Previous research shows mixed findings on whether stress increases or decreases novelty seeking. In three studies, using both archival and experimental data, and including more than 61,000 consumers from over 55 different countries, we show that it can do both, albeit for consumers differing in “life history strategies” (LHSs), that is, short-term, impulsive, and reward-sensitive (fast) versus long-term, reflective, and controlled (slow) strategies. We find that stress increases (helps) novelty seeking for fast, but decreases (hinders) novelty seeking for slow LHS consumers. Moreover, under baseline (low stress) conditions, fast LHS consumers display a lower tendency for novelty seeking than slow LHS consumers. Interestingly, these effects are present for acute stress but not for chronic (pandemic) stress. We discuss the implications of our findings for public policy and positioning strategies, specifying when and for whom novel (versus familiar) products and services might be most effectively and efficiently marketed.

先前的研究表明，关于压力是增加还是减少新奇寻求的结果不一。在三项研究中，使用档案和实验数据，包括来自超过 55 个不同国家的超过 61,000 名消费者，我们表明它可以做到这两点，尽管消费者的“生活史策略”（LHS）不同，即短期长期的、冲动的和奖励敏感的（快速的）策略与长期的、反思的和受控的（慢速的）策略。我们发现压力会增加（帮助）寻求快速的新奇事物，但会减少（阻碍）缓慢的 LHS 消费者寻求新奇。此外，在基线（低压力）条件下，快速的 LHS 消费者比慢速的 LHS 消费者表现出更低的寻求新奇的倾向。有趣的是，这些影响存在于急性应激中，但不存在于慢性（大流行）应激中。我们讨论了我们的研究结果对公共政策和定位策略的影响，具体说明了新颖（相对于熟悉的）产品和服务何时以及为谁可以最有效地营销。