Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 1437 – 1445

Emotions in consumer behavior: a hierarchical approach
Fleur J.M. Laros*, Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp
Marketing Department, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands Received 1 December 2002; received in revised form 1 September 2003; accepted 1 September 2003

Abstract A growing body of consumer research studies emotions evoked by marketing stimuli, products and brands. Yet, there has been a wide divergence in the content and structure of emotions used in these studies. In this paper, we will show that the seemingly diverging research streams can be integrated in a hierarchical consumer emotions model. The superordinate level consists of the frequently encountered general dimensions positive and negative affect. The subordinate level consists of specific emotions, based on Richins’ (Richins, Marsha L. Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience. J. Consum. Res. 24 (2) (1997) 127–146) Consumption Emotion Set (CES), and as an intermediate level, we propose four negative and four positive basic emotions. We successfully conducted a preliminary test of this secondorder model, and compare the superordinate and basic level emotion means for different types of food. The results suggest that basic emotions provide more information about the feelings of the consumer over and above positive and negative affect. D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Consumer emotions; Hierarchy of emotions; Positive and negative affect; Basic emotions; Specific emotions

1. Introduction After a long period in which consumers were assumed to make largely rational decisions based on utilitarian product attributes and benefits, in the last two decades, marketing scholars have started to study emotions evoked by marketing stimuli, products and brands (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). Many studies involving consumer emotions have focused on consumers’ emotional responses to advertising (e.g., Derbaix, 1995), and the mediating role of emotions on the satisfaction of consumers (e.g., Phillips and Baumgartner, 2002). Emotions have been shown to play an important role in other contexts, such as complaining (Stephens and Gwinner, 1998), service failures (Zeelenberg and Pieters, 1999) and product attitudes (Dube et al., 2003). Emotions are often conceptualized as general dimensions, like positive and negative affect, but there has also been an interest in more specific emotions. Within the latter stream of research, some researchers use a comprehensive set of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 13 4668212; fax: +31 13 4662875. E-mail address: F.Laros@uvt.nl (F.J.M. Laros). 0148-2963/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.09.013

specific emotions (Richins, 1997; Ruth et al., 2002). Other researchers concentrate on one or several specific emotions, such as surprise (e.g., Derbaix and Vanhamme, 2003), regret (e.g., Inman and Zeelenberg, 2002; Tsiros and Mittal, 2000), sympathy and empathy (Edson Escalas and Stern, 2003), embarrassment (Verbeke and Bagozzi, 2003) and anger (Bougie et al., 2003; Taylor, 1994). Despite this emerging body of research, progress on the use of emotions in consumer behavior has been hampered by ambiguity about two interrelated issues, viz., the structure and content of emotions (Bagozzi et al., 1999). First, with regard to structure , some researchers examine all emotions at the same level of generality (e.g., Izard, 1977), whereas others specify a hierarchical structure in which specific emotions are particular instances of more general underlying basic emotions (Shaver et al., 1987; Storm and Storm, 1987). Second, and relatedly, there is debate concerning the content of emotions. Should emotions be most fruitfully conceived as very broad general factors, such as pleasure/arousal (Russell, 1980) or positive/negative affect (Watson and Tellegen, 1985)? Alternatively, appraisal theorists (see, e.g., Frijda et al., 1989; Roseman et al., 1996; Smith and Lazarus, 1993) argue that specific emotions

because each emotion has a distinct set of appraisals. happiness. arousal. 1999). Derbaix (1995) replicated the research of Edell and Burke (1987) in a natural setting. contentment. (1989) Watson et al. gratitude. worry. arousal and domination dimension in their data.M. optimism. (1996) investigated the relations between arousal potential. and surprise Positive and negative affect Positive and negative affect Love. The subordinate level consists of specific consumer emotions. (2002) Smith and Bolton (2002) Watson et al. and showed that these emotions mediate consumer responses to advertising. (1988) Edell and Burke (1987) Shaver et al.1438 F. Several studies focused on the emotional responses to ads. (1987) Richins (1997) Resulting structure Upbeat. We will show that the general dimensions with positive and negative affect are the superordinate and most abstract level at which emotions can be defined.. and uncovered a positive and negative factor. Both three dimensions—similar to the upbeat. discontent. and sadness Anger. excitement.’s (1988) PANAS scale and Mano’s (1991) circumplex scale. (1988). They used the PANAS scale (Watson et al. and warm Pleasure. uneasiness. and found positive and negative affect as underlying emotion dimensions.M. They based their arousal dimension on the scale of Mehrabian and Russell (1974). Oliver (1993) extended this work by showing that emotional responses mediate the effects of product attributes on satisfaction. Second. negative. anger. and satisfaction in the postconsumption experience.. Steenkamp et al. They proposed three factors: an upbeat. (1987) Smith and Bolton (2002) . we conduct a preliminary test of this proposed structure and compare the means for positive and negative affect with those of the basic emotions for four different food types. shame. love. arousal. Phillips and Baumgartner (2002) confirmed the Table 1 Overview of consumer research using emotions as a main variable Reference Edell and Burke (1987) Holbrook and Batra (1987) Westbrook (1987) Olney et al.-B. Laros. negative and warm Positive and negative Positive and negative affect Positive and negative affect Arousal Anger. joy. 1988) and uncovered positive and negative affect. pride. with need for stimulation as a moderator. and consequently viewing time of an ad. fear. guilt. J. They uncovered a pleasure. sadness. Edell and Burke (1987) also created their own emotion list and found that feelings play an important role in the prediction of the ad’s effectiveness. 2. We will develop an intermediate level with basic emotions that links these two levels. joy/satisfaction. The confusion concerning structure and content of emotions has hindered the full interpretation and use of emotions in consumer behavior theory and empirical research (Bagozzi et al. self-pity. In the satisfaction literature. Olney et al. Holbrook and Batra (1987) developed their own emotional scale based on an in-depth review of the literature. but only the latter dimensions were used in the studies. They combined Watson et al. fear. and ad evaluation. envy. peacefulness. romantic love. and embarrassment Anger. negative. and anxiety Dube and Morgan (1998) Phillips and Baumgartner (2002) Ruth et al. sadness. (1996) Nyer (1997) Richins (1997) Emotion measure used Edell and Burke (1987) Holbrook and Batra (1987) Izard (1977) Mehrabian and Russell (1974) Russell et al. Westbrook (1987) was one of the first to investigate consumer emotional responses to product/consumption experiences and their relationship to several central aspects of postpurchase processes. Mano and Oliver (1993) investigated the structural interrelationship among evaluations. His emotion words were based on a prestudy. and warmth factor.J. and warmth factors of Edell and Burke (1987)—and two dimensions—positive and negative affect—were uncovered. and domination Positive and negative affect Pleasure and arousal Pleasure and arousal Upbeat. They used part of Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) scale. disappointment.E. Both studies relied on Izard’s (1977) taxonomy of fundamental affects. Mano (1991) Izard (1977) Derbaix (1995) Mehrabian and Russell (1974) Shaver et al. loneliness. The purpose of our paper is twofold. Steenkamp / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 1437–1445 should not be combined in broad emotional factors. Dube and Morgan (1998) modeled trends in consumption emotions and satisfaction in order to predict retrospective global judgments of services. negative. discontent. feelings. we integrate seemingly opposing research streams in psychology and consumer behavior by developing a hierarchical model of consumer emotions. (1991) showed that the emotional dimensions pleasure and arousal mediate the relation between ad content and attitudinal components. Emotions in consumer research This section will briefly discuss an illustrative set of consumer studies on emotions (see Table 1 for an overview). (1991) Holbrook and Gardner (1993) Mano and Oliver (1993) Oliver (1993) Derbaix (1995) Steenkamp et al. First.

h. (2002) focused on defining the antecedents rather than the consequences of emotions. Startlede.b.c. d Russell (1980). Self-consciousc.J.c. Pitya.b.g. Exuberantc. Gratitudec. Euphoriab.b.j. Serened.c. Concernc. Enjoymentb.c.c. Tenseness b. Enthrallmentb. Compassionb.c. Badc.b. b Shaver et al. Oppressedc.f.d.c.g.c.g. Insecurityb. Ferocityb.c.b.b. i Watson and Tellegen (1985). Reproachfulc.f.c. Upseta. Empathyc. Agreementc. Nostalgiac.M.c. Anguisha.c.c.b.i.b. Demoralizedc. (2002) explored the cognitive appraisals of situations and their correspondence to 10 experienced emotions. Humiliation b. Dismayb.b.j.b.c.j. Sympathyb. Avidc. Bashfulc. Steenkamp / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 1437–1445 1439 importance of including positive and negative affect in explaining satisfaction. or exploratory data analysis yields.d. Arousala.c.d.c. Pityc.b.g. Jealousy a. Hateb.c. Jovialityb. Frustration a.i. Optimism b. Longingc.c.c. At easea. Alarmb. Loneliness a. Discontent a. Greatc.c.d. Terriblec. Horrora. Uglyc. Friendlyc.c. Tranquilityc.c.c. Sadness a. Devotionc.c.c. Trustc. Table 2 Emotion words Negative emotion words Aggravationa.e.c. Passion a.c. Encouraging c.e. Appreciationc. Flustereda. Gloomb.g.Hollowc. Fear b. Triumphb.c. Mopingc. Disgusta.c. Energeticf.g.i.b.c. In spite of this. Impatienta.c.c. They also used emotions based on the hierarchical structure of Shaver et al.E. Unfulfilled.e.i.d.b.b. Anticipationb. Panic b. Offendedh. Irritation a.e. Mortificationa.e.e. In summary.c.g. Distressa.i.c. Lowa.g. Romantic c.b.j. Nervousness a. Sentimentality b. Givingc.d. Affectionb.j.c. Indignantc. Harmonyc. Strongi. Releasec. Longingb. (1987).b. 1999). Finec.f.b. Raptureb.c.c.c. Tormenta. Hostility b. Perfectc. Cheerfulnessa. Ecstasya. Despairb.f.d. Emptya.c. Scornb. Admirationc.b.f.c. Misery a.c.i.h. Fondnessb.c.d.j. Resentmenta.c. Embarrassment a.b.i.f. Likingb. Hysteriab. Sensationalc.h. Infatuationb.c. Securec. Subduedc. Worshipc.c.c.c. Unsatisfiedc.c. Revulsionb. Gleeb. Courageousc.c.e.f.f.j.i.c. Homesickness a. Eagernessb. Melancholyb. Confusedh. Exasperationb. (1987). Bluea.b.j.d. Petrifieda. Smith and Bolton (2002) investigated the role of consumer emotions in the context of service failure and recovery encounters.d. Shocka.c. Enchantedc.b. Thoughtfulc.c. Gladnessa.b.b. Horriblec. Toucheda.c.f.c. Highc.b.c. Surpriseb. Overwhelmeda. Fulfillment c. Generousc. Irkeda. Alerth.c.f. Disturbedc. Jubilationb. Wonderfulc. (1987). Deflateda. and coping potential are determinants of several basic consumption emotions. (1996).h.f. Worry b. listening to music.i.c.c.f. goal congruence. Distrustc.e.c. Comfortablec.j. Hornyc. Peaceful c.d. Delighta. Exhilarationb. Accomplishedc. Victoriousc.c. Painc. J. Franticc. Heart-brokena.g.d. Respectc. Envy a. Adorationb.j. (1989). Wrathb.c.b. Desireb. Yearningc Note: The emotion words of Richins’ CES (1997) are in italics. Mada. Forlornc. Woeb.c.c. Charmeda.c.e. (1988). Dejectiona.b. Rejoicec. Iratea.f. Merrimentc. Ridiculousc. Shyc. Awfulc.b. Lustb.d. Stupidc. Displeasurea. Shame . Elationa.c. Edgyc. Isolationb. Ardentc. Lovesicka.h. Dumbc. Calm a.c. Jollinessb. Threatenedh. Anxietya.c.j. Dissatisfieda.e.c. Guilt b.b.b.c. Excitement a. Gigglyc.i.c. Relaxedc. Forgivingc. Differentc. Regreta. Apprehensiona.i.b.e.d. Enthusiasm b. Nyer (1997) and Ruth et al.b.c.c. Smallc.i. (1989).f Expectantc.f.c. Zealb.j.i.b. Contemptb. Sensualc. Entertainedc.b.e. Rageb. Terrora.b. Tendernessb.i.c.c.c.c. Alienationb. Downa. f Havlena et al. Consternationc.i.h.c. Sheepishc. Scared a.d.b.e.c. Disappointmenta.g.b.h.j. Depression a. c Storm and Storm (1987). Intimidatedh. Crushedh. Unhappinessa.e.j.b. a Morgan and Heise (1988). Sufferingb.c.c.c.b. Astonishmentb. Amusementa. Happiness a.i.e. Hurta. Blissb. e Frijda et al.b.d.c.b.c.d. Sexy c.h. Inspiredj. Warm-hearted c. Neglectb.j.’s (1989) Affect Grid to measure pleasure and arousal of the musical stimuli. Contentment a.c.c.c. Among these. Fantasticc. Jitteryi.c.b.c.b. Overjoyeda.b. Joy a.c.c. Joylessa.c.b.c. Grouchinessb.f. Strainedc. Vengefulnessb.. Mournfulc.I.b.M.c.e.c. Outragea. Tremulousc. Moveda. Peppyi. a small number of dimensions (Bagozzi et al.f.c. Cryc.b. Hope b.e.c. Reverencec.c.i. Consideratec.c. Goodc.f. Frighta.g.d.b.b. Hopelessnessb. Cheerlessa. Remorsea. Crossc. Sincerec.c. Loathingb. Attractionb. Inferiorc.i.i.b. Pridea.c.c.c. Uneasinessa.c. Excellentc. Betrayalc.h.c.c. j Watson et al. Nicec.b. g Roseman et al. Crankyc.c. Attentiveh.c.g. Glumnessb. Helpfulc. Anger a. Fed-upa. Caringb.d.j. Disenchantmentc.j. Defeatb.b. Devastationc. Impressedc. Laros. Curioush.h. Nyer (1997) showed that the appraisals of goal relevance.c. Furya. Unpleasanth. Griefa. Pleasure a. Sorrowa. Love a.g. Thrill a. Unwantedc.b.-B. Dreadb.h.b. Zestb .h.h. Rottenc.i.c.g.d.c.h. Interestedf. Grumpinessb.c.h. Agonyb.f.b. Holbrook and Gardner (1993) investigated the relation between the emotional dimensions pleasure and arousal and the duration of a consumption experience. Wantc. Relief a.f. the classification of emotions in Positive emotion words Acceptancec. h Plutchik (1980).h.c. Sensitivec. They used content analysis for the responses of the participants and grouped the (negative) emotion words of consumers in five categories. Agitationa. Insultb.e.b. Incrediblec. Satisfactiona.c. Lightheartedc. These emotions were mainly based on Shaver et al. Fascinatede. Rejectionb. which was in their case. Puzzledh. Troubledc.c. They used Russell et al.e. Discomfortc.h. Misunderstoodc. consumer researchers frequently use.b.e. Bitternessa. Defensivec. Amazementb. this overview shows that there is wide divergence in the content of emotions studied in consumer research.d. Botheredc. Regardc. Aversione. Reassuredc.i.g.j. Activei.e.b. Superc.f.h.c. Jumpyc.c.g.c.e.i. Sickeneda.c.F. Bravec. Foolishc.c.e.a.c. Playfulc. Determinedj. Kindlyc. Apologeticc. Terrificc. Annoyancea.c. Discouragedc. Protectivec.b. Lossc.c. Suspensec. Wistfulc.c. Studies often use different scales to measure emotions and focus on different emotions.b.b. Ruth et al.d. Spiteb.c. Gaietyb. Dislikeb.

p Mowrer (1960). Tendere. e McDougal (1926). which of these many emotion words should be used to measure consumer emotions? To address this issue.E.f. A hierarchy of consumer emotions The research streams supporting the different emotion structures (positive/negative vs. however. e. Interestd.l.m. the basic 3. yielding a hierarchical structure. 1980. see also Berkowitz. it is important to know.M. Our hierarchy of consumer emotions distinguishes between positive and negative affect at the superordinate level. and zeal. superordinate. f Oatley and Johnson-Laird (1987) g Shaver et al. whether a failure in a product or service elicits feelings of anger or sadness. b a . Several studies have shown how important it is to take into account differences across emotions of the same valence (Lerner and Keltner.k. 1999.h. 2000. Subjectione.b.M. 1990) Acceptancea. subordinate. 1992. Arnold (1960). Watson and Tellegen. j Gray (1982). is less clear. With few exceptions. h Storm and Storm (1987).. e. Likingh.. forlorn.i. but because there are different ways to conceive emotions (facial. 1985. Morgan and Heise. Feara. Shaver et al. and can be easily divided in positive and negative affect. whereas others.k. Aversionb. 1988). 1987. the angry person becomes more energized to fight against the cause of anger (Shaver et al. she constructed the Consumption Emotion Set (CES). 2000.f.c.g. 1987). level consists of positive and negative affect.d.h. Ekman. (1987) and Storm and Storm (1987) have suggested that emotions can be grouped into clusters. we can use the important study by Richins (1997). 2000. more precise information about the feelings of the consumer is lost (Bagozzi et al.g. Distressd. The most general. For example. 1988. Courageb. Angera. 1999).d..i.J. Storm and Storm. (1982).. We were able to classify all emotion words as either a positive or negative emotion (see Table 2). Disgusta. 1987. l Panksepp (1982).. Hostilityh. In addition. p.o. Thus. Russell.c. (1987) and Storm and Storm (1987). d Izard (1971).-B. 1999).i.l.k.h. The next level is considered as the basic emotion level.n. Anxietyf. if not all.k Plutchik (1980). 1996.i..e.. k Frijda (1986). 2001.i. Expectancyl.b.e. i Tomkins (1984).g. specific emotions) seem opposing.. 1992. 804. sadness. Sorrowk. Panicl. Grief m.g. 4. Table 2 reveals that the words included in the CES (in italics) are among the most frequently encountered words in the psychological emotion literature.c.i. 1980. 1988).c. Basic emotions are believed to be innate and universal.m. Sadnessa. The number of references for each emotion word illustrates to what degree researchers agree that this is an emotion word.. 1992). The disadvantage is that important distinctions among different positive and negative emotions disappear (Lerner and Keltner. o Weiner and Graham (1984). Zeelenberg and Pieters. Yet.f.e. Shaver et al.c. The specific consumer emotions based on Richins’ (1997) CES encompass the subordinate level. emotions that can emerge in consumption situations and was developed to distinguish the varieties of emotion associated with different product classes.1440 F. Watson et al. Guiltd. This scale includes most. m James (1884).n. Despairb.o.m. brain. Contentmenth.. Izard. Table 2 shows the emotion words and indicates which studies included a particular word as a positive or negative emotion word in their structure.d. We have content-analyzed 10 seminal studies in psychology on emotions and emotion words (Frijda et al. 1999). Both angry and sad people feel that something wrong has been done to them. Pleasurep. c Ekman et al.j. Joya. e. Advantages of the division in positive and negative affect are that (1) the model can be kept simple and (2) the combination of a person’s positive and negative affect is indicative of his/her attitude.c. 1992). Table 2 supports the notion that there are more negative than positive emotion words (Morgan and Heise. Positive and negative affect Many papers acknowledge that positive and negative affect are bever present in the experience of emotionsQ (Diener. 2001). Hateb. Elatione. Ragej.g. like mournful. Panksepp. Steenkamp / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 1437–1445 positive and negative affect appears to be the most popular conceptualization (see Table 1). Watson et al.b. Contemptd. Loveb. Hopeb. Laros. Dejectionb. we thus propose that consumer emotions can be considered at different levels of abstractness. Table 3 Basic emotions in the psychological literature (adapted from Ortony and Turner. Happinessf.i. Plutchik. Because different emotions can have different behavioral consequences. (1987). 1989. Anticipationa.. biosocial.i. but can in fact be seen as complementing. Shamed.n. Havlena et al.h. Painh. Ortony and Turner (1990) have shown that 14 different emotion theorists proposed 14 different sets of basic emotions. Prideh. Roseman et al. Desireb.h.g. Surprisea.p.g. level consists of groups of individual emotions that form a category named after the most typical emotion of that category.h. the emotion words fear.h.j. and happiness appear almost in every emotion structure.d. Table 3 shows the usage frequency of the basic emotions in the different structures reviewed by Ortony and Turner (1990). there is also disagreement about which emotions are basic (Turner and Ortony. Based on extensive research. Along the lines of the hierarchical structures of Shaver et al.g. J. Which basic emotions should constitute the intermediate level.k. for example. Wondere. n Watson (1930). but whereas sad people become inactive and withdrawn. are only mentioned occasionally.d. and the lowest.h. 1989.

Sample and procedure Data were collected in a nationally representative sample among 645 Dutch consumers using a questionnaire. 1. Therefore. The average age was 48 years and ranged between 16 and 91 with a fairly normal spread. (1987) and Storm and Storm (1987). Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they experience 33 specific emotions for one (randomly assigned) type of food (genetically modified food. Next. Laros. it is a neutral emotion (Storm and Storm. sadness. we draw on the hierarchical structures of Shaver et al.. sadness. 53. 1987). these types of foods are widely known. and will be retained in our structure. surprise was hardly mentioned (Fehr and Russell. Second.-B.. the exception being functional foods (this was confirmed in discussions with industry experts). 58. organic food. and surprise.g. love and sadness are basic emotions in both the structures of Shaver et al. but there are distinct differences between the emotions that are not interpersonal. Contentment is low in arousal and passive. love. . we argue that it is better to include these basic emotions separately rather than all under one large basic emotion of joy. Disgust is not included in the structure of Richins (1997) and therefore excluded as a basic consumption emotion. Due to these differences. or regular food).M. Thus. Anger. In The Netherlands. 1. when participants were required to list emotions. milk with extra calcium. Steenkamp / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 1437–1445 1441 emotions from Table 3 are among the most frequently mentioned emotion words in Table 2. whereas shame is caused by a negative action of consumers themselves (Roseman et al. product-type level of categorization. Pride. Following Storm and Storm (1987). Following Storm and Storm (1987). Anger. J.1% were the main wage earner of the household. and fear are all emotions elicited by situations caused by others or circumstances. To develop a set of basic consumer emotions. we will conduct a preliminary test of our hypothesized structure. respondents who rated their emotions for functional foods received additional explanation: bFunctional foods are food products that have been enriched or modified.E. The reason for this is to make the product healthier or to prevent diseases (e. (1987) and Storm and Storm (1987). and Table 3. In our empirical test. Method 5. and the Fig. fear. Measures With some exceptions. the emotion words shown in Fig. These are anger.6% were women.M.2. 1987) and therefore impossible to classify as a positive or negative emotion.1.3% were responsible for the daily grocery shopping. 5. concerns feelings of superiority. The positive emotions can be roughly divided in interpersonal emotions and emotions without interpersonal reference (Storm and Storm. Surprise was excluded for several reasons. Some basic emotion words are mentioned in most of the structures (see Table 3). happiness. we added the emotion shame to the basic negative emotions. The average household size was 2. The final result can be seen in Fig. and pride. Hierarchy of consumer emotions. functional food. disgust. margarine with additives to lower the cholesterol level)Q. Our proposed hierarchy thus consists of three levels: the superordinate level with positive and negative affect. we therefore replaced the more general term joy by the basic emotions contentment. and the subordinate level with specific emotions. on the other hand. 1996).F. The market research agency GfK carried out the data collection. 5.39 persons and all levels of education and income were represented. The interpersonal emotions are covered by love and its specific emotion words. fear. 1984). we omitted the basic emotions bloveQ and bprideQ.J. the basic level with four positive and four negative emotions. Emotions were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from I feel this emotion not at all (1) to I feel this emotion very strongly (5). whereas happiness is higher in activity and a reactive positive emotion. First. and 69. joy. 1 were used. Of the respondents. we measure emotions at a general.

Participants experience significantly more negative affect and less positive affect for genetically modified foods than for the other food groups. Both the basic emotions fear and contentment contain additional subtle distinctions across the food groups.M. 2001) has shown that consumers have a rather negative attitude towards this type of food. 1993 for a review) and compare favorably to ..90 ( P b. CFI=. The scores on negative and positive affect support this. We do this in two ways. The emotion bprideQ generally occurs when a consumer feels superior compared to another person.92). Genetically modified food represents a controversial topic in contemporary society. 1978). 1989). Bone et al. 1991. 1998).86). Model fit is acceptable: v 2(490)=3036. respectively. like mementos and gifts (Richins. but 6.86 (organic food) and . The correlation between the second-order factors positive and negative affect was significant (r =À. explaining between 48% (regular food) and 60% (genetically modified food) of the variance. Participants do not feel sad or ashamed.01. we assess whether principal component analysis yields the same factor structure in each of the four food groups.73.86.. Yet. The latter three emotions are interpersonal and less applicable in the case of widely available food. Cronbach alphas were a =. 1998). measured in total by 33 specific emotion words. that does not imply that the various foods evoke the same emotional intensity. whereas the emotions benvyQ and bjealousyQ occur when consumers feel that another person has something more or better than them. Comparison of the superordinate level with the basic emotions Although the emotion structure is similar for the four food groups.g. TLI=. especially considering that fit is adversely affected by model complexity (Baumgartner and Homburg.. fear. Laros.94 and a =. and the measure of sampling adequacy ranges between . 1988). Stability of the emotions structure across food types Before we can test our second-order hierarchical model of consumer emotions. bLoveQ is demonstrated to be mainly experienced in the case of sentimental products.J. The factor structures (after rotation) were highly similar.50 (Steenkamp and Baumgartner. Wong et al. These results support the convergent and discriminant validity of our model (Steenkamp and Van Trijp. and happiness (a =. 1987. Anderson and Gerbing. The fit was good. we can pool the data across the different food types. All factor loadings were significant at P b . In addition. The negative affect experienced by consumers is similar for functional.40. Cattell.88).76). 2002).88). These nuances. other models with similar degrees of freedom (e. Westbrook. the average loading being .50 to test the proposed hierarchical emotions model. contentment has very low values for organic food compared to functional and regular food. the fit measures are in line with simulation results (see Gerbing and Anderson. Hence. 1996. we have to establish whether we can pool the data across the four food types. contentment. 5.g. Results 6. The standardized parameter estimates of the second-order factor analysis are reported in Fig.92 (genetically modified food).82. P b . Netemeyer et al. sadness. A second way to assess the similarity of the four food groups is to test for the invariance of the covariance matrices across the four groups using LISREL 8.83. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant for all four foods. we will take a closer look at one of the food groups. fear (a =.-B. Tucker’s congruence coefficient always being greater than . Concerning the positive emotions. are wiped away for positive affect. given the large sample and high number of degrees of freedom (Baumgartner and Homburg. The scree test indicated two factors in all four groups.g. Richins and Dawson. TLI=. 6.001). and happiness.2. Bollen. The basic emotions yielded the following reliabilities: anger (a =. Although the v 2 was highly significant (not unexpected given the large sample size. 1989.35. ANOVA with multiple comparisons (LSD) was used to investigate whether the mean values across food groups are significantly different.M. sadness (a =. 1997). Testing the proposed model We used LISREL 8. The reliability of our measures was high.74). shame. Phillips and Baumgartner. To demonstrate the usefulness of basic emotions for understanding the consumer’s feelings. and previous research (e.1. however. organic. Table 4 provides the mean scores for the superordinate dimensions positive and negative affect and for the basic emotions.95 ( P b .84. Steenkamp / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 1437–1445 emotion words benviousQ and bjealousQ.2. Thus.. Bredahl. 1991). shame (a =. contentment (a =. which means that principal component analysis can be applied. Only the factor loading of the emotion nostalgia on the basic emotion sadness was below .. and regular food.001.95 for the dimensions positive and negative affect. CFI=.79 ( P b . the basic emotions in our analyses are as follows: anger. the basic emotions show differences among the food types that would have been lost if only positive and negative affect had been considered. but the basic emotions indicate more clearly how consumers feel. other indicators suggest reasonable model fit. 1996): v 2(1683)=3845. 1992. 2. J.1442 F. Yet. consumers feel a lot more fearful concerning functional food than for organic and regular food..E.01). A possible explanation for this is that nostalgia involves complex emotional responses and can have both a positive and a negative connotation (Holak and Havlena.001). First. 2003). confirming earlier results found in consumer research (e.

48b 2.E. .16a 1.09 47.55b 1.57b 1.05.43c 1. J.001 b. genetically modified food elicits strong associations of risk and uncertainty leading to feelings of fear.30 40.64 P value b.81b 2.46b 1.29b 2.M.001 Note: Different supercripts reflect a significant difference of the intensity at a p -value b0.32b Organic 1. Laros.32c 2.41b. Table 4 Differences in the intensity of the superordinate and basic emotions for the food groups Emotion Negative affect Anger Sadness Fear Shame Positive affect Contentment Happiness GMF 1.25 34.J. 2.69b 2.46b 1.43b 1.001 b.001 b.79a 2.29b Regular 1.99a 2.82a 1. In addition.001 b.49 11.F.c 2.38 33.64a Functional 1.06 11.99 46.40c 2.47b 1. are very angry and afraid.001 b.45b 1.-B.001 b.19a 1.32b 2.65a 1. Steenkamp / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 1437–1445 1443 Fig.37b F 31.M.68a 1.001 b. Results of second-order factor analysis. This means that they feel energized and powerful rather than inactive.47b 1. but someone else is.40c 1.31b 2. and feel that they themselves are not to be blamed.51b 1.47b 1.

Berkowitz. anger. At the level of basic emotions. Ekman Paul. New York7 Wiley. they get back: the experience and behavioral implications of anger and dissatisfaction in services.29(4):566 – 78. 1999). Havlena William J.42(3):217 – 27. fantasies. An approach to investigating the emotional determinants of consumption durations: why do people consume what they consume for as long as they consume it? J Consum Psychol 1993. 2000.M. Laros. Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting surprise—a pilot investigation. positive and negative affect are frequently employed as general emotion dimensions. Second.99(3):550 – 3. J Exp Psychol Gen 1984. Capturing the dynamics of in-process consumption emotions and satisfaction in extended service transactions. This model specifies emotions at three levels of generality. First.24:23 – 61.1444 F. 2002).26(1):105 – 11. New York7 Plenum. Cervellon Marie-Cecile.13(2):139 – 61. Ter Schure Elisabeth. This makes it easier for emotions research to cumulatively build on each other and to identify gaps in our knowledge. Homburg Christian. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Diener Ed. The role of emotions in marketing. Tsiros and Mittal. The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. Batra Rajeev. Jingyuan Han. Derbaix Christian M. and shame). appraisal. Gardner Meryl P. 1999). and pride) and four negative (sadness.57(2):212 – 28. we distinguish between 42 specific emotions based on Richins’ (1997) CES. Conclusion Based on our literature review. Kuipers Peter. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999. however. Should consumer attitudes be reduced to their affective and cognitive bases? Validation of a hierarchical model. and memories: an examination of the emotional components of nostalgia. Russell James A. Relations among emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989.24: 99 – 116.6:97 – 112. References Anderson James C. we excluded two basic emotions (love and pride) from our empirical analysis. 1) to integrate the different research streams concerning emotion content and structure. Zeelenberg Marcel. Holbrook Morris B. A bootstrap procedure for evaluating goodness-of-fit indices of structural equation and confirmatory factor models. Future research is needed to validate the whole hierarchy of emotions. we tested our emotions model in The Netherlands. Our exploratory analysis indicates this.20:259 – 72. Angry customers don’t come back. Edson Escalas Jennifer. future research can expand the set of specific consumer emotions. Feelings. Bagozzi Richard P. Morgan Michael S.-B. Dependent on the research question. J Consum Res 1987. Stern Barbara B. Havlena William J. 2000. Bollen Kenneth A.32(4):470 – 9. are lost if emotions of the same valence are collapsed together. J Mark Res 1995. New York7 Cambridge University Press. In: Bollen Kenneth A. Steenkamp / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 1437–1445 7. Assessing the validity of emotional typologies. Dube Laurette. . Diener.J. Nyer Prashanth U. This paper therefore proposed a hierarchical model of consumer emotions (Fig. We thus propose that regret can be positioned under the basic emotion shame. J Consum Policy 2001. J Acad Mark Sci 1999. The further advancement of consumer research as an academic discipline requires that the validity of our theories and measures and their degree of general validity and boundary conditions be tested in different countries (Steenkamp and Burgess. fear. J Mark Res 2003.14(4):421 – 33. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods—results of a cross-national survey. Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: a review.. Our study has several limitations. Lehmann Donald R. but future research should investigate this. Testing structural equation models. Structural equations with latent variables. 1978. Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Causes and consequences of feelings.31(4):377 – 393.15:309 – 20. Holbrook Morris B. even in such cases. Int J Res Mark 1996. 2002. Regret stems from bad decisions. Edell Julie A. J Consum Res 1987. Scott. Cattell RB. 1993. the researcher can still relate his/her specific results to the broader structure of our emotions. Fourth. Bredahl Lone. 1998). Int J Res Mark 2003. Dube Laurette. Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. editors. Bougie Roger. However. CA7 Sage. Third. we specify four positive (contentment. J Consum Res 2003. Holbrook Morris B. Newbury Park.g. Note that not in all situations this model need be used as a whole. whereas disappointment originates from disconfirmed expectancies (Zeelenberg and Pieters. 1999). Possible candidates include the negative emotions regret and disappointment that recently received a great deal of attention in consumer research (e.76(5):803 – 4. Gerbing David W. Holak Susan L. Berkowitz Leonard. and to test our model on other products and services. At the superordinate level..E. love. future research can investigate whether the set of basic emotions has greater explanatory power than positive and negative affect.. 2003. J. At the subordinate level. Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Derbaix Christian M. J Econ Psychol 2003. Gerbing David W. Psychol Bull 1988. Burke Marian C. 40 – 65.103(3):411 – 23. Shimp Terence. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach.M. Psychol Market 1989. Our empirical study provides support for the proposed model and suggests that the basic emotions allow for a better understanding of the consumers’ feelings concerning certain food products compared to only positive and negative affect. The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects. Anderson James C. and emotional action readiness. but future research should test this hypothesis. J Bus Res 1998. Long J. Vanhamme Joelle. Are there basic emotions? Psychol Rev 1992. Inman and Zeelenberg. it distinguishes between positive and negative affect. Introduction to the special section on the structure of emotion. p. Sympathy and empathy: emotional responses to advertising dramas. Int J Res Mark 1998. we concluded that despite the different ways to measure emotions.g. Pieters Rik. only part of the model may be used. 14(3):404 – 20. Frijda Nico H. Sharma Subhash.113:464 – 86.27(2):184 – 206. Important nuances. Zeelenberg and Pieters. This is generally considered to be the most abstract level at which emotions can be experienced (e. Fehr Beverly. happiness. Gopinath Mahesh. Bone Paula Fitzgerald.2(2):123 – 42. 1989. The impact of affective reactions on attitudes toward the advertisement and the brand: a step toward ecological validity. and disappointment under the basic emotion sadness (Zeelenberg et al. 2000. which offer avenues for future research. Baumgartner Hans.

Linking thoughts to feelings: investigating cognitive appraisals and consumption emotions in a mixed-emotions context. Manstead Antony SR. Emotion: a psychoevolutionary synthesis. A crossnational assessment of the reliability and validity of the CETSCALE. J Consum Res 1991. Richins Marsha L.7:295 – 323.M. Bolton Ruth N. Appraisal components. Steenkamp Jan-Benedict EM. What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychol Rev 1990.and customer-provoked embarrassment in personal selling. An approach to environmental psychology.98:219 – 35. Psychol Rev 1992.51(1):19 – 31. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987. 76(5):820 – 38.. Watson David. Wiese David. Izard Carroll. Cogn Emot 1996.24(2):127 – 46. J Consum Psychol 2002. 1977. MA7 MIT Press.-B. A crititical role for baffective neuroscienceQ in resolving what is basic about basic emotions. relations among emotions. Turner Terence J. Turner Terence J. J Mark Res 1991. J Mark Res 1987. anger and risk. O’Conner Cary.12(2):221 – 30. Comparing service delivery to what might have been. Plutchik Robert. J Pers Soc Psychol 1980. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. A circumplex model of affect. Multivariate Behav Res 1991.. The two general activation systems of affect: structural findings. Basic emotions: can conflicting criteria converge? Psychol Rev 1992. Waiting for service: the relationship between delays and evaluations of service.. Tellegen Auke. Olney Thomas J. J Consum Res 1982. and emotions. Taylor Shirley. Kirson Donald. Izard Carroll. 25(1):78 – 90. Westbrook Robert A. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988. Netemeyer Richard G. Int J Res Mark 2002.20:233 – 58. Steenkamp / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 1437–1445 Holbrook Morris B. Panksepp Jaak. Watson David. J Acad Mark Sci 1997.28(3):320 – 7. Do reverse-worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research: the case of the material values scale. J Acad Mark Sci 2002. Mano Haim. and attitude toward the ad on viewing time. Int J Res Mark 1991. Schwartz Judith. Verbeke Willem. Ortony Andrew. Tellegen Auke.81(1):146 – 59. Weiss A.99(3):561 – 5. Van der Wulp Elise. Storm Tom. Human emotions. Phillips Diane M. J Serv Res 1999.57(3):493 – 502. J Consum Res 1992. Mano Haim. Van Trijp Hans CM.F. 1445 Shaver Philip. Morgan Rich L. Psychol Bull 1985. Fear. Cogn Emot 2000. Tellegen Auke.17(4):440 – 53. Why don’t some people complain? A cognitive–emotive process model of consumer complaint behavior.25(4): 296 – 304. Steenkamp Jan-Benedict EM. and satisfaction. 1980.97(3):315 – 31. Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Batra Rajeev. Int J Res Mark 1996.A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Bagozzi Richard P.13:319 – 29. Mehrabian Albert. Mendelsohn G.99(3):554 – 60.26(3):389 – 411. Russell James A. Cognitive. Antoniou Ann A. Brunel Frederic F. Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions: the attenuating role of decision justifiability.10(3):241 – 77. J Consum Res 1993. Exploring the role of self. Optimum stimulation level and exploratory consumer behavior in an emerging consumer market. 1974.M. Zeelenberg Marcel. Lazarus Richard S.2(1):86 – 97. J. Ruth Julie A. J Consum Res 1993. A study of the relationships between cognitive appraisals and consumption emotions. Inman Jeffrey J.53:805 – 16. Affect grid . and psychobiological evidence. The role of consumption emotions in the satisfaction response. Oliver Richard L. Laros. Steenkamp Jan-Benedict E. and fun. The experience of regret and disappointment. Steenkamp Jan-Benedict EM.14(4):473 – 93. feelings. Regret: a model of its antecedents and consequences in consumer decision making. Dawson Scott. Emotion knowledge: further exploration of a prototype approach. The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies. Nyer Prashanth U.20(3):418 – 30. Smith Craig A. Zeelenberg Marcel.19(3):303 – 16. Tsiros Michael. J Consum Res 1997. Product/consumption-based affective responses and post-purchase processes. J Consum Res 2002. Richins Marsha L. Russell James A. Lichtenstein Donald. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989. . and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Clark Lee Anna. Heise David. J Consum Res 2003.12(3):243 – 52. Ortony Andrew. Jose Paul J. J Acad Mark Sci 2002.24:258 – 70. J Consum Res 2000.M. Burgess Steven M. Van der Pligt Joop. Oliver Richard L.9(2):132 – 40. Van Dijk Wilco W. Soc Psychol Q 1988.30(1):5 – 23. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. feeling. Baumgartner Hans.29(1):116 – 28.E. Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: evaluation. Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Lerner Jennifer S. A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: measure development and validation. Psychol Rev 1992. and the moderating role of need for stimulation. Roseman Ira J. Burroughs James E. J Consum Res 1998. New York7 Plenum.26(4):172 – 89. Consumer responses to advertising: the effects of ad content. Storm Christine. Baumgartner Hans. Gwinner Kevin P. arousal and stimulus evaluation.54:1063 – 70. Lerner Jennifer S. Wong Nancy. Int J Res Mark 2003. Stephens Nancy.19:131 – 50. Vaidya Jatin. Watson David. Cogn Emot 1998.20(3):451 – 66.A. Structure of emotions. Mittal Vikas. Russell James A. Rindfleisch Aric. Cambridge.52:1061 – 86. A taxonomic study of the vocabulary of emotions. affective. evolutionary considerations. Baumgartner Hans.58(2):56 – 69. 39(6):1161 – 78. core relational themes.30(1):72 – 91. Hirschman Elizabeth C.26(4):401 – 17.. Durvasula Srinivas. and emotion– cognition relations. Appraisal determinants of emotions: constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory. Toward a consensual structure of mood.8(4):283 – 99. J Mark 1994. The relationships among arousal potential. Smith Amy K...30(1):44 – 58. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999. Keltner Dacher. Pieters Rik. New York7 Harper and Row.J. Basic emotions. Holbrook Morris B. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987. The effects of customers’ emotional responses to service failures on their recovery effort evaluations and satisfaction judgments. The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs. Keltner Dacher. The structure and intensity of emotional experiences: method and context convergence. emotions..99(3):566 – 71. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001. J Acad Mark Sci 1998. Cogn Emot 1993. Otnes Cele C. Zeelenberg Marcel.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful