. To create distraction, we remotely activated

the iPod. The duration and the timing of the music were identical to the duration and the timing

of the cell phone ring in the curiosity condition. Since participants were playing the game when

the cell phone and iPod were activated, neither device could be examined during the game.

Participants in the control condition had no disruption of their video game experience.

___________________________

Insert figure 2 about here___________________________

Measures

18

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 ( = .87).

Attentional Conflict. Video recordings of participants while they played the game were

used to determine the number of times participants looked at the iPod or cell phone; these

“looks” were used as an observable measure of attentional conflict induced by wanting to both

play the video game and see who might be calling. In the control condition, two coders coded

“looks” directed at anything other than the video game. 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(2, 83) = 3.39, p < .038, such that enjoyment of the videogame was significantly

lower in the curiosity (Mcuriosity = 6.86) than in the control (Mcontrol = 7.64; t(83) = 2.44, p < .017)

and distraction (Mdistraction = 7.62; t(83) = 2.08, p < .041) conditions, which did not differ (t(83)

= .06, NS). These results replicate study 1’s results and provide further support for hypothesis 1

and 3.

Attentional Conflict. A one-way ANOVA on the measure of attentional conflict revealed

a significant main effect for condition, F(2, 83) = 27.08, p < .000, such that “looks” were

19

significantly higher in the curiosity (Mcuriosity = 1.36) than in the control (Mcontrol = .03; t(83) = -

7.32, p < .000) and distraction (Mdistraction = .41; t(83) = -4.57, p < .000) conditions. Moreover, the

number of “looks’ was significantly higher in the distraction than in the control condition (t(83)

= -2.02, p < .047). These results suggest that although the distracting stimulus momentarily

evoked participants’ attention, the curiosity-evoking stimulus created more attentional conflict.

We conducted a mediation analysis to test whether the effect of condition on enjoyment

is explained by attentional conflict. We tested this using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro and

Model 4 with 5,000 bootstrapped samples (see Hayes 2013). To test mediation of a three-group

independent variable (Hayes 2013, 196), we constructed two dummy variables, X1 and X2,

representing the distraction and curiosity conditions respectively. (We ran PROCESS twice, once

with X1 as the IV and X2 as a covariate, and once with X2 as the IV and X1 as the covariate

allowing one to recover each indirect effect, as outlined by Hayes (2013).) With three groups,

there are two indirect effects: 1) the indirect effect of Distraction versus Control on Enjoyment

through Looks, 2) the indirect effect of Curiosity versus Control on Enjoyment through Looks.

The indirect effect of Distraction versus Control was B = -.62 (SE = .31) with a 95% bias-

corrected bootstrapped confidence interval that included 0 (95% CI [-1.21, .02]). The indirect

effect of Curiosity versus Control was B = -.18 (SE = .10) with a 95% bias-corrected

bootstrapped confidence interval that excluded 0 (95% CI [-.42, -.01]. The results confirm that

the conditional indirect effect of curiosity on consumption enjoyment through looks was

significant. This result shows that attentional conflict (as indicated by the number of looks)

mediated the effect of curiosity on enjoyment. As such we find preliminary support for the

attentional conflict explanation in hypotheses 2a and 2b.

20

Discussion

Study 2 shows that curiosity-evoking events significantly decrease consumption

enjoyment and that the effect is different from and more negative than that of distraction. These

results conceptually replicate our previous findings. They also support hypotheses 1 and 3 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. These results offer initial support of for our

hypothesis that curiosity reduces enjoyment due to attentional conflict. The behavioral measure

of attentional conflict used in this study (i.e., “looks”) is informative as an indicator of attentional

conflict. However, we have not yet examined the role of rumination and/or negative tension as

possible process mechanisms. Thus, study 3 aims to test hypotheses 2a and 2b more directly by

including measures of rumination, attentional conflict, and negative tension.

STUDY 3

In study 3 we test the hypothesis that curiosity induces rumination about the curiosity-

evoking event and creates an attentional conflict between the curiosity evoking event and the

consumption experience, causing consumers to extract fewer positive benefits from the

consumption experience (hypothesis 2a). We also test whether attentional conflict induces a state

of negative tension, which spills over to and dilutes the impact of the positive consumption

experience (hypothesis 2b).. Study 3 also operationalizes curiosity with a different curiosity-

evoking experience and manipulates the level of curiosity participants experienced.

21

Method

One hundred and five university students participated in what was described as a 15-

minute study on reading enjoyment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three

between-subjects conditions: high curiosity, low curiosity, and control. The consumption

experience was a reading a passage (2274 words) from a Stanford commencement speech by

Steve Jobs (Business Insider 2011).

A gift box was used to manipulate curiosity. At the beginning of the second page of the

speech, participants in the high and low curiosity 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 high curiosity condition received a

gift box with opaque packaging, which did not allow them to see the gift box contents.

Participants in the low curiosity condition received a transparent gift box, which allowed

participants to see that the box contained a pen. Participants in the control condition did not

receive a gift box. After they finished the reading task, respondents were asked to indicate how

much they enjoyed reading the speech. They then responded to questions about curiosity,

rumination, attentional conflict, and tension.

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

22

(1 = not at all and 9 = very much). These scores were averaged to form an overall measure of

reading enjoyment ( = .91).

Manipulation Check on Curiosity. Next, 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 ( = .92). Participants in the control

condition had not received a gift box; hence they did not complete these questions.

Rumination. 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 ruminate more about the curiosity-evoking event might mention thoughts related to this

event. Hence we coded the number of times participants mentioned a gift-related thought. Two

coders, who reviewed the participants’ open-ended responses, coded number of gift-related

thoughts. Coder agreement was r = .98; disagreements were resolved by joint discussion.

Attentional Conflict. Respondents also 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).

Tension. To measure whether participants felt a negative state of tension, 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

23

averaged to form the tension index ( = .69). Because participants in the control condition did

not receive a gift box, conflict and tension questions were only presented to the participants in

the high and low curiosity conditions.

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 < .006, such that curiosity was

significantly higher in the high curiosity condition (opaque box; Mhigh = 5.18) than in the low

curiosity condition (transparent box; Mlow = 4.14). The control condition was not included in the

analysis since participants in this condition did not see questions pertaining to the gift box.

Consumption Enjoyment. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of

condition (F(2, 102) = 4.04, p < .021), such that reading enjoyment was significantly lower in the

high curiosity condition (Mhigh = 7.34) than in the low curiosity (Mlow = 7.97; t(102) = -2.16, p

< .033) and control (Mcontrol = 8.17; t(102) = 2.60, p < .011) conditions, which did not differ

(t(102) = .61, NS). These results provide further support for hypothesis 1.

Rumination and Attentional Conflict. A one-way ANOVA on the thoughts about the gift,

revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(2, 102) = 6.51, p < .002, such that gift-related

thoughts were significantly higher in the high curiosity (Mhigh = .66) than in the low curiosity

(Mlow = .22; t(102) = 2.51, p < .014) and control (Mcontrol = .00, t(102) = -3.42, p < .001)

24

conditions, which did not differ (t(102) = -1.1, NS). Thus the solid (curiosity-arousing) box

created more thoughts about the gift than the transparent box did.

To test whether curiosity impacts enjoyment through rumination and attentional conflict

(hypothesis 2a), we tested a serial (multi-step) mediation analysis using Model 6 and 5000

bootstrapped samples as suggested by Hayes (2013). Because respondents in the control

condition did not see the conflict question, this condition was not included in the analyses.

Figure 3 shows the model coefficients. The direct effect of curiosity was not significant,

= .59; (SE = .32) t(76) = 1.82, NS). However, the indirect effect of curiosity versus distraction

was significant, B = .06 (SE = .05) with a 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval

that excluded 0 (95% CI [.01, .22]). Consistent with hypothesis 2a, this result suggests that the

effect of curiosity on consumption enjoyment is created by rumination about the curiosity-

evoking event, which causes attentional conflict. The specific indirect effects through

rumination alone (95% CI [-.32, .05]) and through conflict alone (95% CI [-.05, .28]) included 0

and 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 [-.15, .02]) nor testing the effects of rumination and conflict as parallel mediators

(Model 4; 95% CI [-.12, .27]) revealed significant effects. In summary, these results support the

notion that curiosity leads to rumination, which causes attentional conflict, which in turn

decreases enjoyment.

Tension Induced by Rumination and Attentional Conflict. The effect of attentional

conflict from rumination on consumption enjoyment could be due to the fact that conflict diverts

attention from the focal experience (as the behavioral measure of attentional conflict in study 2

25

showed), which makes it more difficult to extract enjoyment benefits from the focal task. This

feeling of conflict might also produce a negative state of tension, which dilutes the hedonic value

of the focal experience (see figure 1). To test the possible role of tension, we also conducted a

serial mediation analysis through curiosity, rumination, attentional conflict, and tension. We

tested this serial mediation analysis, again using Model 6 and 5000 bootstrapped samples (Hayes

2013). The indirect effect of curiosity versus distraction was not significant, B = -.01(SE = .02)

with a 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval that included zero (95% CI [-.07,

.02]) and did not reveal a significant effect. This result does not support negative tension as a

mediator.

___________________________

Insert figure 3 about here___________________________

Discussion

Consistent with studies 1 and 2, study 3 demonstrates that curiosity has a negative effect

on enjoyment (hypothesis 1). Across the studies, we find that 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 high curiosity (opaque gift box) to a

low curiosity (transparent gift box) and a control condition. Study 3 also finds that the effect of

curiosity on consumption enjoyment is mediated by rumination about the curiosity-evoking

event and attentional conflict regarding the entity to which attention should be focused

(hypothesis 2a). Notably, attentional conflict does not seem to induce a negative tension state.

26

Confidence in these results would increase through replication and additional

measurement of tension, particularly since the reliability of the scale used to measure tension

was modest (i.e., = .69). In study 4 we aim to address this issue by developing a more reliable

measure of tension. In addition, we also use a different, shorter reading task involving a female

personality who relates topics that are more upbeat and fun, as opposed to vs. the more serious

yet still interesting reading passage used in study 3. .

STUDY 4

Study 3 suggests that rumination and attentional conflict drive the effects of curiosity on

enjoyment. In this study, we 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 rumination and attentional conflict is an

additional driver of the effect of curiosity on enjoyment (hypothesis 2b).

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:

high and low curiosity. 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

27

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.

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 (= .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 (= .95).

Attentional Conflict. 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).

28

Rumination. 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 = .99; disagreements were resolved by

joint discussion.

Results

Enjoyment. A one-way ANOVA on the enjoyment measure revealed a significant

enjoyment difference between the high versus low curiosity condition (F(1, 133) = 3.96, p

= .049) with consumers in the high curiosity condition enjoying the consumption experience less

than those in the low curiosity condition (Mhigh = 5.96 vs. Mlow = 6.67), supporting hypothesis 1.

Rumination and Attentional Conflict: A one-way ANOVA on the number of thoughts

about the gift revealed a significant main effect of curiosity (Mhigh = .56 vs. Mlow = .27, F(1, 133)

= 5.51, p < .020). We 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 4 presents model coefficients. The direct effect of curiosity was not significant,

= .64 (SE = .36); t(133) = 1.78, NS. The indirect effect of the high curiosity versus low curiosity

condition was significant, B = .03 (SE = .03) with a 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence

interval that excluded 0 (95% CI [.01, .12]). 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

29

(95% CI [-.26, .08]) and through attentional conflict (B = .01(SE = .10)) alone (95% CI

[-.18, .22]) were not significant, indicating that neither is an independent mediator of the effect

of curiosity on enjoyment.

___________________________

Insert figure 4 about here___________________________

Tension Induced by Rumination and Attentional Conflict. A one-way ANOVA on the

tension index alone did not reveal a significant effect (Mhigh = 2.30 vs. Mlow = 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 conflict induced from rumination about the curiosity-evoking task.

Discussion

The results of study 4 suggest that participants in the high curiosity condition enjoyed the

consumption experience significantly less than did those in the low curiosity condition,

supporting hypothesis 1. This finding replicates the results of our previous studies. As with study

3, we observed that high curiosity led to greater rumination compared to low curiosity, and the

route from rumination to attentional conflict mediated the effect of curiosity on enjoyment

30

(hypothesis 2a). As in study 3, we found no evidence that tension mediates the effect of curiosity

on enjoyment (hypothesis 2b). These findings suggest that curiosity-evoking events decrease

consumption enjoyment by inducing rumination about the curiosity evoking experience and

evoking attentional conflict between the focal consumption experience and the curiosity evoking

one. Attentional conflict 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 study 2, which included a behavioral measure of attentional conflict.

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. In four experiments we demonstrate that curiosity-evoking events

that are coincident with a consumption experience negatively impact consumption enjoyment.

The effect of curiosity is different from the effects of distractions (study 1 and 2). Our mediation

results show that the effect of curiosity on consumption enjoyment is driven by rumination and

attentional conflict (studies 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 tension from the feeling of

conflict (studies 3 and 4).

We replicate our findings using multiple different consumption experiences (receiving a

foot massage, playing a video game, and reading a passage), using different curiosity evoking

31

events (a buzzing cell phone, a gift box with unknown contents) and involving different

distractions (fan machine buzz, music from speakers). We also demonstrate that the effect of

curiosity is robust across relaxing (e.g., a foot massage), stimulating (e.g., a video game), and

cognitively engaging (e.g., reading) consumption experiences that differ in tone (serious vs.ersus

upbeat).

Implications and Extensions

This research 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. We add to this literature by

showing how another coincident event, a curiosity-evoking incident, influences consumption

enjoyment, and how curiosity effects are different from the effects of distractions. We

demonstrate how attentional conflict explains curiosity's unique effect, and find no evidence to

support the negative tension explanation.

Prior research associates curiosity linked to a focal consumption task with positive

outcomes (Menon and Soman 2002). Research also finds that curiosity can be a positive

emotional state related to emotions like interest (Silvia 2006). However, we suggest that

curiosity evoked by a stimulus that is unrelated to, but coincident with the focal consumption

event negatively impacts consumption enjoyment.

Another construct that may be studied in relation to curiosity is interruption, which

involves a temporary ceasing of the consumption experience and the commencement of the

interrupting stimulus (Nelson and Meyvis 2008). We anticipate that curiosity-evoking events

32

share more similarities with distractions than they do with interruptions, as distractions and

curiosity-evoking incidents do not involve actual breaks, as interruptions do (see table 2).

Moreover, our argument that curiosity can negatively impact consumption enjoyment runs

counter to prior research that shows that interruptions can enhance consumption enjoyment

(Nelson and Meyvis 2008, Nelson et al. 2009), due to hedonic adaptation (Fredrick and

Loewenstein 1999). Future research might aim to confirm these predictions.

The findings of this research have important implications. 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. Our 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. To test this account, we conducted an additional field study

to examine the negative effects of curiosity in a naturalistic context. We invited moviegoers (N =

299) exiting free movie screenings at a campus movie theatre to participate in a 2-minute paper

and pencil survey about their movie experience. Participants were asked to indicate how much

they enjoyed the movie on a 9-point scale (1 = not at all and 9 = very much), and whether or not

they received a phone call, text message or email message during the movie. A regression

analysis on enjoyment revealed that people who received a phone call, enjoyed the movie

significantly less than those who did not (t(296) = -2.97, p = .001). Moreover, people who

checked their phones enjoyed the movie significantly less than those who did not check their

phones (t(296) = -3.76, p < .001). Although correlational, the results of this field study are

consistent with our reported experimental results.

Whereas our studies examine conditions where individuals must wait until after the

consumption experience to resolve their curiosity, future studies might examine if these effects

33

are replicated if curiosity-evoking events are resolved during the consumption experience. Future

studies might also examine why some consumers intentionally delay information resolution

whereas others do not.

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.

34

REFERENCES

Ariely, Dan and Gal Zauberman (2000), “On the Making of an Experience: The Effects of

Breaking and Combining Experiences on Their Overall Evaluation,” Journal of

Behavioral Decision Making, 13 (April), 219–32.

Balding, Richard (2012), “Turn Off Your Smart Phone To Beat Stress,” presented at the British

Psychological Society’s Division of Occupational Psychology Conference, Chester,

England.

Bigné, Enrique J., Anna S. Mattila, and Luisa Andreu (2008), “The Impact of Experiential

Consumption Cognitions and Emotions on Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of Services

Marketing, 22 (4), 303-15.

Business Insider (2013), “People Are Going Nuts Over Groupon’s $10 Mystery Deal,”

htttp://www.businessinsider.com/groupons-midsummer-mystery-deal-takes-off-2013-8.

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.

Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2001), “The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and

Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing,

65 (April), 81-93.

Chitturi, Ravinda, Rajagopal Raghunathan, and Vijay Mahajan (2008), “Delight by Design: The

Role of Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Benefits,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (May), 48-63.

35

Clapp, Wesley C. and Adam Gazzaley (2012), “Distinct Mechanisms for the Impact of

Distraction and Interruption on Working Memory in Aging,” Neurobiology of Aging, 33

(1), 134–48.

Coull, Jennifer T. (2004), “fMRI Studies of Temporal Attention: Allocating Attention Within,

or Towards Time,” Cognitive Brain Research, 21, 216-26.

Curci, Antonietta, Tiziana Lanciano, Emanuela Soleti, and Bernard Rimé (2013), “Negative

Emotional Experiences Arouse Rumination and Affect Working Memory Capacity,”

Emotion, 13 (5), 867-80.

Davey, Graham C. L., Helen M. Startup, Ayten Zara, C. Benie MacDonald, and Andy B. Field

(2003), “The Perseveration of Checking Thoughts and Mood-as-Input Hypothesis,”

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 34 (2), 141-60.

Frederick, Shane and George Loewenstein (1999), “Hedonic Adaptation,” in Well-being: The

Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, ed. D. Kahneman, E. Diener, and N. Schwarz, NY:

Russell Sage Foundation, 302-29.

Galak, Jeff, Justin Kruger, and George Loewenstein (2013), “Slow Down! Insensitivity to Rate

of Consumption Leads to Avoidable Satiation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5),

993-1009.

Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process

Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kashdan, Todd B., Paul Rose, and Frank D. Fincham (2004), “Curiosity and Exploration:

Facilitating Positive Subjective Experiences and Personal Growth Opportunities,”

Journal of Personality Assessment, 82 (3), 291–305.

36

Ladhari, Riadh (2007), “The Effect of Consumption Emotions on Satisfaction and Word-of-

Mouth Communications,” Psychology & Marketing, 24 (December), 1085-108.

LeBel, Jordan L. and Laurette Dube (2001), “The Impact of Sensory Knowledge And Attentional

Focus on Pleasure And on Behavioral Responses to Hedonic Stimuli,” paper presented at

the 13th annual American Psychological Society Convention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Lee, Yih H. and Cheng Qiu (2009), “When Uncertainty Brings Pleasure: The Role of Prospect

Imageability and Mental Imagery,” Journal of Consumer Research 36, (December), 624–

33.

Lewin, Kurt (1951), Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, Oxford,

England: Harpers.

Loewenstein, George (1987), “Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption,” The

Economic Journal, 97 (387), 666–84.

____________ (1994), “The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation,”

Psychological Bulletin, 116 (1), 75–98.

Loewenstein, George F. and Dražen Prelec (1993), “Preferences for Sequences of Outcomes,”

Psychological Review, 100 (1), 91–108.

Menon, Satya and Dilip Soman (2002), “Managing the Power of Curiosity for Effective Web

Advertising Strategies,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (3), 1-14.

Nelson, Leif D. and Tom Meyvis (2008), “Interrupted Consumption: Disrupting Adaptation to

Hedonic Experiences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (6), 654–64.

Nelson, Leif D., Tom Meyvis, and Jeff Galak (2009), “Enhancing the Television-Viewing

Experience through Commercial Interruptions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36

(August), 160-72.

37

Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan (1991), “Response to Depression and Their Effects on the Duration of

Depressive Episodes,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100 (November), 569-82.

Nowlis, Stephen M., Naomi Mandel, and Deborah Brown McCabe (2004), “The Effect of a

Delay Between Choice and Consumption on Consumption Enjoyment,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 31 (December), 502–10.

Olney J. Thomas, Morris B. Holbrook, and Rajeev Batra (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), 440-53.

Pew Research Center (2013), “Pew Internet: Mobile,”

http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/February/Pew-Internet-Mobile.aspx.

Raghunathan, Rajagopal and Kim Corfman (2006), “Is Happiness Shared Doubled and Sadness

Shared Halved?: Social Influence on Enjoyment of Hedonic Experiences,” Journal of

Marketing Research, 43 (3), 386-94.

Ramanathan, Suresh and Ann L. McGill (2007), “Social Influences on Moment-to‐Moment and

Retrospective Evaluations of an Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34

(December), 506-24.

Ratner, Rebecca.K., Barbara E. Kahn, and Daniel Kahneman (1999), “Choosing Less-Preferred

Experiences for the Sake of Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (1), 1-15.

Read, Daniel and George Loewenstein (1995), “Diversification Bias: Explaining the Discrepancy

in Variety Seeking Between Combined and Separated Choices,” Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Applied, 1 (1), 34–49.

Ross, William T., and Itamar Simonson (1991), “Evaluations of Pairs of Experiences: A

Preference for Happy Endings,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 4, (4), 273–282.

38

Rust, Roland T. and Richard L. Oliver (2000), “Should We Delight the Customer?” Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), 86-94.

Shiv, Baba and Stephen M. Nowlis (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.

Silvia, Paul (2006), Exploring the Psychology of Interest, NY: Oxford University Press.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. and Hans Baumgartner (1992), “The Role of Optimum

Stimulation Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research,

19 (3), 434-48.

Sussman, Elyse, István Winkler, and Erich Schröger (2003), “Top-down Control over

Involuntary Attention Switching in the Auditory Modality,” Psychonomic Bulletin &

Review, 10 (3), 630–37.

Time U.S. (2012), “Your Wireless Life: Results of Time’s Mobility Poll,”

http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2122187,00.html.

Vogue (2013), “The Hunger Games' Jennifer Lawrence Covers the September Issue,”

http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/star-quality-jennifer-lawrence-hunger-games/#1.

Wilson, Timothy D., David B. Centerbar, Deborah A. Kermer, and Daniel T. Gilbert (2005),

“The Pleasures of Uncertainty: Prolonging Positive Moods in Ways People Do Not

Anticipate,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (1), 5–21.

39

TABLES

TABLE 1

PILOT STUDY: CONSUMERS’ PREFERENCES UNDER DIFFERENT SITUATIONS

you turn your cell phone off before …..

you know you won’t be able to check it during ……, but you prefer to keep it on (silent) anyway

1 You are taking a class/workshop 34% 66%2 You are watching an enjoyable movie in the

theatre44% 56%

3 You are having a tasty meal with friends 16% 84%4 You are listening to your favorite band in a

concert27% 73%

5 You are visiting dentist’s office 27% 73%6 You are watching an enjoyable movie at home 13% 87%7 You are playing a video game 11% 89%8 You are watching a boring documentary in the

theatre26% 74%

9 You are reading a good book 14% 86%10 You are listening to a long, tedious presentation

at work/school29% 71%

11 You are getting a relaxing massage 49% 51%12 You are having a bad meal with friends 12% 88%13 You are viewing a funny clip on the Internet 7% 93%

40

TABLE 2

DIFFERENTIATING CURIOSITY FROM DISTRACTIONS AND INTERRUPTIONS

Curiosity(A feeling of deprivation that arises from a gap between what is known and what is unknown)

Distraction(Stimuli that are to be ignored and dismissed)

Interruption(An act of breaking the continuity of a consumption experience)

Attention Diverts attention for an extended period

Temporarily diverts attention

Redirects attention

Conflict Causes conflict? No conflict No conflict

Tension Causes tension? No tension No tension

Rumination Induces rumination? No rumination No rumination

Hedonic adaptation

Does not disrupt hedonic adaptation

Does not disrupt hedonic adaptation

Disrupts hedonic adaptation

Positive arousal

Does not induce positive arousal

Does not induce positive arousal

Induces positive arousal

41

FIGURES

FIGURE 1

THE EFFECT OF CURIOSITY ON CONSUMPTION ENJOYMENT

Creates a state of tension that dilutes

enjoyment

Induces attentional conflict over whether one should

attend to the curiosity evoking event or the

consumption experience

Significantly reduces enjoyment of the

consumption experience

Induces rumination about the curiosity

evoking event

Curiosity (a feeling of deprivation from a gap

between current and desired information) during a co-

incident positive consumption experience

42

FIGURE 2

STUDY 2: PICTURES OF THE EXPERIMENT ROOMS

(TWO SEPARATE ROOMS ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER)

43

FIGURE 3

STUDY 3: MEDIATION ANALYSIS

.05-.30

.63*

-.75*Attentional

Conflict

-.44*

High curiosity (0) Low curiosity (1)

.06*

.59

EnjoymentHigh curiosity (0)Low curiosity (1)

Enjoyment

Rumination

44

FIGURE 4

STUDY 4: MEDIATION ANALYSIS

.08.02

.71*

-.31Attentional

Conflict

-.29*

High curiosity (0) Low curiosity (1)

.03*

.64

EnjoymentHigh curiosity (0)Low curiosity (1)

Enjoyment

Rumination

45