Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 62–65 | Cite as

Customer reactions to variety: Too much of a good thing?

  • Donald R. Lehmann
Marketing in the 21st Century Commentary


Studying product variety is an interesting and relevant area for research. Work in this area should build on careful understanding of both customers’ reactions to it and managers’ decision making with respect to it. This requires an interdisciplinary focus, drawing on work in information processing, channels, operations management, game theory, and managerial decision making. In fact, the major advances may come more from combining knowledge from the different areas rather than boring more deeply into a single one.


Consumer Research Brand Equity Brand Extension Customer Reaction Variety Seek 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Carpenter, Gregory S., Rashi Glazer, and Kent Nakamoto. 1994. “Meaningful Brands From Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes.”Journal of Marketing Research August 31, 339–351.Google Scholar
  2. Carpenter, Gregory, and Kent Nakamoto. 1989. “Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage.”Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August): 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, Yvonne, and Geoffrey N. Soutar. 1982. “Consumer Acquisition Patterns for Durable Goods: Australian Evidence.”Journal of Consumer Research 8 (March): 456–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dickson, P. R., R. F. Lusch, and W. L. Wilkie. 1983. “Consumer Acquisition Priorities for Home Appliances: A Reproduction and Re-evaluation.”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (March): 432–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Harlam, Bari A., Aradhna Krishna, Donald R. Lehmann, and Carl Mela. 1995. “The Impact of Bundle Type, Price Framing and Familiarity onn Evaluation of the Bundle.”Journal of Business Research 33 (May): 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hauser, John R., and Glen Urban. 1985. “The Value Priority Hypotheses for Purchases of Consumer Durable Goods.” M.I.T. Working Paper #1637-85, March.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, Michael. 1984. “Consumer Choice Strategies for Noncomparable Alternatives.”Journal of Consumer Research 11 (December): 741–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kahn, Barbara E. 1998. “Dynamic Relationships With Customers: High-Variety Strategies.”Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 26 (1): 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. —, and Donald R. Lehmann. 1991. “Modeling Choice Among Assortments.”Journal of Retailing 67 (Fall): 274–299.Google Scholar
  10. Kasulis, Jack J., Robert F. Lusch, and Edward F. Stafford. 1979. “Consumer Acquisition Patterns for Durable Goods.”Journal of Consumer Research 6 (June): 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lancaster, Kelvin. 1966. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.”Journal of Political Economy 74 (April): 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McAlister, Leigh. 1982. “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety Seeking Behavior.”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September): 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ratchford, Brian. 1975. “The New Economic Theory of Consumer Behavior.”Journal of Consumer Research 2 (September): 66–75.Google Scholar
  14. Shugan, Steven. 1980. “The Cost of Thinking.”Journal of Consumer Research 7 (September): 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simonson, Itamar, and Amos Tversky. 1992. “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremism Aversion.”Journal of Marketing Research 29 (August): 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald R. Lehmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Columbia UniversityColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations