Emo in Post Consumption

mar2410_907_20188.
qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 871
Gratitude, Delight, or Guilt:

The Role of Consumers’
Emotions in Predicting
Postconsumption Behaviors
Isabella Soscia
Università 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 findings
demonstrate that these emotions predict different specific types of
post-consumption behaviors and that they are elicited by appraisals
specified in the psychology literature. In particular, gratitude but
not happiness, predicts repurchase intention and positive word of
mouth. By contrast, guilt inhibits complaint behaviors and negative
word of mouth. The implications of these findings for marketing
practice 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 &
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24(10): 871–894 (October 2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
© 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20188
871
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 872
Kamakura, 2001; Sigh, 1990; Stepens & Gwinner, 1998; Yi & La, 2004).
These behaviors are principally viewed as consequences of customer
satisfaction 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 is
not clear under what conditions consumer dissatisfaction produces
complaints rather than switching brands or negative word of mouth
(Nyer, 1997).
In addition, satisfaction may not be sufficient for determining positive
postconsumption behaviors. For example, satisfaction may fail to prevent
switching 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 customer
dissatisfaction. Relatively little work has been done, however, to under-
stand under what conditions satisfaction/dissatisfaction determines
different behaviors (Bougie, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2003; Nyer, 1997).
Knowing why customers select a specific postconsumption behavior
is important for marketers. In fact, rather than seeking redress, some dis-
satisfied consumers choose to not repurchase or to engage in negative
word 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 and
service providers to understand why some dissatisfied customers “exit”
or engage in negative word of mouth behavior, whereas others give the
firm a chance to remedy the problem. Moreover, negative word of mouth
damages the firm’s reputation and, in this way a firm loses potential new
customers. By contrast, Fornell and Wernerfelt (1987) maintain that cus-
tomer loyalty can be increased by encouraging dissatisfied consumers
to complain. Marketers need a theory that explains why customers are
likely to select one postpurchase behavior or another, and the purpose of
this study is thus to develop and test a theory to predict some of the
aforementioned postconsumption behaviors.
Actually, it might be expected that satisfaction by itself will not dif-
ferentiate between different postconsumption behaviors. It seems that
there are variables that interfere or interact with the relationship between
customer 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 relationship
between 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-
ceived probability of successful complaining (Andreasen, 1985; Blodgett,
872 SOSCIA
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002 /mar
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 873
Wakefield, & Barnes 1995; Gelb & Johnson, 1995; Hirschman, 1970; Singh,
1990; Singh & Wilkes, 1996; Stephens & Guinner, 1998), attitude toward
complaining (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 responses
mentioned 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 of
behaviors. Moreover, he shows that these emotions are elicited by differ-
ent appraisals. These appraisals refer to some of the variables mentioned
earlier. In particular, Nyer demonstrates that consumers’ expectations of
attribute 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 the
effects of these three appraisals on positive and negative word of mouth
are 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 emotions
anger and dissatisfaction and that these two emotions determine differ-
ent postconsumption behaviors. In particular, anger fully mediated the
effect of dissatisfaction on negative word of mouth, and complaint partially
mediated the effect of dissatisfaction on switching.
The most important contribution of these two studies for the purposes
of this research is that, in their model, attribution, product importance,
and coping potential have been added to the consumers’ expectations of
attribute performance. A number of specific appraisals thus interact to
form particular emotions that in turn determine distinct postconsump-
tion behaviors. The rich body of research conducted on the antecedents
of postconsumption behaviors presented earlier can be incorporated into
a general framework. Moreover, the presented model is able to predict
other behaviors (not only negative and positive word of mouth, and com-
plaint, as developed later in this paper).
Thus, this study begins with Nyer’s and Bougie, Pieters, and
Zeelenberg’s 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

by presenting the theory of emotions that incorporate these concepts.
GRATITUDE, DELIGHT, OR GUILT 873

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 874
THE COGNITIVE THEORY OF EMOTIONS
Consistent with the studies mentioned earlier, this research follows a

cognitive theory of emotions (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1991). According
to this theory, one feature represents the quintessential aspect of emotions
and allows us to distinguish one emotion from another: the cognitive
origins of emotions. With respect to the origin of emotions, the theory
specifies that “the experience of emotion is closely associated with the
organism’s appraisal of its environment along several cognitive dimen-
sions” (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985, p. 817), and emotional differences result
from differences in the way people appraise the environment. An appraisal
is a particular type of cognitive activity: it “consists of a continuing eval-
uation of the significance of what is happening for one’s personal well-
being” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 144). Referring to the different types of cognitive
activities, Lazarus (1991) emphasizes the distinction between knowl-
edge and appraisal: the latter concerns one’s personal well-being, the
former does not necessarily have personal significance, and by itself is
cold and unemotional. Research has supported the cognitive approach to
emotions by demonstrating strong relationships between emotions and
cognitive appraisal structures (e.g., Frijda, Kuipers, & Schure, 1989).
Emotions are elicited by a person’s particular cognitive appraisals in a
specific situation, and they cannot be defined independently of this kind
of activity (Frijda, 1986).
Furthermore, in accordance with cognitive theory, emotions are elicited
in circumstances that have special significance for a person’s well-being,
and once elicited, prepare the person to cope with emotion in an adaptive
manner (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 Frijda’s definition of action readi-
ness: that is,“modes of readiness for entertaining or abandoning given
types of relationship with the emotional object” (Frijda, 1986, p. 239).
With respect to marketing, how consumers cope with emotions is an
important 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 elicited

not 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
patterns of appraisal.
874 SOSCIA
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 875
Individual differences in the cognitive elaboration of stimuli might

make it difficult to build a general theory of emotions, and thus, a
theory about consumption emotions. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to
assume that given common cultural backgrounds and experiences, most
people 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 different
approaches (Scherer, 1988). This study does not examine all the emotion-
antecedent criteria suggested by these theorists: rather it focuses instead
on 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 of
consequences with expectations (desirability) and the perceived causa-
tion of events.
With respect to the first category, it is hypothesized that consumers
appraise whether the outcomes of an event help to achieve one’s goals or
whether they block the path to goal achievement (Scherer, 1988). The
importance of this criterion in the appraisal process is stressed by Lazarus
(1991) who calls it “goal congruence/incongruence,” which “refers to the
extent to which a transaction is consistent or inconsistent with what
the person wants—that 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 also
termed “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 “pleased”
and “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 to
appraisal theories, happiness occurs in response to three categories of
positive situations: an unanticipated good fortune or pleasant happen-
ing, making progress toward the achievement of a goal, or the beneficial
consequences that are linked to goal achievement. Thus, as Weiner and
Graham (1989) suggested, happiness appears to be a generic response

mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 876
to pleasant circumstances. Nevertheless, a distinction should be made

between 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 and
arousal have been represented as orthogonal dimensions (Mehrabian &
Russell, 1974), and it has been shown that most emotions can be placed
in relation to a bipolar pattern with regard to the dimensions of
pleasantness–unpleasantness and high arousal–low arousal. In the light
of this model, happiness is also considered to be a combination of these
two dimensions. Intense forms of happiness (for example, excitement or
enthusiasm), occur when pleasantness is combined with high arousal,
while milder forms of happiness (e.g., peacefulness, gladness), occur when
pleasantness is associated with low arousal. This study proposes that, in
comparison with other situations that a person experiences, consumption
under goal congruence will be typically characterized by relatively mild
and 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 Yi
and Baumgartner (2004), in consumption situations it is hypothesized
that goal-incongruence will elicit mild and short-term negative emotions,
such as dissatisfaction. This study hypothesizes that the experience
of happiness and sadness in a consumption situation depends on the
nature 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 the
origin 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 psychology
literature. Because of the pancultural, timeless aspects of many causal
evaluations 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 or
sadness, depending on whether the outcome is positive or negative,
whereas the agent’s outcome because of another person or the self basi-
cally elicits further affective reactions of approval/disapproval of an
agent’s actions, depending on whether the outcome is positive or nega-
tive (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988).
876 SOSCIA
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 877
With respect to the appraisal of the causation of an event, it can be seen

that this perspective is close to aspects of attribution theory developed
in the marketing literature: product failure or success can be attributed
by 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 purchase
will 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 emotional
responses: in the first case, the consumer experiences regret or guilt; in
the second case, the consumer feels anger or resentment towards the
manufacturer (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 also
guilt and remorse are likely to occur (Dahl, Honea, & Manchanda, 2003).
In fact, guilt is often associated with other negative emotions: people
may react to their own feeling of guilt with sadness and this emotion may
partially dilute it (Plutchik, 1962). Guilt refers “to one’s sense of regret,
remorse, tension, and anxiety about being culpable and punishable for
an offence, a failure of duty, or conscience” (Ferguson, 1999, p. 308).
Thus, guilt is an emotion that occurs in negative situations for which
one feels personally responsible (Roseman, 1991; Roseman, Wiest, &
Swartz, 1994; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; Weiner 1985). Consistent with
the psychology literature, when the product failure is attributed by the
customer 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 the
focus of the evaluation. In guilt, the self is not the central object of
the negative evaluation, but rather the thing done or undone is the focus”
(Tangney & Dearing, 2002, p. 18). Thus, the kind of experience addressed
in this article, failure, which normally implies a negative evaluation of
the self in connection with a particular incident, should elicit guilt instead
of shame.
When external circumstances produce positive outcomes, the consumer
experiences happiness. By contrast, liking (which is defined as “affec-
tion toward someone”) and gratitude are elicited by the ascription of a
positive 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 Smith’s 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 grateful
when they attribute their positive outcomes or personal successes, at
least in part, to others rather than to themselves alone. Thus, when
a seller is credited by a consumer with responsibility for a positive

mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 878
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 important
element in gratitude: this element often distinguishes the emotion of
gratitude from mere approval, a nonemotional evaluation. By contrast,
in the case the consumer is responsible for a positive outcome he or she
will feel pride, not only happiness: “Kant nicely captured the locus-pride
union by noting that everyone at a meal might enjoy the food, but
only the cook of that meal could experience pride” (Weiner, 1985, p. 561).
In fact, when positive results happen that are attributed to actions of
the self rather than to circumstances, the emotion experienced is defined
as 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 focus
on specific actions for which other people are perceived as responsible.
Anger is aroused in response to a specific offence: people tend to blame
the other person for such an unjustified offence, and often whether or
not the wrong was deliberate or due to negligence. People do not become
angry if they consider the other person to be justified in their deeds or
out of control and further do not feel resentment toward impersonal cir-
cumstances (Clore, Ortony, Dienes, & Fujita, 1993). Of course, there is a
strong relation between anger and appraisal of goal incongruence. In
fact, anger occurs in connection with descriptions of situations which
contain insurmountable barriers to the reaching of goals; anger responses
occur when a person is somehow thwarted in an activity he or she is
engaged in or about to become engaged in (Plutchik, 1962). This fact
explains why “goal incongruence” is considered an antecedent of
this emotion. Some discussion in the consumer behavior literature relates
“goal 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 by

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

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

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

sellers.
878 SOSCIA
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 879
Goal congruence/incongruence
Incongruence Congruence
Self-caused Scenario 1 Scenario 2

outcome
Causation of Sadness Happiness
event (agency)
Guilt Pride
Seller-caused Scenario 3 Scenario 4

outcome
Sadness Happiness
Anger Gratitude
Circumstance- Scenario 5 Scenario 6

caused outcome
Sadness Happiness
Table 1. Emotions as a function of the interaction of agency and goal

congruence/incongruence.
Table 1 summarizes the first two hypotheses. Here the specific two-way
interactions between agency and goal congruence/incongruence can be
seen, 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 Research
Methodology.
HYPOTHESES: COPING RESPONSES
With respect to coping strategies—which are responses one makes to

regulate his/her felt emotions—anger induces (1) antagonistic tendencies
and 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 alter
the 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 change
his or her mind. As discussed in the marketing literature, this coping
strategy is strictly related to a particular postpurchase behavior: the com-
plaint. On this point, Bougie, Pieters, and Zeelenberg (2003) demonstrate

mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 880
that anger fully mediates the effect of service encounter dissatisfaction

on consumer complaint behavior.
Moreover, with regard to coping strategies, sadness, per se, induces
inhibition (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 a
consumption 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 the
chance that consumers refrain from blaming the manufacturer or
the service provider when feeling sad. Therefore,
H3a: When goal incongruence occurs, the likelihood that anger will
lead 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 greater
will be the complaining.
By contrast, guilt often induces an antagonistic tendency toward the

self (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 guilt
response is “amendment and commitment.” Here consumers engage in
reparative actions (e.g., they return a product they cannot afford), com-
pensatory action (e.g., they donate money to a charity to feel better), or
make plans regarding future actions (e.g., they promise themselves not
to make the same mistake again). This study hypothesizes that accept-
ing responsibility (i.e., recognizing one’s own role in the outcome) is coher-
ent with the decision to not complain and to not engage in negative
word 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 and

positive emotions in the psychological literature. In fact, coping per-
spectives suggest greater differentiation among negative emotions than
among positive ones: they assume that a greater variety of response
options is needed to cope with potentially bad situations than is needed
to cope with potentially good ones (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988). Further-
more, the action tendencies identified for positive emotions in the
literature are quite vague and underspecified (Fredrickson, 2004).
880 SOSCIA
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 881
Nevertheless, it seems that grateful individuals consider pro-social actions

as 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 to
recognize that effort and feel some gratitude. According to Morales (2005),
gratitude influences consumer willingness to pay and in this way
promotes the well being of the benefactor (the manufacturer or service
provider). Extending Morale’s ideas, this study hypothesizes that grati-
tude will also determine repurchase behavior. Moreover, Fredrickson
(2004) maintains that grateful people further the well-being of other
people, not limited to the original benefactor. Thus, with regard to con-
sumption behavior, the desire to share a positive experience may lead
grateful consumers to engage in positive world of mouth. By contrast, with
reference to the consumption context, pride inhibits positive behavior
such 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 to
a kind of aimless activation (Frijda, 1996), exuberance, and interest in
paying attention to the environment (Frijda, Kuipers, & Schure, 1989).
These coping strategies more resemble generic urges to do nothing in
particular 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 repurchase
intention and positive word of mouth in goal-congruent contexts.
H5b: The greater the gratitude, the greater the repurchase intention
and 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 randomly
assigned to one of six conditions (see Table 1) and responses to appro-
priate emotions and action were measured as dependent variables. The
method 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 these
stories, information relevant to the appraisals was systematically varied,
and subjects rated the intensity of the emotions that they believed the
protagonists felt in response to the events, as well their predicted action
tendencies. Figure 1 presents an example scenario.

mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 882
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.
Seller- caused The step aerobics class that Helen attended

was very crowded. Because of the over-crowding, the
outcome lessons were not easy to follow. Besides, the class was
not challenging and the instructor was not very motivating.
Goal Helen soon realized that she was not feeling motivated in the
incongruence class and that she would not achieve her goal of losing weight.
Figure 1. Scenario 3: Seller-caused outcome X goal incongruence.
Multi-item scales were reused to measure the target emotions.

The specific categories and items (listed in parentheses) used for the
respective 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 (H1
and 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 different
versions of the stories. Then participants answered the questions meas-
uring the dependent variables. All respondents were women because the
content of the six scenarios referred to women and the protagonist
was 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 was
analyzed from 182 completed surveys.
RESULTS
A maximum likelihood analysis followed by a promax rotation on the

measures of the dependent variables measures showed that happiness,
sadness, anger, and guilt were measured well by the nine emotion
items and loaded on the predicted factors (see Table 2). Consistent
with the psychology literature, happiness and sadness were expected to
882 SOSCIA
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 883
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).
Very Unlikely Neither Likely Very likely

unlikely unlikely or
likely
Helen will complain to the person at the 1 2 3 4 5

NCRB fitness office about the class.
Helen will complain to her friends about 1 2 3 4 5

NCRB.
Helen will recommend NCRB to her friends. 1 2 3 4 5
Helen will sign up for new classes at NCRB 1 2 3 4 5

when she decides to exercise regularly.
Figure 2. The questionnaire.
belong to the same factor and to show a negative correlation with the
other items. The output was a three-factor solution. The three-factor
solution accounted for 87% of the total variance and each item loaded
highly on its hypothesized factor and relatively low on the nonhypothe-
sized factors.

mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 884
Table 2. Factor Analysis.
Measures Happiness/Sadness Guilt Anger
Sorrow .81
Dissatisfaction .82
Gladness .97
Happiness .96
Satisfaction .98
Remorse .88
Guilt .83
Annoyance .74
Dislike .79
An omnibus test using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

was conducted with happiness, sadness, guilt, anger, and gratitude
as 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 consequence
of goal congruence/incongruence. The specific findings are presented
here.
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 the
dependent variable. The results revealed a significant effect of goal con-
gruence/incongruence (F(1,179) 1413.46, p .001) which shows higher
happiness 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 of
sadness is higher under condition of incongruence (M 6.72) than under
condition 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. A
planned contrast showed that gratitude experienced in the case of the goal
congruent seller-outcome (M 6.67) was higher than the average
gratitude experienced in the other cases (M 1.21): t(180) 10.73,
p .001.1
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 gratitude
experienced in the case of the self-caused outcome (M 3.27) or circumstance caused
outcome (M 1.83): t(77) 4.15 and t(77) 5.64, p .001.
884 SOSCIA
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 885
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 and
agency as factors and pride as the dependent variable. The interaction
significantly predicted pride (F (2, 176) 37.00, p .001). Pride felt in
the case of the congruent self-outcome is significantly higher than the
average 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 and
agency as factors and anger as the dependent variable. The interaction
significantly predicted anger (F (2, 174) 4,04, p .05). Moreover, anger
felt in the case of the incongruent seller-outcome is significantly higher
than the average anger felt in the other cases, M 3.88 vs. M 2.17, and
t(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 shown
in Table 3.
2
Under Goal Incongruence, the experienced guilt in the situation of self-caused outcome (M
8.10) 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),
t(97) 1.60, p .11. Moreover, anger did not differ significantly for seller-caused and circum-
stance-caused outcomes (M 3.87 vs. M 3.29), t(97) .90, p .37.

mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 886
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 of F .00 .00
R2 .35 .32
Adjusted R2 .31 .27
* Significant at a .05; **Significant at a .01
As forecast, the findings show a positive correlation between anger

and 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 negative
postconsumption behaviors were found (r .52 and r –.41, respec-
tively, p .01).
To verify the causal relations between emotions and the two negative
action tendencies, two multiple regression analyses were performed
under condition of goal incongruence. Table 4 summarizes the results of
the regressions. The analyses show that, when goal incongruence
occurred, neither anger nor sadness predicted complaining. Finally, guilt
inhibited both complaining behavior (b .60, p .01) and negative
word 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 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**
886 SOSCIA
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 887
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 of F .00 .00
R2 .52 .71
Adjusted R2 .48 .69
repurchase intention is higher than between happiness and the same

behavior (r .66, p .01 vs. r .22, p .05). Moreover, it is higher than
the 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 of
mouth (r .78, p .01 vs. r .28, p .01). In addition, the correlation
between gratitude and positive word of mouth is higher than the
one 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 and
the two positive behaviors, two multiple regression analyses were run
under condition of goal congruence (see Table 6). The findings support both
hypotheses: gratitude determines repurchase intentions and positive
word of mouth, whereas intentions and positive word of mouth were not
influenced by happiness and pride, as hypothesized.
The previous analyses demonstrate that cognitive appraisals of agency
and goal congruence/incongruence determine consumption emotions and
that these emotions predict particular behaviors. Next, it is important to
test whether emotions mediate the relations between cognitive appraisals
and behaviors. To investigate these effects a step-down analysis using
MANOVA was performed (Bagozzi & Yi, 1989). The first test of this analy-
sis is designed to show whether the predicted combination of appraisals
have significant effects on emotions and postconsumption behaviors.
Once these effects are verified, the second step is to demonstrate that the
effects that appraisals have on behaviors are due to the mediating role
of emotions. Table 7 summarizes the result of the step-down MANOVA.
The first test is a MANOVA in which the two appraisals and their
combination are the independent variables, and each emotion (gratitude
and guilt) and the behaviors (positive word of mouth, negative word of
mouth, complaint, and repurchase) are the dependent variables. The
multivariate effects were significant: the predicted combination of

mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 888
Table 7. Step-down Analysis ( p Values of the Multivariate F-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: guilt

Agency .00 .00
X Agency
appraisals significantly determine the dependent variables. Under the

second test, the dependent variables are the behaviors and the two
emotions are covaried out. A significant effect of the predicted combina-
tion of appraisals on the behaviors was obtained. That is, once the effects
of the emotions have been partialled-out, the predicted combination of
appraisals affects the behaviors. Thus, the analysis shows that emotions
do not totally mediate the relationship between appraisals and behav-
iors. In other words, emotions partially mediate the effects of appraisals
on behavior.
DISCUSSION
Postpurchase phenomena are of special interest to managers because

such behaviors determine the success or the failure of the business.
Because these behaviors are not directly controllable, knowledge about
antecedents 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 these
controllable stimuli so as to change behavior.
Under H1, “goal congruence/incongruence” elicits the negative emo-
tion, sadness, and the positive emotion, happiness. Nevertheless, these
emotions by themselves do not predict the different postconsumption
behavior outcomes.
888 SOSCIA
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 889
By contrast, under H2, the findings show that the interaction between
goal 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 mouth
and repurchase intentions. Guilt, when consumers accept their respon-
sibility for prior actions and the negative outcome, inhibits negative word
of mouth and complaining behaviors.
The predicted attributions of other-directed anger did not influence
behavior outcomes. This result was probably because of the choice that
was made in the type of service for the experiment. In fact, as sports
enthusiasts know very well, it is very difficult to get physically fit when
one 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-Ze’ev,
2000). In future research, the two forms of anger (self vs. other directed)
should be distinguished more clearly, especially with reference to their
different 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 effects
of the manipulated appraisals on postconsumptions behaviors. More pre-
cisely, the results of this study suggest that attributions influence how
consumers feel in different cases of positive and negative outcomes, and
these emotions imply different consumer behavioral responses to service
success or failure.
With respect to service failures, this research suggests that, in this
case, the consumer asks who, if anyone, is to be blamed. When the con-
sumer feels responsible for the negative outcome, a sense of guilt lessens
the chance that such actions as negative word of mouth will be directed
at and damage the service provider. Unfortunately, from the point of view
of firms, consumers sometimes do not perform a careful attributional
appraisal: although consumers may feel confident about their inferences,
perceived reasons may differ from the “true” reasons of service/product
failure. Perhaps such possibilities led British Airways in 2001 to pub-
lish new rules for passengers asserting that the company can bar them
from boarding its aircraft if they appear abusive, insulting, threatening,
or disorderly in any way (O’Shaughnessy & O’Shaughnessy, 2001).
Managers of British Airways desire to prevent damaging or incorrect
attributions: they emphasize that there are particular situations in which
the service can be denied to consumers who act inappropriately. Managers
can facilitate consumers’ causal attributions in number of ways. For
example, 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 expected
role that consumers should play in a very clear, precise, respectful,
and honest way, without relieving the company of its responsibilities

mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 890
and prerogatives. But this apparently was not the case for British
Airways. According to O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy (2001), the
rules that British Airways promulgated were vague and ambiguous, with
too much left to consumer discretion: “there is the need to explicate the
relevant behavior through thick description and videos illustrating
the banned bahavior” (O’Shaughnessy & O’Shaughnessy, 2001, p. 19).
In any case, it appears that the managers of British Airways are correct
when they conclude that consumers do not always form correct attribu-
tions of negative outcomes. Sometimes uncertainty occurs, such as when
a product is complex (Folkes, 1984). Therefore, companies should do their
best to facilitate consumer attributions, and they have different oppor-
tunities to get consumers to recognize and accept their responsibilities, if
it 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. For
example in Italy, in a coadvertising campaign, a famous fashion company
recommends the use of a specific detergent to protect clothes from fading.
In general, advertising and other communication should convey frank
messages, messages that do not minimize the commitment that consumers
are expected to make to obtain benefits from a service or a product. Other
opportunities that marketing managers should take is to discuss with
their consumers the reasons for negative outcomes. This can be done in
response to letters from consumers requesting product information, as
well as in situations where consumers return products for refunds (Folkes,
1984): in these cases, manufacturers or service providers have the chance
to inform their customers about possible product misuse.
Also with respect to successes of products/services, the results of this
study suggest that consumers should engage in attributional informa-
tional processing search and that they will feel gratitude when they
attribute positive outcomes to service providers. The findings show that
this sense of gratitude elicits positive word of mouth and repurchase
intentions. Thus, consumers seem to reward high-effort firms. Marketers
should try to provide situations wherein customers feel that they are
the target of extra effort by sellers: this occurs, for example, in the case
in which a hotel sends birthday presents to its customers, following their
stay, or when a health club member finds a personal trainer particularly
helpful and inspirational. The findings suggest that happiness may lead
to success for a business when this emotion is connected explicitly to a
sense 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 to
only one kind of service: other services should be tested to obtain more
robust results and their generalizability. Second, the interactions among
only two appraisals were studied in order to determine postconsump-
tion emotions: a more comprehensive study should analyze the role of
other possible determinants of consumption emotions, such as “industry
890 SOSCIA
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 891
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 technique
might 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., boycotting
behavior, 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. 241–269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Andreasen, A. R. (1985). Consumer responses to dissatisfaction in loose monop-
olies. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 135–141.
Athnassopoulos, A., Gounaris S., & Stathakopoulos, V. (2001). Behavioural
responses to customer satisfaction: An empirical study. European Journal of
Marketing 35, 687–707.
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, 271–284.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1999). Happiness. In D. Levinson, J. J. Ponzetti, & P. F. Jorgensen
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human emotions (pp. 317–324). New York: Macmillan.
Ben-Ze’ev, 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, 31–42.
Bougie, R., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). Angry customers don’t come back,
they get back: The experience and behavioral implications of anger and dis-
satisfaction in services. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 377–393.
Caruana, A. (2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the medi-
ating role of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 36,
811–829.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, K. (1989). Assessing coping strate-
gies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 267–283.
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. 57–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dahal, D. W., Honea, H., & Manchanda, R. V. (2003). The nature of self-reported
guilt in consumption contexts. Marketing Letters, 14, 159–171.
Day, R. L., & Ash, S. B. (1978). Consumer responses to dissatisfaction with
durable products. Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 438–444.
Day, R. L. (1983). Modelling choices among alternative responses to dissatis-
faction. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 496–499.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988). Shades of joy: Patterns of appraisal dif-
ferentiating pleasant emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 2, 301–331.

mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 892
Ferguson, T. J. (1999). Guilt. In D. Levinson, J. J. Ponzetti, & P. F. Jorgensen (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of human emotions (pp. 307–315). New York: Macmillan.
Folkes,V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional
approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 398–409.
Folkes,V. S., Koletsky, S., & Graham, G. (1987). A field study of causal inferences
and consumer reactions: The view from the airport. Journal of Consumer
Research, 13, 534–539.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J.
(1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and
encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
992–1003.
Fornell, C., & Wernerfelt, B. (1987). Defensive marketing strategy by customer
complaint management: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research,
24, 337–346.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Gratitude like other positive emotions, broadens and
builds. In R. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude
(pp. 145–166). 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. Cognition
and Emotion, 1, 115–143.
Frijda, N. H. (1993). A place of appraisal in emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 7,
357–387.
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion,
appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social
Gelb, B., & Johnson, M. (1995). Word-of-mouth communication: Causes and
consequences. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 15, 54–62.
Gronhaug, K., & Zaltman, G. (1977). Complainers and non complainers revis-
ited: Another look at the data. Advances in Consumer Research 4, 83–87.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of customer satis-
faction, relationship on commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer
retention. Journal of Marketing, 69, 210–218.
Keng, K. A., Richmond, D., & Han, S. (1995). Determinants of consumer complaint
behavior: A study of Singapore consumers. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 8, 59–68.
Krishnan, S., & Valle, V. A. (1979). Dissatisfaction attributions and consumer
complaint behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 445–449.
Lapidus, R. S., & Pinkerton, L. (1995). Customer complaint situations: An equity
theory perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 12, 105–122.
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, 833–840.
MacInnis, D. J., & de Mello, G. E. (2005). The concept of hope and its relevance
to product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing, 69, 1–14.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
892 SOSCIA
mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 893
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, 131–142.
Morales, A. C. (2005). Giving firms an “E” for effort: Consumer responses to
high-effort firms. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 806–812.
Nyer, P. U. (1997). A study of the relationships between cognitive appraisals and
consumption emotions. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 296–304.
O’Shaughnessy, J., & O’Shaughnessy, 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, 24–31.
Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and
Emotion 5, 161–200.
Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and
goal differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social
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, 241–277.
Scherer, K. R. (1993). Studying the emotion-antecedent appraisal process: An
expert system approach. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 325–355.
Scherer, K. R. (1988). Criteria for emotion-antecedent appraisal: A review. In
V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on
emotion and motivation (pp. 89–126). 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 Marketing
Science, 18, 1–15.
Singh, J., & Wilkes, R. E. (1996). When consumers complain: A path analysis of
the key antecedents of consumer complaint response estimates. Journal
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, 216–269.
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisals in emotion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838.
Stephens, N., & Gwinner, K. P. (1998). Why don’t some people complain?
A cognitive-emotive process model of consumer complaint behavior. Journal
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, 56–69.
Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. (1968). Some determinants of gratitude.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 233–236.

mar2410_907_20188.qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 894
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
Weiner, B., & Graham, S. (1989). Understanding the motivational role of affect:
Lifespan research from an attributional perspective. Cognition and Emotion,
3, 401–419.
Yi, S., & Baumgartner, V. (2004). Coping with negative emotions in purchase-
related situations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 303–317.
Yi, Y., & La, S. (2004). What influences the relationship between customer
satisfaction and repurchase intention? Investigating the effect of adjusted
expectation and customer loyalty. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 351–373.
Yi, Y. (1989). A critical review of customer satisfaction. Working paper. Division
of 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
(isabella.soscia@sdabocconi.it).
894 SOSCIA

Emo in Post Consumption

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Emo in Post Consumption

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

mar2410_907_20188.

qxp 8/14/07 12:45 PM Page 871

Gratitude, Delight, or Guilt:

This study investigates the relationships among appraisals (goal

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24(10): 871–894 (October 2007)

• To predict further consumption emotions like guilt and gratitude,

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

GRATITUDE, DELIGHT, OR GUILT 873

THE COGNITIVE THEORY OF EMOTIONS

Consistent with the studies mentioned earlier, this research follows a

Scholars in the cognitive traditions maintain that emotions are elicited

Individual differences in the cognitive elaboration of stimuli might

GRATITUDE, DELIGHT, OR GUILT 875

to pleasant circumstances. Nevertheless, a distinction should be made

H1a: Goal congruence predicts happiness.

H1b: Goal incongruence predicts sadness.

The second class of appraisals, evaluation of the causation of an event

With respect to the appraisal of the causation of an event, it can be seen

GRATITUDE, DELIGHT, OR GUILT 877

outcome, the consumer may experience gratitude as well as happiness

H2a: Gratitude occurs when goal-congruent outcomes are produced by

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

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

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

Self-caused Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Seller-caused Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Circumstance- Scenario 5 Scenario 6

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

HYPOTHESES: COPING RESPONSES

With respect to coping strategies—which are responses one makes to

GRATITUDE, DELIGHT, OR GUILT 879

that anger fully mediates the effect of service encounter dissatisfaction

By contrast, guilt often induces an antagonistic tendency toward the

H4: Complaining behavior and negative word of mouth communica-

There is relatively little research investigating coping strategies and

Nevertheless, it seems that grateful individuals consider pro-social actions

In order to test the hypotheses, a two-factor goal congruence/incongru-

GRATITUDE, DELIGHT, OR GUILT 881

The last time that Helen went shopping she

Seller- caused The step aerobics class that Helen attended

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

Multi-item scales were reused to measure the target emotions.

A maximum likelihood analysis followed by a promax rotation on the

Very Unlikely Neither Likely Very likely

Helen will complain to the person at the 1 2 3 4 5

Helen will complain to her friends about 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 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 2. The questionnaire.

GRATITUDE, DELIGHT, OR GUILT 883

Table 2. Factor Analysis.

Measures Happiness/Sadness Guilt Anger

An omnibus test using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

Table 3. Correlations Between Emotions and Complaining

R Complaint Negative word of mouth

Happiness n.s. n.s.

Also, the ANOVA conducted on guilt confirmed the presence of a sig-

GRATITUDE, DELIGHT, OR GUILT 885

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

Independent variable Complaint Negative word of mouth

Happiness b n.s. n.s.

As forecast, the findings show a positive correlation between anger

Table 5. Correlations Between Emotions and Repurchase Intention