Emo in Post Consumption

8/8/2019 Emo in Post Consumption

1/25

Gratitude, Delight, or Guilt:The Role of ConsumersEmotions in PredictingPostconsumption Behaviors

Isabella SosciaUniversit L.Bocconi, Milano

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the relationships among appraisals (goal

congruence/incongruence and agency), consumption emotions(gratitude, happiness, guilt, anger, pride, and sadness), and post-consumption behaviors (positive and negative word of mouth,repurchase intention, and complaint behavior). The findingsdemonstrate that these emotions predict different specific types ofpost-consumption behaviors and that they are elicited by appraisalsspecified in the psychology literature. In particular, gratitude butnot happiness, predicts repurchase intention and positive word ofmouth. By contrast, guilt inhibits complaint behaviors and negativeword of mouth. The implications of these findings for marketingpractice are discussed. 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Many studies have tried to identify factors that predict such postcon-sumption behaviors as switching brands or loyalty, complaint behaviors,and negative and positive word-of-mouth communications (e.g.,

Andreasen, 1985; Athnassopoulos, Gounaris, & Stathakopoulos, 2001;Caruana, 2002; Day & Ash, 1978; Day, 1983; Gronhaug & Zaltman, 1977;

Gustafsson, Johnson, & Ross, 2005; Krishnan & Valle, 1979; Mittal &


2/25

Kamakura, 2001; Sigh, 1990; Stepens & Gwinner, 1998; Yi & La, 2004).These behaviors are principally viewed as consequences of customersatisfaction and dissatisfaction (Anderson & Fornell, 1994; Yi, 1989).

Nevertheless, customer dissatisfaction may not be the only determi-nant of negative postconsumption behaviors (Day, 1983), and may lead

to different negative postpurchase responses (Bougie, Pieters, &Zeelenberg, 2003). In particular, with respect to the latter point, it isnot clear under what conditions consumer dissatisfaction producescomplaints rather than switching brands or negative word of mouth(Nyer, 1997).

In addition, satisfaction may not be sufficient for determining positivepostconsumption behaviors. For example, satisfaction may fail to preventswitching behavior if, as sometimes happens, one is satisfied with brand

A but brand B is perceived to be even better. Most studies have been pre-occupied primarily with predicting the different consequences of customerdissatisfaction. Relatively little work has been done, however, to under-stand under what conditions satisfaction/dissatisfaction determinesdifferent behaviors (Bougie, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2003; Nyer, 1997).

Knowing why customers select a specific postconsumption behavioris important for marketers. In fact, rather than seeking redress, some dis-satisfied consumers choose to not repurchase or to engage in negativeword of mouth. Exit and negative word of mouth are particularly dan-gerous responses because they are invisible (Richins, 1987), and there-fore the firm loses the opportunity to remedy the problem and retain

customers (Hirschmann, 1970; Lapidus & Pinkerton, 1995): in this way,the firm loses sales and profits. It is important for manufacturers andservice providers to understand why some dissatisfied customers exitor engage in negative word of mouth behavior, whereas others give thefirm a chance to remedy the problem. Moreover, negative word of mouthdamages the firms reputation and, in this way a firm losespotential newcustomers. By contrast, Fornell and Wernerfelt (1987) maintain that cus-tomer loyalty can be increased by encouraging dissatisfied consumersto complain. Marketers need a theory that explains why customers are

likely to select one postpurchase behavior or another, and the purpose ofthis study is thus to develop and test a theory to predict some of theaforementioned postconsumption behaviors.

Actually, it might be expected that satisfaction by itself will not dif-ferentiate between different postconsumption behaviors. It seems thatthere are variables that interfere or interact with the relationship betweencustomer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (CS/D) and postpurchase behav-iors and are capable of producing different positive and negative actions.

According to the literature, the variables that influence the relationshipbetween CS/D and postconsumption behaviors are CS/D attributions(Krishnan & Valle, 1979), industry characteristics (Andreasen, 1985;Hirschmann, 1970; Singh, 1990; Stephens & Gwinner, 1998), the per-


3/25

Wakefield,& Barnes 1995; Gelb & Johnson,1995; Hirschman,1970; Singh,1990; Singh & Wilkes, 1996; Stephens & Guinner, 1998), attitude towardcomplaining (Blodgett, Wakefield, & Barnes, 1995; Keng, Richmond, &Han, 1995; Stephens & Guinner, 1998), product importance (Blodgett,Wakefield, & Barnes, 1995), and consumer sophistication (Gelb & Johnson,

1995; Gronhaug & Zaltman, 1977; Hirschman, 1970; Singh, 1990).Nyer (1997) suggests a framework that predicts nearly all the responsesmentioned and that can potentially integrate all the antecedents of post-consumption behaviors (particularly intervening variables). He demon-strates that different emotions can directly determine different types ofbehaviors. Moreover, he shows that these emotions are elicited by differ-ent appraisals.These appraisals refer to some of the variables mentionedearlier. In particular, Nyer demonstrates that consumers expectations ofattribute performance, product importance, and potential to cope (per-ceived probability of successful complaining) influence such distinct emo-tions as joy, anger, sadness, and satisfaction. He further showed that theeffects of these three appraisals on positive and negative word of mouthare totally mediated by the emotions. Bougie, Pieters, and Zeelenberg(2003) adopt a similar framework and demonstrate that consumers expec-tations of attribute performance and CS/D attribution elicit the emotionsanger and dissatisfaction and that these two emotions determine differ-ent postconsumption behaviors. In particular, anger fully mediated theeffect of dissatisfaction on negative word of mouth, and complaint partiallymediated the effect of dissatisfaction on switching.

The most important contribution of these two studies for the purposesof this research is that, in their model, attribution, product importance,and coping potential have been added to the consumers expectations ofattribute performance. A number of specific appraisals thus interact toform particular emotions that in turn determine distinct postconsump-tion behaviors. The rich body of research conducted on the antecedentsof postconsumption behaviors presented earlier can be incorporated intoa general framework. Moreover, the presented model is able to predictother behaviors (not only negative and positive word of mouth, and com-

plaint, as developed later in this paper).Thus, this study begins with Nyers and Bougie, Pieters, andZeelenbergs models and tries to extend them in two directions:

To predict further consumption emotions like guilt and gratitude,which have not been studied systematically in marketing,

To demonstrate that emotions elicited by combinations of a partic-ular set of appraisals can predict additional kinds of postconsump-tion responses (for example, repurchase intentions).

To better develop the hypotheses in this framework, this study begins


4/25

THE COGNITIVE THEORY OF EMOTIONS

Consistent with the studies mentioned earlier, this research follows acognitive theory of emotions (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1991). Accordingto this theory, one feature represents the quintessential aspect of emotions

and allows us to distinguish one emotion from another: the cognitiveorigins of emotions. With respect to the origin of emotions, the theoryspecifies that the experience of emotion is closely associated with theorganisms appraisal of its environment along several cognitive dimen-sions (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985,p. 817),and emotional differences resultfrom differences in the way people appraise the environment.An appraisalis a particular type of cognitive activity: it consists of a continuing eval-uation of the significance of what is happening for ones personal well-being (Lazarus, 1991, p. 144). Referring to the different types of cognitiveactivities, Lazarus (1991) emphasizes the distinction between knowl-edge and appraisal: the latter concerns ones personal well-being, theformer does not necessarily have personal significance, and by itself iscold and unemotional. Research has supported the cognitive approach toemotions by demonstrating strong relationships between emotions andcognitive appraisal structures (e.g., Frijda, Kuipers, & Schure, 1989).Emotions are elicited by a persons particular cognitive appraisals in aspecific situation, and they cannot be defined independently of this kindof activity (Frijda, 1986).

Furthermore, in accordance with cognitive theory, emotions are elicited

in circumstances that have special significance for a persons well-being,and once elicited, prepare the person to cope with emotion in an adaptivemanner (Lazarus, 1991). Psychologists have tried to identify specific cop-ing strategies that people use to manage different types of situations(e.g., Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Skinner, Edge, & Sherwood, 2003).The idea of coping strategy is similar to Frijdas definition of action readi-ness: that is,modes of readiness for entertaining or abandoning giventypes of relationship with the emotional object (Frijda, 1986, p. 239).

With respect to marketing, how consumers cope with emotions is animportant issue because coping may influence postpurchase behaviors,such as repurchase, positive and negative word of mouth, and complaining(Yi & Baumgartner, 2004).

HYPOTHESES: EMOTIONS

Scholars in the cognitive traditions maintain that emotions are elicitednot by events, per se, but by the interpretation of events: if an individ-ual conceptualizes a situation in a certain kind of way, then the poten-tial for a particular type of emotion exists (Ortony, Clore, & Collins,1988, p. 2). Therefore, different emotions correspond with different


5/25

Individual differences in the cognitive elaboration of stimuli mightmake it difficult to build a general theory of emotions, and thus, atheory about consumption emotions. Nevertheless, it is reasonable toassume that given common cultural backgrounds and experiences, mostpeople tend to have the same or similar emotions in the same or roughly

similar situations (Averill, 1982). The task is to develop a plausible the-oretical framework for typical or everyday consumption experiences.The literature concerning the appraisal determinants of emotion is

rich (Frijda 1986, 1987, 1993; Lazarus, 1991; Ortony, Clore, & Collins,1988; Roseman, 1991; Scherer, 1993; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; Weiner,1985) and there is a strong degree of convergence between the differentapproaches (Scherer, 1988). This study does not examine all the emotion-antecedent criteria suggested by these theorists: rather it focuses insteadon key appraisals that are likely to be relevant in important consump-tion situations. In particular, relating to the purpose of this study, two cat-egories of appraisal seem to be highly relevant: the consistency ofconsequences with expectations (desirability) and the perceived causa-tion of events.

With respect to the first category, it is hypothesized that consumersappraise whether the outcomes of an event help to achieve ones goals orwhether they block the path to goal achievement (Scherer, 1988). Theimportance of this criterion in the appraisal process is stressed by Lazarus(1991) who calls it goal congruence/incongruence, which refers to theextent to which a transaction is consistent or inconsistent with what

the person wantsthat is, it either thwarts or facilitates personal goals(Lazarus, 1991, p. 150). According to MacInnis and de Mello (2005, p. 2)the goal-congruency dimension reflects the extent to which the envi-ronment is or is not conducive to goal fulfillment. This criterion is alsotermed goal/path obstacle (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985), desirability(Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988), and motive consistency (Roseman,1991) in the psychology literature. Goal congruence and goal incon-gruence elicit emotion types that can loosely be thought of as pleasedand displeased respectively (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988); goal

congruence/ incongruence determines general positive or negative emo-tions (Weiner, 1985).This appraisal has some similarities to confirmation/disconfirmation beliefs in the CS/D paradigm.People choose to buy a prod-uct or a service because they expect to pursue a goal, and if they reach it,they feel positive emotions, otherwise we experience negative emotions.

Regarding the positive emotions that are elicited by goal congruence,appraisal theories provide perhaps the fullest account of happiness(Bagozzi, 1999; Roseman, Antoniou & Jose, 1996). In fact, according toappraisal theories, happiness occurs in response to three categories ofpositive situations: an unanticipated good fortune or pleasant happen-ing, making progress toward the achievement of a goal, or the beneficialconsequences that are linked to goal achievement. Thus, as Weiner and


6/25

to pleasant circumstances. Nevertheless, a distinction should be madebetween two major types of happiness: a long term sentiment of happiness(for example, feelings of well-being) and a short-term emotion of happi-ness (for example, satisfaction). In the emotion literature, happiness andarousal have been represented as orthogonal dimensions (Mehrabian &

Russell, 1974), and it has been shown that most emotions can be placedin relation to a bipolar pattern with regard to the dimensions ofpleasantnessunpleasantness and high arousallow arousal. In the lightof this model, happiness is also considered to be a combination of thesetwo dimensions. Intense forms of happiness (for example, excitement orenthusiasm), occur when pleasantness is combined with high arousal,while milder forms of happiness (e.g., peacefulness, gladness), occur whenpleasantness is associated with low arousal. This study proposes that, incomparison with other situations that a person experiences, consumptionunder goal congruence will be typically characterized by relatively mildand short-term forms of happiness, such as gladness and satisfaction.

On the other hand, in accordance with the psychology literature, goal-incongruence elicits sadness (Roseman, Antoniou, & Jose, 1996; Roseman,2001). Consistent with Bougie, Pieters, and Zeelenberg (2003) and Yiand Baumgartner (2004), in consumption situations it is hypothesizedthat goal-incongruence will elicit mild and short-term negative emotions,such as dissatisfaction. This study hypothesizes that the experienceof happiness and sadness in a consumption situation depends on thenature of goal congruence/incongruence in the consumption situation.

Specifically,

H1a: Goal congruence predicts happiness.

H1b: Goal incongruence predicts sadness.

The second class of appraisals, evaluation of the causation of an event(Scherer, 1988), refers to the attribution of agency in determining theorigin of the emotional response to an event: consumers evaluate whether

an outcome is caused by impersonal circumstances, some other person,or the self.This criterion is also called agency (Roseman, 1991; Smith &Ellsworth, 1985) and causal locus (Weiner, 1985) in the psychologyliterature. Because of the pancultural, timeless aspects of many causalevaluations and because of the adaptive significance of this activity,causal ascriptions are proposed to provide the building blocks for a con-struction of a theory of motivation and emotion (Weiner, 1985, p. 549).The outcome caused by impersonal circumstances elicits happiness orsadness, depending on whether the outcome is positive or negative,whereas the agents outcome because of another person or the self basi-cally elicits further affective reactions of approval/disapproval of anagents actions, depending on whether the outcome is positive or nega-


7/25

With respect to the appraisal of the causation of an event, it can be seenthat this perspective is close to aspects of attribution theory developedin the marketing literature: product failure or success can be attributedby the customer to the circumstances, to him or herself, or to the manu-facturer/service provider. According to attribution theory, a customer who

feels dissatisfied because he or she was foolish when making a purchasewill react differently than one who feels dissatisfied because the manu-facturer or the circumstances were judged responsible (Krishnan & Valle,1979). These three cases imply three distinct negative emotionalresponses: in the first case, the consumer experiences regret or guilt; inthe second case, the consumer feels anger or resentment towards themanufacturer (Folkes, Koletsky, & Graham, 1987; Roseman, Antoniou, &Jose, 1996); the third situation elicits sadness (Roseman, 1991; Roseman,

Antoniou, & Jose 1996; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985).In fact, when the product failure is attributed by the customer to

him/herself, he or she will not only feel the emotion of sadness, but alsoguilt and remorse are likely to occur (Dahl, Honea, & Manchanda, 2003).In fact, guilt is often associated with other negative emotions: peoplemay react to their own feeling of guilt with sadness and this emotion maypartially dilute it (Plutchik, 1962). Guilt refers to ones sense of regret,remorse, tension, and anxiety about being culpable and punishable foran offence, a failure of duty, or conscience (Ferguson, 1999, p. 308).Thus, guilt is an emotion that occurs in negative situations for whichone feels personally responsible (Roseman, 1991; Roseman, Wiest, &

Swartz, 1994; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; Weiner 1985). Consistent withthe psychology literature, when the product failure is attributed by thecustomer to him/herself, he or she should feel guilt but not likely shame.In fact, the experience of shame is directly about the self, which is thefocus of the evaluation. In guilt, the self is not the central object ofthe negative evaluation,but rather the thing done or undone is the focus(Tangney & Dearing, 2002, p. 18).Thus, the kind of experience addressedin this article, failure, which normally implies a negative evaluation ofthe selfin connection with a particular incident, should elicit guilt instead

of shame.When external circumstances produce positive outcomes, the consumerexperiences happiness. By contrast, liking (which is defined as affec-tion toward someone) and gratitude are elicited by the ascription of apositive outcome to factors under control by others (Ellesworth & Smith,1988;Roseman,1991;Roseman,Antoniou,& Jose, 1996;Tesser, Gatewood,&Driver, 1968; Weiner, 1985; Weiner & Graham, 1989). In particular,Ellesworth and Smiths study demonstrated that gratitude is a compo-nent of love, and that love is the only positive emotion in which other-agency consistently eclipses self-agency. People typically feel gratefulwhen they attribute their positive outcomes or personal successes, atleast in part, to others rather than to themselves alone. Thus, when


8/25

outcome, the consumer may experience gratitude as well as happiness(Morales, 2005). The desirability of an outcome from a personal view-point, which is the typical perspective of consumers, is an importantelement in gratitude: this element often distinguishes the emotion ofgratitude from mere approval, a nonemotional evaluation. By contrast,

in the case the consumer is responsible for a positive outcome he or shewill feel pride, not only happiness: Kant nicely captured the locus-prideunion by noting that everyone at a meal might enjoy the food, butonly the cook of that meal could experience pride (Weiner, 1985, p. 561).In fact, when positive results happen that are attributed to actions ofthe self rather than to circumstances, the emotion experienced is definedas pride instead of happiness (Bagozzi, 1999; Roseman,Antoniou, & Jose,1996).

Finally, anger will be directed at a person who has performed a blame-worthy action in relation to the self. Thus, gratitude and anger both focuson specific actions for which other people are perceived as responsible.

Anger is aroused in response to a specific offence: people tend to blamethe other person for such an unjustified offence, and often whether ornot the wrong was deliberate or due to negligence. People do not becomeangry if they consider the other person to be justified in their deeds orout of control and further do not feel resentment toward impersonal cir-cumstances (Clore, Ortony, Dienes, & Fujita, 1993). Of course, there is astrong relation between anger and appraisal of goal incongruence. Infact, anger occurs in connection with descriptions of situations which

contain insurmountable barriers to the reaching of goals; anger responsesoccur when a person is somehow thwarted in an activity he or she isengaged in or about to become engaged in (Plutchik, 1962). This factexplains why goal incongruence is considered an antecedent ofthis emotion. Some discussion in the consumer behavior literature relatesgoal incongruence and agency to anger (Bougie, Pieters, & Zeelenberg,2003; Lapidus & Pinkerton, 1995;Taylor, 1994;Yi & Baumgartner, 2004).

As a consequence, this study hypothesizes that goal congruence/incon-gruence and agency interact to produce gratitude, pride, guilt, and anger

in consumption contests. Specifically:

H2a: Gratitude occurs when goal-congruent outcomes are produced bysellers.

H2b: Guilt arises when goal-incongruent outcomes are caused by theself.

H2c: Pride occurs when goal-congruent outcomes are caused by theself.

H2d: Anger ensues when goal-incongruent outcomes are generated by


9/25

Table 1 summarizes the first two hypotheses. Here the specific two-wayinteractions between agency and goal congruence/incongruence can beseen, with happiness, sadness, guilt, anger, pride and gratitude predicted,depending on the specific condition at hand. Scenarios are used to pro-duce the interactions, as described later in this paper under ResearchMethodology.

HYPOTHESES: COPING RESPONSES

With respect to coping strategieswhich are responses one makes toregulate his/her felt emotionsanger induces (1) antagonistic tendenciesand an urge to remove the obstacle (Frijda, 1987), (2) opposition strate-gies like aggression and blaming others (Skinner, Edge, & Sherwood,2003), and (3) confrontive coping that implies aggressive efforts to alterthe situation (Folkman et al., 1986). Yi and Baumgartner (2004) demon-strated that angry consumers implement confrontive coping strategies:that is, consumers argue their case and try to get the marketer to changehis or her mind. As discussed in the marketing literature, this copingstrategy is strictly related to a particular postpurchase behavior: the com-

Goal congruence/incongruence

Incongruence Congruence

Self-caused

outcome

Scenario 1

Sadness

Guilt

Scenario 2

Happiness

Pride

Seller-caused

outcome

Scenario 3

Sadness

Anger

Scenario 4

Happiness

Gratitude

Causation ofevent (agency)

Circumstance-caused outcome

Scenario 5

Sadness

Scenario 6

Happiness

Table 1. Emotions as a function of the interaction of agency and goal

congruence/incongruence.


10/25

that anger fully mediates the effect of service encounter dissatisfactionon consumer complaint behavior.

Moreover, with regard to coping strategies, sadness, per se, inducesinhibition (Roseman,Wiest, & Swartz, 1994), self-isolation (Skinner et al.,2003), and feelings of helplessness (Frijda, Kuipers, & Schure, 1989). Yi

and Baumgartner (2004) hypothesize, but do not demonstrate, that in aconsumption situation sadness should lead to behavioral disengagement:consumers may decide that nothing can be done about the negative situ-ation and give up further action. This coping strategy may reduce thechance that consumers refrain from blaming the manufacturer orthe service provider when feeling sad. Therefore,

H3a: When goal incongruence occurs, the likelihood that anger willlead to complaining will be greater than the likelihood that sad-

ness will lead to complaining.

H3b: When goal incongruence occurs, the greater the anger, the greaterwill be the complaining.

By contrast, guilt often induces an antagonistic tendency toward theself (e.g.I feel like kicking myself Roseman, Wiest & Swartz, 1994),and results in such coping strategies as intrusive thoughts, self-blame(Skinner et al., 2003), and accepting responsibility (Folkman et al., 1986).Consistent with these predictions, Dahl, Honea, and Manchanda (2003)

demonstrate that, in a consumption context, the most common guiltresponse is amendment and commitment. Here consumers engage inreparative actions (e.g., they return a product they cannot afford), com-pensatory action (e.g., they donate money to a charity to feel better), ormake plans regarding future actions (e.g., they promise themselves notto make the same mistake again). This study hypothesizes that accept-ing responsibility (i.e., recognizing ones own role in the outcome) is coher-ent with the decision to not complain and to not engage in negativeword of mouth. Thus,

H4: Complaining behavior and negative word of mouth communica-tion will be inhibited by guilt in a goal incongruent context.

There is relatively little research investigating coping strategies andpositive emotions in the psychological literature. In fact, coping per-spectives suggest greater differentiation among negative emotions thanamong positive ones: they assume that a greater variety of responseoptions is needed to cope with potentially bad situations than is neededto cope with potentially good ones (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988). Further-more, the action tendencies identified for positive emotions in theliterature are quite vague and underspecified (Fredrickson, 2004).


11/25

Nevertheless, it seems that grateful individuals consider pro-social actionsas possible reflections of their gratitude and, in particular, they formu-late actions that promote the well-being of benefactors (Fredrickson,2004). In consumer behavior, only one study could be found that exam-ines the effect of gratitude. Morales (2005) demonstrated that, when con-

sumers observe a firm working hard to market its product, they tend torecognize that effort and feel some gratitude.According to Morales (2005),gratitude influences consumer willingness to pay and in this waypromotes the well being of the benefactor (the manufacturer or serviceprovider). Extending Morales ideas, this study hypothesizes that grati-tude will also determine repurchase behavior. Moreover, Fredrickson(2004) maintains that grateful people further the well-being of otherpeople, not limited to the original benefactor. Thus, with regard to con-sumption behavior, the desire to share a positive experience may leadgrateful consumers to engage in positive world of mouth. By contrast,withreference to the consumption context, pride inhibits positive behaviorsuch as, for example, repurchase intentions (Louro, Pieters, & Zeelenberg,2005). Moreover, happiness per se is not likely to predict positive post-consumption behaviors. In fact, unlike gratitude, happiness is linked toa kind of aimless activation (Frijda, 1996), exuberance, and interest inpaying attention to the environment (Frijda, Kuipers, & Schure, 1989).These coping strategies more resemble generic urges to do nothing inparticular or engage in nondirected explorations or expressions of affect.They are not specific behaviors (Fredrickson, 2004). Thus:

H5a: Gratitude, but not happiness and pride, will influence repurchaseintention and positive word of mouth in goal-congruent contexts.

H5b: The greater the gratitude, the greater the repurchase intentionand positive word of mouth under goal-congruence.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In order to test the hypotheses, a two-factor goal congruence/incongru-ence X agency experiment was performed. Respondents were randomlyassigned to one of six conditions (see Table 1) and responses to appro-priate emotions and action were measured as dependent variables. Themethod that was used to create experimental manipulations was simi-lar to one suggested by Roseman (1991) where participants read brief sto-ries about consumption experiences of various protagonists. In thesestories, information relevant to the appraisals was systematically varied,and subjects rated the intensity of the emotions that they believed theprotagonists felt in response to the events, as well their predicted actiontendencies. Figure 1 presents an example scenario.


12/25

Multi-item scales were reused to measure the target emotions.The specific categories and items (listed in parentheses) used for therespective emotion were as follows: sadness (sorrow, dissatisfaction), hap-piness (happiness,gladness, satisfaction), guilt (guilt, remorse), and anger(annoyance, disliking). Single items were used to measure gratitude,pride, and the four postconsumption behaviors (see Figure 2).

The aim of the experiment is to demonstrate that the different com-binations of the two appraisals predicted the appropriate emotions (H1and H2) and that these emotions predict relevant consumption behav-iors (H3, H4, and H5).

A total of 192 participants were asked to read one of the differentversions of the stories.Then participants answered the questions meas-uring the dependent variables.All respondents were women because thecontent of the six scenarios referred to women and the protagonistwas a woman in each case. Women were expected to consider the sce-

narios relevant and adequately involving. Respondents were graduate stu-dents at an Italian Business School in Milano, Italy. Information wasanalyzed from 182 completed surveys.

RESULTS

A maximum likelihood analysis followed by a promax rotation on themeasures of the dependent variables measures showed that happiness,sadness, anger, and guilt were measured well by the nine emotionitems and loaded on the predicted factors (see Table 2). Consistent

Seller- caused

outcome

Goal

incongruence

The last time that Helen went shopping she

discovered that she could not wear the same size of

jeans she had bought the year before and she had to

ask the salesperson for the next size up. She figured

that she had gained about 10 pounds and she really

started to worry. She thought she could solve her

problem by exercising regularly and she signed up for

a step aerobics course at NCRB, a sports center that provides diverse sport and fitness opportunities. The

course was quite expensive, $200 for a four month period.

The step aerobics class that Helen attended

was very crowded. Because of the over-crowding, the

lessons were not easy to follow. Besides, the class was

not challenging and the instructor was not very motivating.

Helen soon realized that she was not feeling motivated in the

class and that she would not achieve her goal of losing weight.

Figure 1. Scenario 3: Seller-caused outcome X goal incongruence.


13/25

belong to the same factor and to show a negative correlation with theother items. The output was a three-factor solution. The three-factorsolution accounted for 87% of the total variance and each item loadedhighly on its hypothesized factor and relatively low on the nonhypothe-

Question 1

How intensely was Helen feeling each of the following emotions at the end of the story? (circle your answer in each row)

Not at all Mode rately Very

intensely

Remorse 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dissatisfaction 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Gladness 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dislike 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Satisfaction 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sorrow 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Guilt 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Annoyance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Happiness 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pride 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Gratitude 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Question 2

Now please indicate how likely Helen will perform each of the following (circle your answer in each row).

Helen will complain to the person at the

NCRB fitness office about the class.

1 2 3 4 5

Helen will complain to her friends about

NCRB.

1 2 3 4 5

Helen will recommend NCRB to her friends. 1 2 3 4 5

Helen will sign up for new classes at NCRB

when she decides to exercise regularly.

1 2 3 4 5

Very

unlikely

Unlikely Neither

unlikely or

likely

Likely Very likely

Figure 2. The questionnaire.


14/25

An omnibus test using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)was conducted with happiness, sadness, guilt, anger, and gratitudeas dependent variables. As hypothesized, whereas guilt, anger, grati-tude, and pride were functions of significant two-way interaction,happiness and sadness were produced by main effects as a consequenceof goal congruence/incongruence. The specific findings are presentedhere.

Hypothesis 1

In order to test the first hypothesis, a one-way ANOVA was run with

goal congruence/incongruence as a single factor and happiness as thedependent variable.The results revealed a significant effect of goal con-gruence/incongruence (F(1,179) 1413.46,p .001) which shows higherhappiness for goal congruence (M 8.89) than goal incongruence(M 0.70).Also sadness exhibited the presence of a significant goal con-gruence/incongruence (F(1,178) 389.34,p .001) effect: the degree ofsadness is higher under condition of incongruence (M 6.72) than undercondition of congruence (M .79).

Hypothesis 2

An ANOVA conducted on gratitude confirmed a significant goal congru-ence/incongruence X agency interaction: F(2, 176) 20.84, p .001. Aplanned contrast showed that gratitude experienced in the case of the goalcongruent seller-outcome (M 6.67) was higher than the averagegratitude experienced in the other cases (M 1.21): t(180) 10.73,

p .001.1

Table 2. Factor Analysis.

Measures Happiness/Sadness Guilt Anger

Sorrow .81

Dissatisfaction .82

Gladness .97

Happiness .96Satisfaction .98

Remorse .88

Guilt .83

Annoyance .74

Dislike .79

1 Furthermore, the two planned contrasts revealed that,under condition of goal congruence, grat-itude experienced in the case of the seller caused outcome (M 6.67) was higher than gratitudeexperienced in the case of the self caused outcome (M 3 27) or circumstance caused


15/25

Table 3. Correlations Between Emotions and Complaining

and Negative Word of Mouth.

R Complaint Negative word of mouth

Happiness n.s. n.s.

Sadness n.s. .17*

Anger .18* .25**Guilt .52** .41**

Gratitude n.s. n.s.

Pride n.s. n.s.

*Significant at a .05; **Significant at a .01

Also, the ANOVA conducted on guilt confirmed the presence of a sig-nificant goal congruence/incongruence X agency interaction:F(2, 175) 26.72, p .001. Furthermore, a planned contrast revealed that guilt

experienced in the case of incongruent self-caused outcome (M 8.10)was higher than the average guilt felt in the other scenarios (M 1.93),t (179) 11.64, p .001.2

Moreover, an ANOVA was run with goal congruence/incongruence andagency as factors and pride as the dependent variable. The interactionsignificantly predicted pride (F(2, 176) 37.00, p .001). Pride felt inthe case of the congruent self-outcome is significantly higher than theaverage pride felt in the other cases, M 9.48 vs. M 2.71, t (180) 9.5, p .001.3

Finally an ANOVA was run with goal congruence/incongruence andagency as factors and anger as the dependent variable. The interactionsignificantly predicted anger (F(2, 174) 4,04,p .05). Moreover, angerfelt in the case of the incongruent seller-outcome is significantly higherthan the average anger felt in the other cases,M 3.88 vs.M 2.17, andt(178) 3.96, p .001.4

Hypotheses 3 and 4

To investigate hypotheses 3 and 4, the correlations between the six emo-tions and the two negative postconsumption behaviors were analyzed:complaining and negative word of mouth. These correlations are shownin Table 3.

2 Under Goal Incongruence, the experienced guilt in the situation of self-caused outcome (M8.10) was significantly higher than the guilt felt in the situation of seller-caused outcome(M 3.63) and circumstance-caused outcome (M 1.85), t(99) 7.18 and t(99) 8.76,p .001,respectively.

3 However, under goal congruence, there was no significant difference in the level of pride expe-rienced for the cases of self-caused outcome (M 9.48) and seller-caused outcome (M 9.19),

t(77) .54, p .59.4 However, under goal incongruence, there was no significant difference in the level of anger expe-

rienced for the cases of seller-caused outcome (M 3.88) and self-caused outcome (M 2.92),


16/25

As forecast, the findings show a positive correlation between angerand complaining (r .18,p .05), whereas the correlation between sad-ness and complaining was not significant. Also as predicted, two signif-icant negative correlations between guilt and the two negativepostconsumption behaviors were found (r .52 and r .41, respec-tively, p .01).

To verify the causal relations between emotions and the two negativeaction tendencies, two multiple regression analyses were performedunder condition of goal incongruence. Table 4 summarizes the results ofthe regressions. The analyses show that, when goal incongruenceoccurred, neither anger nor sadness predicted complaining. Finally, guiltinhibited both complaining behavior (b .60, p .01) and negativeword of mouth (b .54, p .01) as hypothesized.

Hypothesis 5

To study the relations between emotions and the two positive postcon-sumption behaviors, the correlations between these variables were ana-lyzed (see Table 5). As predicted, the correlation between gratitude and

Table 4. Regression of Complaint and Negative Word of Mouth on

Emotions.

Independent variable Complaint Negative word of mouth

Happiness b n.s. n.s.

Sadness b n.s. .33**

Anger b n.s. n.s.Guilt b .60** .54**

Gratitude b n.s. n.s.

Pride b n.s. n.s.

Significance ofF .00 .00

R2 .35 .32

AdjustedR2 .31 .27

* Significant at a .05; **Significant at a .01

Table 5. Correlations Between Emotions and Repurchase Intention

and Positive Word of Mouth.

R Repurchase intention Positive word of mouth

Happiness .22* .28**

Sadness .22* .21*

Anger .25* .31**

Guilt n.s. n.s.

Gratitude .66** .78**

Pride .22* .31**


17/25

repurchase intention is higher than between happiness and the samebehavior (r .66,p .01 vs. r .22,p .05). Moreover, it is higher thanthe one between pride and repurchase intention (r .66,p .01 vs. r .22, p .05).The findings also show a higher correlation between grati-tude and positive word of mouth than happiness and positive word ofmouth (r .78, p .01 vs. r .28, p .01). In addition, the correlationbetween gratitude and positive word of mouth is higher than theone between pride and the positive word of mouth (r .78, p .01 vs.r .31, p .01).

Furthermore, to analyze the relationships between the emotions andthe two positive behaviors, two multiple regression analyses were rununder condition of goal congruence (see Table 6). The findings support bothhypotheses: gratitude determines repurchase intentions and positiveword of mouth, whereas intentions and positive word of mouth were notinfluenced by happiness and pride, as hypothesized.

The previous analyses demonstrate that cognitive appraisals of agencyand goal congruence/incongruence determine consumption emotions andthat these emotions predict particular behaviors. Next, it is important to

test whether emotions mediate the relations between cognitive appraisalsand behaviors. To investigate these effects a step-down analysis usingMANOVA was performed (Bagozzi & Yi, 1989). The first test of this analy-sis is designed to show whether the predicted combination of appraisalshave significant effects on emotions and postconsumption behaviors.Once these effects are verified, the second step is to demonstrate that theeffects that appraisals have on behaviors are due to the mediating roleof emotions. Table 7 summarizes the result of the step-down MANOVA.

The first test is a MANOVA in which the two appraisals and theircombination are the independent variables, and each emotion (gratitudeand guilt) and the behaviors (positive word of mouth, negative word ofmouth, complaint, and repurchase) are the dependent variables. The

Table 6. Regression of Repurchase Intention and Positive Word of

Mouth on Emotions.

Independent variable Repurchase intention Positive word of mouth

Happiness b n.s. n.s.

Sadness b n.s. n.s.

Anger b n.s. n.s.Guilt b n.s. n.s.

Gratitude b .70** .79**

Pride b n.s. n.s.

Significance ofF .00 .00

R2 .52 .71

AdjustedR2 .48 .69

*Significant at a .05; **Significant at a .01


18/25

appraisals significantly determine the dependent variables. Under thesecond test, the dependent variables are the behaviors and the twoemotions are covaried out. A significant effect of the predicted combina-

tion of appraisals on the behaviors was obtained.That is, once the effectsof the emotions have been partialled-out, the predicted combination ofappraisals affects the behaviors.Thus, the analysis shows that emotionsdo not totally mediate the relationship between appraisals and behav-iors. In other words, emotions partially mediate the effects of appraisalson behavior.

DISCUSSION

Postpurchase phenomena are of special interest to managers becausesuch behaviors determine the success or the failure of the business.Because these behaviors are not directly controllable, knowledge aboutantecedents that can indirectly influence these behaviors is extremely

valuable. Ideally, these antecedents should be managerially controllable,for example via advertising copy or sales representative presentations.The objective is to influence emotions and decisions through thesecontrollable stimuli so as to change behavior.

Under H1, goal congruence/incongruence elicits the negative emo-tion, sadness, and the positive emotion, happiness. Nevertheless, theseemotions by themselves do not predict the different postconsumption

Table 7. Step-down Analysis (pValues of the MultivariateF-test Statistic).

Step 1 Step 2

Dependent variables: Dependent variables:

gratitude, repurchase repurchase intention and

intention and positive positive word of

word of mouth mouth Covariates:

Effect Covariates: none gratitude

Goal Congruence/Incongruence .00 .01

Agency .00 .90

Goal Congruence/Incongruence. .00 .00

X Agency

Step 1 Step 2

Dependent variables: Dependent variables:

guilt, complaining and complaining and negative

negative word of mouth word of mouth

Effect Covariates: none Covariates: guiltGoal Congruence/Incongruence .00 .00

Agency .00 .00

Goal Congruence/Incongruence .00 .00

X Agency


19/25

By contrast, under H2, the findings show that the interaction betweengoal congruence/incongruence and agency appraisals elicits two key emo-tions: gratitude and guilt, which have important roles in predicting dif-ferent behaviors. In particular, gratitude leads to positive word of mouthand repurchase intentions. Guilt, when consumers accept their respon-

sibility for prior actions and the negative outcome, inhibits negative wordof mouth and complaining behaviors.The predicted attributions of other-directed anger did not influence

behavior outcomes. This result was probably because of the choice thatwas made in the type of service for the experiment. In fact, as sportsenthusiasts know very well, it is very difficult to get physically fit whenone is less than diligent in exercising: thus, a sense of self-anger some-times follows bad fitness results (for research on self-anger, see Ben-Zeev,2000). In future research, the two forms of anger (self vs. other directed)should be distinguished more clearly, especially with reference to theirdifferent effects on postconsumption behaviors.

The findings show that particular combinations of antecedents deter-mine specific emotions, that these emotions predict different postcon-sumption behaviors, and that these emotions partially mediate the effectsof the manipulated appraisals on postconsumptions behaviors. More pre-cisely, the results of this study suggest that attributions influence howconsumers feel in different cases of positive and negative outcomes, andthese emotions imply different consumer behavioral responses to servicesuccess or failure.

With respect to service failures, this research suggests that, in thiscase, the consumer asks who, if anyone, is to be blamed. When the con-sumer feels responsible for the negative outcome, a sense of guilt lessensthe chance that such actions as negative word of mouth will be directedat and damage the service provider. Unfortunately, from the point of viewof firms, consumers sometimes do not perform a careful attributionalappraisal: although consumers may feel confident about their inferences,perceived reasons may differ from the true reasons of service/productfailure. Perhaps such possibilities led British Airways in 2001 to pub-

lish new rules for passengers asserting that the company can bar themfrom boarding its aircraft if they appear abusive, insulting, threatening,or disorderly in any way (OShaughnessy & OShaughnessy, 2001).

Managers of British Airways desire to prevent damaging or incorrectattributions: they emphasize that there are particular situations in whichthe service can be denied to consumers who act inappropriately. Managerscan facilitate consumers causal attributions in number of ways. Forexample, as in the case of British Airways, they can use the communi-cation mix to clarify the roles that consumers should play in the con-sumption delivery and administration of a particular product or service.If they want to be effective, marketers should communicate the expectedrole that consumers should play in a very clear, precise, respectful,


20/25

and prerogatives. But this apparently was not the case for BritishAirways. According to OShaughnessy and OShaughnessy (2001), therules that British Airways promulgated were vague and ambiguous, withtoo much left to consumer discretion: there is the need to explicate therelevant behavior through thick description and videos illustrating

the banned bahavior (OShaughnessy & OShaughnessy, 2001, p. 19).In any case, it appears that the managers of British Airways are correctwhen they conclude that consumers do not always form correct attribu-tions of negative outcomes. Sometimes uncertainty occurs, such as whena product is complex (Folkes, 1984).Therefore, companies should do theirbest to facilitate consumer attributions, and they have different oppor-tunities to get consumers to recognize and accept their responsibilities, ifit happens that they have real responsibilities in producing negative out-comes. Companies can do this, for example, by communicating to con-sumers to take specific precautions in using a particular product. Forexample in Italy, in a coadvertising campaign, a famous fashion companyrecommends the use of a specific detergent to protect clothes from fading.In general, advertising and other communication should convey frankmessages, messages that do not minimize the commitment that consumersare expected to make to obtain benefits from a service or a product.Otheropportunities that marketing managers should take is to discuss withtheir consumers the reasons for negative outcomes. This can be done inresponse to letters from consumers requesting product information, aswell as in situations where consumers return products for refunds (Folkes,

1984): in these cases, manufacturers or service providers have the chanceto inform their customers about possible product misuse.

Also with respect to successes of products/services, the results of thisstudy suggest that consumers should engage in attributional informa-tional processing search and that they will feel gratitude when theyattribute positive outcomes to service providers. The findings show thatthis sense of gratitude elicits positive word of mouth and repurchaseintentions. Thus, consumers seem to reward high-effort firms. Marketersshould try to provide situations wherein customers feel that they are

the target of extra effort by sellers: this occurs, for example, in the casein which a hotel sends birthday presents to its customers, following theirstay, or when a health club member finds a personal trainer particularlyhelpful and inspirational. The findings suggest that happiness may leadto success for a business when this emotion is connected explicitly to asense of gratitude.

Several avenues for future research emerge from this study. First, a lim-itation of this work is that the experiment was run with reference toonly one kind of service: other services should be tested to obtain morerobust results and their generalizability. Second, the interactions amongonly two appraisals were studied in order to determine postconsump-tion emotions: a more comprehensive study should analyze the role of


21/25

characteristics or consumer sophistication. Moreover, it would be use-ful to replicate the research using different techniques to elicit the expe-rience of discrete emotions. For example, the critical incident techniquemight be used. Finally, depending on the appraisals consumers make,research should be extended to the investigation of other discrete emo-

tions (e.g., envy) and other postconsumption behaviors (e.g., boycottingbehavior, or even sabotage).

REFERENCES

Anderson, E.W., & Fornell,C. (1994).A customer satisfaction research prospectus.In L. T. Rust & L. R. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory

and practice (pp. 241269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Andreasen, A. R. (1985). Consumer responses to dissatisfaction in loose monop-

olies. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 135141.Athnassopoulos, A., Gounaris S., & Stathakopoulos, V. (2001). Behavioural

responses to customer satisfaction: An empirical study. European Journal ofMarketing 35, 687707.

Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York:Springer.

Bagozzi,R. P., & Yi,Y. (1989).On the use of structural equation models in exper-

imental design. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 271284.Bagozzi, R. P. (1999). Happiness. In D. Levinson, J. J. Ponzetti, & P. F. Jorgensen

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human emotions (pp. 317324). New York: Macmillan.

Ben-Zeev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Blodgett, J. G., Wakefield, K. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1995). The effects of customer

service on consumer complaining behaviour. Journal of Services Marketing,9, 3142.

Bougie,R.,Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003).Angry customers dont come back,

they get back: The experience and behavioral implications of anger and dis-satisfaction in services. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 377393.

Caruana, A. (2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the medi-

ating role of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 36,811829.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, K. (1989). Assessing coping strate-gies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 56, 267283.

Clore, G. L., Ortony, A., Dienes, B., & Fujita, F. (1993). Where does anger dwell?

In Robert S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Perspective on anger and emotion:Advances in social cognition (pp. 5787). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dahal, D. W., Honea, H., & Manchanda, R. V. (2003). The nature of self-reportedguilt in consumption contexts. Marketing Letters, 14, 159171.

Day, R. L., & Ash, S. B. (1978). Consumer responses to dissatisfaction with

durable products. Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 438444.

Day, R. L. (1983). Modelling choices among alternative responses to dissatis-faction. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 496499.

Ellsworth P C & Smith C A (1988) Shades of joy: Patterns of appraisal dif-


22/25

Ferguson,T. J. (1999).Guilt. In D.Levinson, J. J. Ponzetti, & P. F. Jorgensen (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of human emotions (pp. 307315). New York: Macmillan.Folkes,V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional

approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 398409.

Folkes,V. S., Koletsky, S., & Graham, G. (1987).A field study of causal inferencesand consumer reactions: The view from the airport. Journal of Consumer

Research, 13, 534539.Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J.

(1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, andencounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,

9921003.Fornell, C., & Wernerfelt, B. (1987). Defensive marketing strategy by customer

complaint management:A theoretical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research,24, 337346.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Gratitude like other positive emotions, broadens and

builds. In R. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.),The psychology of gratitude

(pp. 145166). New York: Oxford University Press.Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frijda,N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structures and action tendency. Cognitionand Emotion, 1, 115143.

Frijda, N. H. (1993). A place of appraisal in emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 7,

357387.Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion,

appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 57, 212228.Gelb, B., & Johnson, M. (1995). Word-of-mouth communication: Causes and

consequences. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 15, 5462.Gronhaug, K., & Zaltman, G. (1977). Complainers and non complainers revis-

ited: Another look at the data. Advances in Consumer Research 4, 8387.

Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of customer satis-faction, relationship on commitment dimensions, and triggers on customerretention. Journal of Marketing, 69, 210218.

Keng,K.A., Richmond, D., & Han, S. (1995). Determinants of consumer complaintbehavior:A study of Singapore consumers. Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, 8, 5968.

Krishnan, S., & Valle, V. A. (1979). Dissatisfaction attributions and consumer

complaint behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 445449.Lapidus, R. S., & Pinkerton, L. (1995). Customer complaint situations:An equity

theory perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 12, 105122.Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotions and adaptation. New York: Oxford University

Press.Louro, M. J., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). Negative returns on positive

emotions: The influence of pride and self-regulatory goals on repurchase deci-

sions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 833840.MacInnis, D. J., & de Mello, G. E. (2005). The concept of hope and its relevance

to product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing, 69, 114.

Mehrabian,A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


23/25

Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intention, and

repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer char-acteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 131142.

Morales, A. C. (2005). Giving firms an E for effort: Consumer responses to

high-effort firms. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 806812.Nyer, P. U. (1997).A study of the relationships between cognitive appraisals and

consumption emotions. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 296304.OShaughnessy, J., & OShaughnessy, N. J. (2001).The marketing power of emo-

tion. New York: Oxford University Press.Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988).The cognitive structure of emotions.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Plutchik, R. (1962).The emotions:The facts,theories, and a new model. New York:

Random House.Richins, M. (1987).A multivariate analysis of responses to dissatisfaction.Journal

of Academy of Marketing Science, 15, 2431.

Roseman, I. J. (1991).Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and

Emotion 5, 161200.Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and

goal differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 67, 206221.

Roseman, I. J., Antoniou, A. A., & Jose, P. E. (1996). Appraisal determinants of

emotions: Constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory. Cogni-tion and Emotion, 10, 241277.

Scherer, K. R. (1993). Studying the emotion-antecedent appraisal process: An

expert system approach. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 325355.Scherer, K. R. (1988). Criteria for emotion-antecedent appraisal: A review. In

V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives onemotion and motivation (pp. 89126). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Singh, J. (1990). Voice, exit, and negative word-of-mouth behaviors:An investi-

gation across three service categories. Journal of Academy of MarketingScience, 18, 115.

Singh, J., & Wilkes, R. E. (1996). When consumers complain: A path analysis of

the key antecedents of consumer complaint response estimates. Journalof Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 350367.

Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the

structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying

ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216269.Smith,C.A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisals in emotion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813838.Stephens, N., & Gwinner, K. P. (1998). Why dont some people complain?

A cognitive-emotive process model of consumer complaint behavior. Journalof Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 172189.

Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York:The Guilford

Press.Taylor, S. (1994). Waiting for service: The relationship between delays and

evaluations of service. Journal of Marketing, 58, 5669.

Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. (1968). Some determinants of gratitude.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 233236.


24/25

Weiner, B. (1985).An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92, 548573.Weiner, B., & Graham, S. (1989). Understanding the motivational role of affect:

Lifespan research from an attributional perspective. Cognition and Emotion,

3, 401419.Yi, S., & Baumgartner, V. (2004). Coping with negative emotions in purchase-

related situations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 303317.Yi, Y., & La, S. (2004). What influences the relationship between customer

satisfaction and repurchase intention? Investigating the effect of adjustedexpectation and customer loyalty. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 351373.

Yi,Y. (1989). A critical review of customer satisfaction.Working paper. Divisionof Research, School of Business Administration, University of Michigan.

The author thanks Richard P. Bagozzi for his insightful comments on a previ-

ous version of this article.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Isabella Soscia,Marketing Department, SDA Bocconi, via Bocconi, 8, 20136, Milano, Italia([email protected]).


25/25

Documents

Emo in Post Consumption