Journal of Product & Brand Management

Determinants and outcomes of brand hate

Sabrina M. Hegner Marc Fetscherin Marianne van Delzen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sabrina M. Hegner Marc Fetscherin Marianne van Delzen , (2017)," Determinants and outcomes of brand hate ", Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2016-1070
Downloaded on: 11 February 2017, At: 07:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3 times since 2017*
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173272 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Determinants and outcomes of brand hate

Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss the concept of brand hate. We
present a taxonomy of the main determinants and outcomes of brand hate and empirically assess
our model.
Design/methodology/approach: A survey design using cross-sectional primary data from 224
German consumers was employed. Hypotheses related to determinants and outcomes of brand
hate were tested by means of structural equation modelling.
Findings: Findings show that brand hate is triggered by three determinants (negative past
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

experience, symbolic incongruity, ideological incompatibility) and leads to three behavioural

outcomes (brand avoidance, negative word of mouth, brand retaliation).
Originality/value: This paper explores and outlines theoretically and empirically the
determinants and outcomes of brand hate. It also provides a useful taxonomy of brand hate.

Keywords: brand relationship; brand avoidance; brand retaliation; brand hate.

1
 Determinants and outcomes of brand hate

1. Introduction

Consumer brand relationships constitute a major shift in marketing theory and practice from a
transactional to a relationship-based perspective (Aaker et al., 2004; Fournier, 1998; Fournier et
al., 2012). Consumers substantially differ in terms of their relationships with brands (Alvarez
and Fournier, 2016; Fournier, 1998). While some may feel love for their brands, others may be
indifferent towards brands, and others still might only have hatred for certain brands (Khan and
Lee, 2014). As Romani et al. (2012, p. 56) stated “brand research has provided scant information
on the negative emotional states that consumers experience in relation to brands”. More recently,
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

and in the same line of arguments, Fetscherin and Heinrich (2015, p. 387) state that “specifically
extreme negative emotions or the ‘dark-side’ of consumer brand relationships need further
investigations”.
The lack of studies into negative brand relationships is surprising specifically as research in
consumer behaviour (Lutz, 1975; Banister and Hogg, 2004), psychology (Briscoe et al., 1967;
Rosenbaum and Levin, 1969; Ito et al., 1998), and neuroscience (Fossati et al., 2003; Zeki and
Romaya, 2008) shows people remember negative events more than positive ones. In line with
this argument, Baumeister et al. (2001) assert that people are more likely to talk about a negative
experience or write negative reviews than they are likely to share an equally positive experience.
In consumer behaviour this is referred to as the ‘negativity bias’ (Kanouse and Hanson, 1972)
suggesting that “people tend to weigh negative information more heavily than positive
information” (Kanouse, 1984, p. 703).
From a managerial perspective, these negative brand relationships can be troublesome for
companies (Kucuk, 2008; Krishnamurthy and Kucuk, 2009; Fournier and Alvarez, 2013). This is
especially the case today as consumers can express their negative feelings instantly and globally
through the Internet and social media (Grégoire et al., 2009). This consumer empowerment is
exemplified by the increasing number of brand hate websites (Dessart et al., 2016;
Krishnamurthy and Kucuk, 2009; Kucuk, 2015). Kucuk (2008, p. 211) finds that “brand hate
sites directly and indirectly impact consumers’ perceptions of the targeted brand's identity and
image, and consumer purchase decisions”. This makes crisis management a vital component of
strategic branding (Hegner et al., 2014).
While current studies on negative brand relationships shed some light on specific aspects,
many of them are exploratory, conceptual or use qualitative data (Kavaliauske and
Simanaviciute, 2015), so a quantitative study is an appropriate next development. With the
exception of Zarantonello et al. (2016), current studies focus either on the determinants or the
outcomes of negative emotions but do not provide a complete model that takes both issues into
account. Finally, we focus on the concept of brand hate for two reasons. First, from a theoretical
perspective, there is a strong call for more investigation of the concept of brand hate (cf. Carroll
and Ahuvia, 2006; Fournier and Alvarez, 2013; Park et al., 2013; Fetscherin and Heinrich,

2
 2014). Second, from a practical perspective, studies on brand hate websites show brand haters
have a major negative impact on companies (Kucuk, 2008; Krishnamurthy and Kucuk, 2009;
Kucuk, 2014).
Against this background this paper contributes to the literature in three ways: (1) it
provides a response to the call for more research into negative brand relationships by focusing on
the concept of brand hate; (2) it discusses and presents a taxonomy of the determinants and the
outcomes of brand hate; and (3) it extends current qualitative studies by providing a quantitative
study on determinants and outcomes of brand hate. To achieve this, we first review the current
literature on negative brand relationships and then adopt a survey design by using cross-sectional
primary data from a German consumer sample to test our research model. Our paper concludes
with a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications of the study.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Conceptualisation of Brand Hate

Fehr and Russell (1984) investigate the basic level of emotion categories by asking respondents
to name emotion prototypes. They found that after love, hate was the second most important
emotion. Later, Shaver et al. (1987) confirm this and found that hate was in the third place out of
213 emotional words. Research in psychology shows that emotions are linked to subjective
experience and behaviour (Shaver et al., 1987). In the branding context, Zarantonello et al.’s
(2016) recent study provides a rich review of hate literature. They argue that hate is mostly
characterized as a compound of primary, and sometimes also including secondary, emotions.
Their study focuses on various emotions (e.g., anger, disgust, fear, disappointment, shame,
dehumanization) triggering passive or active brand hate. They specifically assess “what emotions
do consumers feel when they experience brand hate” (p. 14) while our study explores and
assesses external factors triggering the feeling of hate such as negative brand experience,
symbolic incongruity, and ideological incompatibility with the brand. In that respect, our study
complements Zarantonello et al.’s (2016) study by testing relevant determinants and outcomes of
brand hate in one model.
We conceptualize brand hate as the following: First, brand hate is a more intense
emotional response consumers have towards a brand than brand dislike. Support for this comes
from the psychology literature by Sternberg (2003) who suggested that interpersonal hate is not
only a more intense form of interpersonal disliking, but also an empirically and conceptually
distinct construct. Second, the psychology and marketing literature identifies three possible
determinants of hate. The first one is the consumer’s dissatisfaction with the product or service
performance (Bryson et al., 2013) or negative past experience with the brand. Another is the
possible incongruence between the self-image and the brand image. The last relates to an
organizational behaviour which consumers might regard to be ideologically unacceptable due to
legal, moral or social corporate wrongdoing. As related to behavioural outcomes, brand hate

3
 leads to adversarial actions of avoiding the brand or hateful consumer behaviours ranging from
mild (talking badly or negative WOM) to severe retaliation behaviour (Grégoire et al., 2009;
Marticotte et al., 2016). In that respect, we conceptualize brand hate as being triggered by three
determinants and leading to three different behavioural outcomes.

2.2. Theoretical Model

Topics studied so far in the field of negative brand relationships focused initially on anti-
consumption (Cherrier, 2009; Cromie and Ewing, 2009; Hogg, 1998; Iyer and Muncy, 2009),
anti-loyalty (Rindell et al., 2014), or boycott (Yuksel and Mryteza, 2009) and only recently
shifted on topics focusing specifically on brands such as brand avoidance (Lee et al., 2009b;
Liao et al., 2015), brand rejection (Sandikci and Ekici, 2009; Nenycz-Thiel and Romaniuk,
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

2011), brand opposition (Wolter et al., 2016), anti-branding (Dessart et al., 2016; Romani et al.,
2015), brand dislike (Dalli et al., 2007; Romani et al., 2009), or brand hate (Kucuk, 2008;
Krishnamurthy and Kucuk, 2009; Bryson et al., 2013; Zarantonello et al., 2016).
In order to identify relevant determinants and outcomes for our study, we first conducted
a comprehensive review of the literature focussing on negative consumer emotions. Then we
developed a taxonomy of the main determinants and outcomes of brand hate as identified by
those studies. Current studies on negative brand emotions propose several determinants. Most
can be clustered into three groups, namely, product-related, consumer-related, or contextual-
related determinants. An overview of the literature is provided in Appendix A.

2.2.1 Negative Past Experience

Product-related factors refer mostly to negative past experience the consumer had with the brand.
These experiences might relate to failures of the product, dissatisfaction with the offering, or
negative country of origin associations. Though consumers buy different brands for different
reasons, the most basic expectation is an adequate product or service performance (Lee et al.,
2009a; 2009b). When consumers use a product or service they compare their initial expectations
with the actual performance, and consequently, consumer expectations can either be met or not
(Oliver, 1980; Halstead, 1989). Confirmation usually leads to satisfaction and occurs when
consumers’ expectations of the brand match their experience. Disconfirmation occurs when
consumer’s expectations are either below or above the initial expectations (Oliver, 1980).
Negative disconfirmation occurs when actual performance is below expectations which likely
results in dissatisfaction (Oliver, 1980). The difference though between product hate and brand
hate is that a negative experience with a certain product of a brand affects attitudes towards other
products from the same brand name and, thus, hate gets generalized on a brand level. Bryson et
al. (2013) identify consumer dissatisfaction as the strongest predictor of brand hate in the context
of luxury brands. Additionally, Zarantonello et al. (2016) identify violation of expectations as a
relevant factor leading to brand hate in their study. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that
negative past experience lead to brand hate and, hence, we state the following hypothesis.

4
 H1: Negative past experience lead to brand hate.

2.2.2 Symbolic Incongruity

Consumer-related factors relate mostly to symbolic incongruity with a brand where a brand
represents an undesired image to the consumer. Self-congruity research has well established a
positive relationship between congruity of consumer’s self-image and brand image onto positive
brand relationships (e.g. Kressmann et al., 2006). Khan and Lee (2014, p. 330) state “consumers
have the tendency to buy those brands with images congruent to their self-concepts or those that
will give desired meaning to their lives”. In this study, we want to test the effect of incongruity
on negative brand relationships. Zarantonello et al. (2016) refer to this category as taste system
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

and identify it as possible determinant for brand hate.

Therefore, incongruity between the symbolic meanings of a brand and the consumer’s
sense of self could lead to negative emotions towards the brand. Individuals choose or
deliberately do not choose brands in part to construct their self-concepts and to create their
personal identities (Grubb and Grathwohl, 1967; Edson Escalas and Bettman, 2005). Among the
works on self-concept, the undesired self (Ogilvie, 1987) seems to be the psychological construct
most suitable to brand hate. As Lee et al. (2009b) argue, “disidentification theory suggests that
people may develop their self-concept by disidentifying with brands that are perceived to be
inconsistent with their own image” (p. 174). Based on these critical points, the second hypothesis
is proposed.

H2: Symbolic incongruity leads to brand hate.

2.2.3 Ideological Incompatibility

The literature shows that contextual-related factors relate to ideological incompatibility

consumers perceive based on legal, social or moral corporate wrongdoing lead to negative
feelings towards the brand. These might evolve from moral misconducts, deceptive
communication, or inconsistencies of values by the brand. We label this factor ‘ideological
incompatibility’ as the term ideology refers to a sets of beliefs which are incompatible with the
consumer. Unlike the other two determinants, this one involves a more contextual and often
societal or moral focus that extends beyond the needs of the individual consumers’ self-image
(Lee et al., 2009b; Nenycz-Thiel and Romaniuk, 2011) or the basic product or service
performance. Research suggests that consumers disapprove of brands that disrespect human
rights or damage the environment, just as consumers boycott brands that engage in unethical
business practices (Sandikci and Ekici, 2009; Micheletti et al., 2004; Friedman, 1985). In that
respect, consumers perceive an ideological incompatibility with the brand due to legal, moral or
social concerns when a brand is suspected of corporate irresponsibility (Lee et al., 2009b; Bryson

5
 et al., 2013; Romani et al., 2015; Zarantonello et al., 2016). Hence, the third research hypothesis
is:

H3: Ideological incompatibility leads to brand hate.

2.2.4 Brand Avoidance

Research in psychology shows that different negative emotions may motivate unique cognitive
and behavioural responses (Roseman, 1984). In this section, the most likely behavioural
outcomes of brand hate are described. Our literature review (see Appendix B) identified two
categories of reactions, namely passive (brand avoidance) and active behaviour towards the
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

brand (negative word of mouth and brand retaliation).

The first is brand avoidance which is expressed by consumers turning their back to the
specific brand and, therefore, avoiding the brand by either switching to a competitor or not
consuming the brand at all. According to prior research, perceived closeness in consumer brand
relationships is determined by how customers emotionally respond to brands and how they relate
to and feel about the brand (Monga, 2002; Breivik and Thorbjornsen, 2008). Sternberg (1986, p.
119) argues that intimacy, the emotional basis of love relations, refers to “feelings of closeness,
connectedness, and bondedness”. Similar to positive emotions towards brands, when an
individual feels negatively towards a brand we expect this to result in distancing and avoidance
behaviour (Grégoire et al., 2009; Park et al., 2013; Zarantonello et al., 2016). Lee et al. (2009b,
p. 422) defined brand avoidance as “a phenomenon whereby consumers deliberately choose to
keep away from or reject a brand”. Grégoire et al. (2009, p. 19) claim that “a desire for
avoidance is defined as customers’ need to withdraw themselves from any interactions with
firms”. In this paper, we make the argument that brand avoidance is conceptually different from
brand switching. Although both lead to the same outcome of non-consumption, brand switching
suggests the consumer has purchased that brand, while brand avoidance refers to the situation
when one could simply ‘avoid’ a brand without having purchased the brand. In that respect, one
form of brand avoidance is brand switching (Dodson et al., 1978). This is why we use in this
study the more general term ‘brand avoidance’. We state and test the following hypothesis.

H4: Brand hate leads to brand avoidance.

6
 2.2.5 Negative Word of Mouth

Negative word of mouth is the extent to which an individual speaks or writes poorly
about a brand (Bonifield and Cole, 2007). Baumeister et al. (2001) argue that people are more
likely to share negative experiences with others than they are likely to share an equally positive
experience. Consumers engaging in negative word of mouth often want to alert others about their
negative experience with the brand (Singh, 1988). The literature identifies two types of negative
word of mouth (Nyer and Gopinath, 2005; Christodoulides et al., 2012; Presi et al., 2014). On
the one hand is ‘private complaining’ which is talking negatively about a brand to friends or
people close by whereas on the other hand making online posts on blogs, websites or social
media can be seen as ‘public complaining’ (Zeithaml et al., 1996). In this study, we use the more
general term of ‘negative word of mouth’ without differentiating between private and public.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Negative brand relationship, specifically brand hate is perceived as a relevant driver for negative
word of mouth (Zarantonello et al., 2016; Ruiz-Mafe et al., 2015). Therefore, we test the
following hypothesis:

H5: Brand hate leads to negative word of mouth.

2.2.6 Brand Retaliation

The third type of behavioural outcomes focuses on active and direct actions towards the brand.
Direct actions manifest in complaints to brand’s employees, stealing from the brand or damaging
the brand’s property. We follow the suggestion by Grégoire et al. (2010) and regard brand
retaliation as an outcome variable of brand hate. According to Sternberg (2003), hate triggers
people to approach the object of hate and to take revenge or retaliate for whatever wrongdoing
the brand has committed1. Based on equity theory, the main objective of brand retaliation is to
punish or cause harm to brands in order to get ‘even’ (Bechwati and Morrin, 2003; Grégoire et
al., 2009; Marticotte et al., 2016). Zarantonello et al. (2016) identify consumers’ protests and
complaining as approach-like coping strategies that are outcomes of brand hate. We expect that
brand hate can result in a direct ‘punishment’ behaviour towards the brand (Funches et al., 2009)
and test following hypothesis:

H6: Brand hate leads to brand retaliation.

3. Methodology

A pre-test (n=16) was conducted to test inter-item reliability (internal consistency) and to detect
any potential issue with the questionnaire. For the main survey, cross-sectional primary data

1
Revenge and retaliation have some differences (e.g., proportionality), though, they are closely related and in
everyday language frequently used as synonyms. In this paper we use them interchangeably.
7
 from German consumers were collected by using an online non-random sampling (convenience)
approach. Participants were recruited via a German news website targeting people who are
interested in brands. Our aim was to go beyond a pure student sample and reach a wider
population that has an interest in brands. A short introductory text and a link to our survey were
provided on the website. The survey was carried out in German language. Nine hundred twenty-
nine respondents started the survey. As many did not hate a specific brand or provided an
incomplete survey, we ended up with 244 responses, amounting to 26% of completion rate.
Respondents were evenly split with 50% females and 50% males, while their average age is 31.3
(SD=9.8) years.
The most hated brands mentioned in this study are Apple (18%), Abercrombie & Fitch
(5%), Nestle (5%), Deutsche Bahn (German Railway System) (4%), and McDonalds (4%). Our
results are fairly consistent with the brand dispersion studies which suggested that there is a
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

polarization into brand lovers and haters (Kucuk, 2008; Luo et al., 2013).
For the items related to the three determinants of brand hate, we adapted them from the
work of Lee et al. (2009b). Items for the three outcome variables were based on Romani et al.’s
(2012) and Thomson et al.’s (2012) work. To measure brand hate, we used the same approach as
Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) did for their brand love paper. First, we searched the literature and did
several pre-tests with students to identify relevant items for brand hate. Through several steps we
narrowed the items down from 22 to 6 in order to identify the main ones for brand hate (see
Appendix C). All items used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
With 244 respondents we were above the rule of 200 (Kline, 2011) and the sample to
item ratio was 7.2 which is higher than the acceptable ratio of 5:1 (Gorsuch, 1983) and concludes
we have an adequate sample size. We calculated the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) as well as
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity to measure sampling adequacy (Hutcheson and Sofroniou, 1999).
The KMO is .872 (>.5) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is significant at .000 (p<.05), therefore
the data is suitable for factor analysis. We also tested each item for normality to assess which
extraction method to use. According to our results, all items were significant for both tests,
Kolmogorow-Smirnow and Shapiro-Wilk’s test of normality.

4. Results

4.1. Validity and Reliability Tests

We employed principle factor analysis (with promax rotation as we have correlations between
factors, cf. Table 1). As hypothesized, all seven constructs had eigenvalues >1, explaining 71.9%
cumulative variance. Of the initial 35 items, no item had significant cross-loadings (>.50) but
two items had a factor loading of <.50 and therefore were dropped after careful assessment. All
scales proved to be reliable with Cronbach’s alpha values >.70 [brand hate (.83), negative past
experience (.90), symbolic incongruity (.87), ideological incompatibility (.90), brand avoidance
(.92), negative word of mouth (.85), and brand retaliation (.91)]. To assess multicollinearity, we
8
 ran a series of regressions models on the various constructs to calculate the variance inflation
factor (VIF) (Kleinbaum et al., 1988). The VIF values ranged from 1.15 to 1.78 which can be
considered unproblematic.
Convergent validity was examined by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE)
and the construct reliability (CR). Both, the AVE needs to be >.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981)
and the CR >.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). All our AVE and CR values are above the
recommended threshold. To test for discriminant validity, all AVE values need to be higher than
the squared inter-construct correlation estimates (SIC). We used the Kendall’s tau-b correlations,
a measure of correlation between ordinal scales. Details for Cronbach’s alpha, AVE, CR, and
SIC values are provided in Table 1.

---------- Insert Table 1 here -------------

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

4.2. Hypotheses Testing

We conducted a structural equation model (SEM) by using SPSS AMOS to assess the
relationships among the underlying constructs. The results suggest an acceptable model fit with
χ2= 966.94; df=475; p=.00; χ2/df=2.04; IFI=.91, TLI=.90 and CFI=.91; RMSEA=.06. However,
our multinormality analysis revealed a few outliers (Mahalanobis distance). We identified those
(n=15) and run again the model without them. As expected, we got slightly better model fit
indexes with χ2=943.21; df=475; p=.00; χ2/df=1.99; IFI=.92, TLI=.91, and CFI=.92;
RMSEA=.06. The model yielded acceptable results (see Fig. 1). The relationships were
supported at p <.05 confirming all our hypotheses. Overall, our model explained 39% of the
variance in brand hate, 17% for brand avoidance, 39% for negative word of mouth, and 15% for
brand retaliation. Interestingly, the results show that ideological incompatibility has the strongest
impact on brand hate.

---------- Insert Figure 1 here -------------

As we were also interested in the interrelationships between the various determinants and
outcomes of brand hate, we measured an alternative model without the secondary construct
‘brand hate’. The main objective was to assess whether the brand hate construct suitably
incorporates the three determinants as well as it adds value to explain the three outcome
variables. First, our alternative model yields acceptable model fit with χ2=622.29; df=329; p=.00;
χ2/df=1.89; IFI=.94, TLI=.93 and CFI=.94; RMSEA=.06. The better model fit indexes of the
alternative model were expected as we have fewer items in the model.
Second, two out of the three outcome variables have lower R-square values in the
alternative model compared to the original research model. Only brand avoidance increased by

9
 13 points (17%→30%) while negative word of mouth and brand retaliation decreased
cumulatively by 27 points (39%→17%; 15%→10% respectively). The total explained variance
in the alternative model for the three outcome variables is 14 points lower (13%-27%) compared
to the original research model. Figure 2 shows only the significant path coefficients. This
suggests that our original research model is well specified and ‘brand hate’ is a second order
construct with three first order formative triggers namely: negative past experience, symbolic
incongruity, and ideological incompatibility. Table 2 shows the direct and indirect effects of our
models.

---------- Insert Figure 2 here -------------

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Third, our alternative model revealed, however, some additional findings. It can be stated
that brand avoidance is mainly triggered by symbolic incongruity (β=.53). This suggests that
consumers avoid brands that are mostly incongruent with their self-image (Khan and Lee, 2014).
We also observe that brand retaliation is mostly triggered by negative past experience (β=.30).
Again, this makes sense in light of Grégoire et al. (2009) ‘fight–flight’ analogy. Finally, negative
word of mouth was influenced similarly by all three determinants: negative past experience
(β=.27), symbolic incongruity (β=.20), and ideological incompatibility (β=.25).

------- Insert Table 2 here ------

5. Conclusions and Discussion

This study complements current literature on negative brand relationships in three ways. First,
we extend current exploratory and qualitative research by providing a quantitative study of the
determinants and the outcomes of brand hate. Second, we provide a taxonomy of brand hate
determinants and outcomes. Third, we provide not only a response to the call for more research
on the concept of brand hate but also possible items to measure brand hate.
Our literature review shows brand hate is triggered by three determinants (product-
related, consumer-related, and contextual-related determinants) and leads to three distinctive
types of active and passive behaviour towards the brand. Our results demonstrate brand hate is
triggered by all three determinants and influences all three outcomes. Our model comparison
further reveals that ‘brand hate’ is a secondary construct. Interestingly, ideological
incompatibility has the strongest influence on brand hate, followed by symbolic incongruity and
negative past experience. Obviously, companies should not engage in illegal, unmoral or social
misconduct. Klein and Dawar (2004) conclude that while a neutral responsibility image might
provide as much protection against consumers’ switching behaviour as a positive image, a
negative image will be a significant liability for a firm’s brand. Our results suggest that crisis
management should become an integral part of strategic branding (Hegner et al., 2014).
10
 Furthermore, results of the alternative model reveal negative word of mouth is triggered
by all three determinants similarly, whereas brand retaliation is mainly triggered by negative past
experience and brand avoidance by symbolic incongruity. It should be noted that symbolic
incongruity can result from different reasons, for instance, the brand represents a negative
reference group or incorporates negative symbolic meaning (e.g., lack of authenticity,
representation of an undesired self, loss of individuality). Thus, market research is advised to
closely monitor target groups’ needs and wants, as well as negative associations with the brand
in order to avoid symbolic incongruity.
Although extensive research on negative word of mouth triggered by poor product and
service performance has already been carried out (Richins, 1983), not much is known about the
other reasons behind people’s proclivity to spread negative word of mouth. Our results provide a
more holistic view on negative word of mouth. As it occurs outside the firm, it is very difficult to
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

control and manage, especially in the digital context of social media as well as websites for
product (e.g., Google Shopping, Amazon, Epinions) or service reviews (e.g., Yelp, Tripadvisor).
Thus, integrating complaint management and social media monitoring in strategic branding is
essential.
We also found that brand retaliation is mainly driven by negative past experience which can
occur due to product failure, poor performance, or an unpleasant store environment (Lee et al.,
2009a). If the dissatisfied consumer approaches the brand, employees should be trained not only
to measure but also adequately handle such dissatisfaction.

6. Management Implications

We recommend three strategies to deal with brand haters. First, it is crucial that companies
constantly monitor and measure consumers’ interactions with front line employees, the customer
service department, or social media. Having internal and external tracking systems in place is a
crucial first step to effectively and efficiently manage consumer brand relationships and to take
appropriate actions.
Second, each of the behavioural outcomes is triggered differently and needs to be
managed accordingly. Note that negative past experience only deals with existing customers,
whereas the other two determinants affect both customers and non-customers. To deal with
negative past experience, firms should carefully assess the severity level of the past experience
and the degree of loyalty of the customers. Cases which are severe and affect the most loyal
customers should be dealt first and with most care, while other cases should be dealt later.
Classifying incidences into a matrix of 2 (low severity vs. high severity) x 2 (high loyalty vs. low
loyalty) could provide firms a tool to manage this. This is specifically important as research
showed that the most loyal consumers could become the most severe haters if they feel betrayed
by the company in terms of distributive and procedural fairness (Grégoire and Fisher, 2008).
Third, the other two determinants of brand hate are more difficult to measure and
manage. The good news is this paper provides companies with scales to measure symbolic

11
 incongruity and ideological incompatibility. Moreover, integrating positive reference groups or
being an authentic brand could help establishing symbolic congruity with consumers. Moreover,
preventing any social, moral, legal or ethical wrongdoing will definitively decrease consumers’
ideological incompatibility with a brand. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), environmental
friendliness, empowerment of the weak, or a fair and equal treatment of employee are just few
examples of how companies could perform in a more social, moral, and ethical way. However,
like in the case of symbolic incongruity, these actions need to be authentic, genuine, and sincere
in order to be believed by consumers.
Finally, it should be noted that no company can satisfy all consumers and non-consumers
but should be able to deal with the most severe cases and situations and minimize the number
and negative impact of brand haters to companies.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

7. Limitation and Future Research

Research on negative brand relationships and emotions is an emerging field which implies that
several issues still need to be addressed. Our study is based on an online sample which might
have advantages and disadvantages. Derks et al. (2008) concluded in their review comparing
online and offline communication that it is not more difficult to express emotions online. Still,
conducting research in an offline context might shed further light on how brand hate manifests
itself online and offline.
Second, although having a random sample of brand haters enabled us to identify the
determinants and the outcomes of brand hate, we did not assess non-haters and cannot discern if
the proposed model is generalizable. Although the few negative brand relationships studies used
similar sampling methods (Lee et al., 2009b, p. 179) their “findings are not representative of the
general consumer population”. In that respect, future research should determine if different types
of consumers (and non-consumers) and degrees of ‘hate’ are triggered differently by the
determinants and how these variations impact behavioural outcomes.
Third, we used 6 items to measure brand hate. Although we based them on previous
literature and did several pre-tests, our items are not the result of a rigorous scale development
procedure as suggested by Churchill (1979) or Rossiter (2002; 2012). Although we obtained an
acceptable Cronbach’s alpha value (.830) for the six items, we encourage researchers to develop
a specific brand hate scale. In that respect, the paper by Zarantonello et al. (2016) provides a first
step in that direction.
Fourth, as Underhill (2012) and others argue, love and hate are socially and culturally
constructed. Our study is based on a German consumer sample. Future research should assess to
what extent our proposed model is suitable in other cultural contexts and whether or not the
occurrence and level of brand hate are culturally dependent.
Fifth, another avenue of future research is to differentiate between public and private
complaining (or negative word of mouth) and to assess if they are triggered by the same
determinants and to what extent they are similar and different in their impact on behavioural
outcomes. Next, it would be interesting to explore the effect of brand hate on business-to-
12
 business relationships or co-branding situations. Additionally, the role of moderators could be
explored in the suggested model. Research in psychology has studied the effects of personality
traits on negative behaviour such avoidance and revenge (McCullough et al., 2001). Although
the effects of personality traits was found to be weak (McCullough et al., 1998), this still
warrants further exploration.
Finally, Grégoire et al. (2009) showed that brand revenge decreases over time while
brand avoidance increases. Future research should assess to what extent the determinants and the
outcomes vary over time, as well as how they affect brand hate. Although the explained variance
of the outcome variables are relatively high (15%-39%), it seems that there might be more to the
construct of brand hate than what we currently understand. Drawing on psychological literature
on hate, Sternberg (2003) suggests a multi-dimensional construct for hate consisting of negation
of intimacy, commitment, and passion. Based on our findings, we suggest that future research
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

should investigate the conceptualization of brand hate as a multi-dimensional construct.

13
 Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Appendix A Summary of Determinants of Negative Brand Emotions*

Author(s) (year) Main Concept Studied Product-related Consumer- related Contextual- related/other*
Dalli et al. (2007)
Brand dislike
Price/quality
Negative stereotypes
Exploitation

Product performance (identity)
Fake and persuasive

Customer service communication
Grégoire and Fisher
Desire for retaliation**
Service failure
n/a
Brand relationship quality
(2006)
Grégoire and Fisher
Perceived betrayal
Service failure
n/a
Distributive, procedural
(2008) and interactional fairness
interactional
Hogg et al. (2009)
Brand avoidance**
Marketing environment
Consumer’s individual
Social environment
environment
Romani et al. (2009)
Negative brand
Physical object (attributes and
Symbolic cultural
n/a
emotions functions) object
Sandikci and Ekici
Brand rejection**
n/a
Undesired self and
Organizational dis-
(2009) image congruency identification, political
consumerism
Lee et al. (2009b)
Brand avoidance**
Prior negative product
Symbolic incongruity
Ideological incompatibility
experience (experiential (identity avoidance) (moral avoidance)
avoidance)
Krishnamurthy and
Brand hate
Transactional dissatisfaction
n/a
Market-level
Kucuk (2009) with a retailer and the quality of dissatisfaction
service
Ideologically dissatisfied
individuals
Johnson et al.
Self-conscious
n/a
Self-relevance
Relationship quality
(2011) emotions
Nenycz-Thiel and
Brand rejection**
Negative past experience
n/a
Moral rejection
Romaniuk (2011)
Information from extrinsic cues
(pricing, packaging)

14
 Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Appendix A Summary of Determinants of Negative Brand Emotions* (cont.)

Author(s) Main Concept Studied Product-related Consumer-related Contextual-

(year) related/other*
Sussan et al. (2012) Brand divorce** Negative brand/product
Negative symbolic
n/a
experience meaning
Incongruence of self-
brand image
Bryson et al. (2013)
Extreme negative
Negative past experience
Identity (negative
Moral (corporate social
emotions towards (consumer dissatisfaction) stereotypes of luxury performance)
(luxury) brands
Country of origin (was not brand users
significant)
Park et al. (2013)
Brand Attachment –
Brand's failure to meet
Association with a Inconsistency of values, or
Aversion Model individual needs (e.g., poor particular undesirable morals
quality products) group
Khan and Lee
Brand avoidance**
Perceived animosity (related to
Undesired self
Negative social influence
(2014) country of origin effect)
Kavaliauske and
Negative emotions
Unmet expectations
Symbolic
Ideological incompatibility
Simanaviciute towards brands
Unacceptable trade-off incongruence
(2015)
Zarantonello et al.
Brand hate
Violations of expectations
Taste system
Corporate wrongdoings
(2016)

* Also some authors mention ‘other’ determinants such as ‘spill over effects’ (Nenycz-Thiel and Romaniuk, 2011), high perceived risk (Khan and Lee, 2014), ‘cost
to benefit trade-off’ (Lee et al., 2009b) these weren’t consider key drivers however. Also Kucuk (2008) assessed ‘brand hate’ he does not elaborate in detail any
determinants.

** Though these papers do not particularly focus on negative emotions, they still give valuable insights to possible determinants.

15
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

16
 Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Appendix B Summary of Outcomes of Negative Brand Emotions

Active (indirect) anti-brand Active (direct) anti-brand

Author(s) (year) Main Concept Studied Passive anti-brand reactions reactions reactions
Grégoire and Fisher
Desire for retaliation
Patronage reduction
Third party complaining,
n/a
(2006) negative WoM
Grégoire and Fisher
Perceived betrayal
n/a
Third party complaining,
Complaining
(2008) negative WoM
Grégoire et al.
Anger, desire for
n/a
Third party complaining,
Marketplace aggression,
(2010) revenge negative WoM complaining
Johnson et al.
Self-conscious
n/a
Third party complaining,
Stealing, damaging,
(2011) emotions negative WoM threatening, complaining

Romani et al. (2012)
Negative brand
Switching
Negative WoM
Complaining

emotions
Joireman et al.
Anger, desire for
n/a
Third party complaining,
Complaining
(2013) revenge negative WoM

Harmeling et al.
Agonistic emotions,
Product avoidance
Negative WoM
n/a

(2015) retreat emotions

Zarantonello et al.
Brand hate
Patronage reduction /
Negative WoM
Complaining, protest
(2016) cessation

17
 Appendix C Construct Operationalisation
Construct Cronbach’s α
Brand hate (6 items) .830

I’m disgusted by brand X.

I don’t tolerate brand X and its company.

The world would be a better place without brand X.

I’m totally angry about brand X.

Brand X is awful.

I hate brand X.

Determinants of Brand Hate (13 items)

Negative past experience .899
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

The performance of products of brand X is poor.

The brand products are inconvenient.

My hate for this brand is linked to the bad performance of this product.

I’m dissatisfied by brand X.

Symbolic incongruity .871

The products of brand X do not reflect who I am.

The products of brand X do not fit my personality.

I don’t want to be seen with brand X.

This brand does not represent what I am.

This brand symbolizes the kind of person I would never wanted to be.

Ideological incompatibility .898

In my opinion, brand X acts irresponsible.

In my opinion, brand X acts unethical.

The company violates moral standards.

The brand doesn’t match my values and beliefs.

Outcomes of Brand Hate (15 items)

Brand avoidance .923

I don’t purchase products of brand X anymore.

I reject services/products of brand X.

I refrain from buying X’s products or using its services.

I avoid buying the brands products/using its services.

I do not use products or services of brand X.

Negative word of mouth .848

I spread negative word of mouth about brand X.

I denigrated the brand to my friends.

When my friends were looking for a similar service, I told them not to buy from brand X.

I always tell my friends about my feelings towards this brand.

I try to influence a lot of people in not purchasing this brand.

18
 Brand retaliation .910

I have deliberately bent or broken the policies of the brand.

I have showed signs of impatience and frustration to someone from brand X.

I complained to brand X to give a hard time to the representatives of the company.

I complained to brand X to be unpleasant with the representatives of the company.

I complained to the brand to make someone from the organization pay.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

19
 References
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., and Brasel, S. A. (2004), “When good brands do bad”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Alvarez, C. and Fournier, S. (2016), “Consumers’ relationships with brands”, Current Opinion in
Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 129-135.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, pp. 74-94.
Banister, E. and Hogg, M. (2004), “Negative symbolic consumption and consumers' drive for
self-esteem: the case of the fashion industry”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38,
pp. 850-868.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K. (2001), “Bad is stronger than
good”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 323-370.
Bechwati, N. and Morrin, M. (2003), “Outraged consumers: Getting even at the expense of
getting a good deal”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 440-453.
Bonifield C. and Cole, C. (2007), “Affective responses to service failure: Anger, regret, and
retaliatory versus conciliatory responses”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 18, pp. 85-99.
Breivik, E. and Thorbjørnsen, H. (2008), “Consumer brand relationships: an investigation of two
alternative models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp.
443-472.
Briscoe, M., Woodyard H., and Shaw, M. (1967), “Personality Impression Change as a Function
of the Favorableness of First Impressions”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp.
343-357.
Bryson, D., Atwal, G., and Hultén, P. (2013), “Towards the conceptualisation of the antecedents
of extreme negative affect towards luxury brands”, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 393-405.
Carroll B. and Ahuvia A. (2006), “Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 17, pp. 79-89.
Cherrier, H. (2009), “Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 181-190.
Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C., and Bonhomme, J. (2012), “Memo to marketers: Quantitative
evidence for change”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 53-64.
Churchill Jr, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 64-73.
Cromie, J. and Ewing, M. (2009), “The rejection of brand hegemony”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62, pp. 218-230.

20
 Dalli, D., Romani, S., and Gistri, G. (2007), “Brand dislike: representing the negative side of
consumer preferences”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, pp. 87-95.
Derks, D., Fischer, A. H., and Bos, A. E. (2008), “The role of emotion in computer-mediated
communication: A review”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 766-785.
Dessart, L., Morgan-Thomas, A., and Veloutsou, C. (2016), “What Drives Anti-brand
Community Behaviours: An Examination of Online Hate of Technology Brands”, In
Obal, M. W., Krey, N., and Bushardt, C. Let’s Get Engaged! Crossing the Threshold of
Marketing’s Engagement Era (pp. 473-477), Springer International Publishing.
Dodson, J., Tybout, A., and Sternthal, B. (1978), “Impact of deals and deal retraction on brand
switching”, Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 72-81.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Edson Escalas, J. and Bettman, J. (2005), “Self‐construal, reference groups, and brand meaning”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, pp. 378-389.
Fehr, B. and Russell, J. (1984), “Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective”,
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 113, pp. 464-486.
Fetscherin, M., and Heinrich, D. (2014), “Consumer Brand Relationships Landscape”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 366-371.
Fetscherin, M. and Heinrich, D. (2015), “Consumer brand relationships research: A bibliometric
citation meta-analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68, pp. 380-390.Fornell, C.
and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Fossati, P., Hevenor, S., Graham, S., Grady, C., Keightley, M., Craik, F., and Mayberg, H.
(2003), “In search of the emotional self: an fMRI study using positive and negative
emotional words”, American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 160, pp. 1938–1945.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 343-353.
Fournier, S. and Alvarez, C. (2013), “Relating badly to brands”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 253–264.
Fournier, S., Breazeale, M., and Fetscherin, M. (2012), Consumer-brand relationships: Theory
and Practice, Routledge, London.
Friedman, M. (1985), “Consumer boycotts in the United States, 1970–1980: Contemporary
events in historical perspective”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 96-117.
Funches, V., Markley, M., and Davis, L. (2009), “Reprisal, retribution and requital: Investigating
customer retaliation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 231-238.
Gorsuch, R. (1983), Factor analysis, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Grégoire, Y. and Fisher, R. (2006), “The effects of relationship quality on customer retaliation”,
Marketing Letters, Vol. 17, pp. 31-46.
21
 Grégoire, Y. and Fisher, R. (2008), “Customer betrayal and retaliation: when your best
customers become your worst enemies”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 247-261.
Grégoire, Y., Laufer, D., and Tripp, T. (2010), “A comprehensive model of customer direct and
indirect revenge: understanding the effects of perceived greed and customer power”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38, pp. 738-758.
Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T., and Legoux, R. (2009), “When customer love turns into lasting hate: the
effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 73, pp. 18-32.
Grubb, E. L. and Grathwohl, H. L. (1967), “Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market
behavior: A theoretical approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, pp. 22-27.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Halstead, D. (1989), “Expectations and disconfirmation beliefs as predictors of consumer

satisfaction, repurchase intention, and complaining behavior: an empirical study”,
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 2 No.
1, pp. 17-21.
Harmeling, C. M., Magnusson, P., and Singh, N. (2015), “Beyond anger: A deeper look at
consumer animosity”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 676-693.
Hegner, S. M., Beldad, A. D., and Kamphuis op Heghuis, S. (2014), “How company responses
and trusting relationships protect brand equity in times of crises”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 429-445.
Hogg, M. (1998), “Anti-constellations: exploring the impact of negation on consumption,”
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 133-158.
Hogg, M., Banister, E., and Stephenson, C. (2009), “Mapping symbolic (anti-)consumption”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 148-159.
Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou, N. (1999), The multivariate social scientist, Sage, London.
Ito, T., Larsen, J., Smith, N., and Cacioppo, J. (1998), “Negative information weighs more
heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 887-900.
Iyer, R. and Muncy, J. (2009), “Purpose and object of anti-consumption”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 160-168.
Johnson, A., Matear, M., and Thomson, M. (2011), “A coal in the heart: Self-relevance as a post-
exit predictor of consumer anti-brand actions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38,
pp. 108-125.
Joireman, J., Grégoire, Y., Devezer, B., and Tripp, T. M. (2013), “When do customers offer
firms a “second chance” following a double deviation? The impact of inferred firm

22
 motives on customer revenge and reconciliation”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp.
315-337.
Kanouse, D. and Hanson, L. (1972), “Negativity in evaluations”, In E. Jones, E. Kanouse, S.
Valins, H. Kelley, E. Nisbett, and B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of
behavior, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ.
Kanouse, D. (1984), “Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory
and research”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 703-708.
Kavaliauskė, M. and Simanavičiūtė, E. (2015), “Brand Avoidance: Relations Between Brand-
Related Stimuli And Negative Emotions”, Organizations and Markets in Emerging
Economies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 44-77.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Khan, M. and Lee, M. (2014), “Prepurchase determinants of brand avoidance: The moderating
role of country-of-origin familiarity”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 27, pp. 329-343.
Klein, J. and Dawar, N. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions and
brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 203-217.
Kleinbaum, D., Kupper, L., and Muller, K. (1988), “Applied regression analysis and other
multivariable methods”, PWS-Kent Publishing, Boston.
Kline, R. B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., Guilford,
New York.
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., and Lee, D. J. (2006), “Direct
and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 955-964.
Krishnamurthy, S. and Kucuk, S. U. (2009), “Anti-branding on the internet”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62, pp. 1119-1126.
Kucuk, S. U. (2008), “Negative double jeopardy: the role of anti-brand sites on the internet”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15, pp. 209-222.
Kucuk, S. U. (2014), “A semiotic analysis of consumer-generated antibranding”, Marketing
Theory, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 243-264.
Kucuk, S. U. (2015), “Exploring the Legality of Consumer Anti-branding Activities in the
Digital Age”, Journal of Business Ethics, February, pp. 1-17.
Lee, M., Conroy, D., and Motion, J. (2009a), “Brand avoidance: a negative promises
perspective”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, pp. 421-429.
Lee, M., Motion, J., and Conroy, D. (2009b), “Anti-consumption and brand avoidance”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 169-180.
Liao, S., Chou, C. Y., and Lin, T. H. (2015), “Adverse behavioral and relational consequences of
service innovation failure”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 834-839.
23
 Luo, X., Raithel, S., and Wiles, M. (2013), “The impact of brand rating dispersion on firm
value”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 50, pp. 399-415.
Lutz, R. (1975), “Changing Brand Attitudes Through Modification of Cognitive Structure”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 49-59.
Marticotte, F., Arcand, M., and Baudry, D. (2016), “The impact of brand evangelism on
oppositional referrals towards a rival brand”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 25 No. 6, (in press).
McCullough, M., Bellah, C., Kilpatrick, D., and Johnson, J. (2001), “Vengefulness:
Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big Five,” Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 601-610.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

McCullough, M., Rachal, K., Sandage, S., Worthington Jr, E., Brown, S., and Hight, T. (1998),
“Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and
measurement”, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 1586-
1603.
Micheletti, M., Follesdal, A., and Stolle, D. (2004), Politics, products, and markets. Exploring
Political Consumerism Past and Present. New Brunswick.
Monga, A. (2002), “Brand as a relationship partner: gender differences in perspectives”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 36-41.
Nenycz-Thiel, M. and Romaniuk, J. (2011), ”The nature and incidence of private label
rejection”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 93-99.
Nyer, P. and Gopinath, M. (2005), “Effects of complaining versus negative word of mouth on
subsequent changes in satisfaction: The role of public commitment”, Psychology &
Marketing,Vol. 22, pp. 937–953.
Ogilvie, D. (1987), “The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 379-385.
Oliver, R. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 460-469.
Park, C., Eisingerich, A., and Park, J. (2013), “Attachment–aversion (AA) model of customer–
brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23, pp. 229-248.
Presi, C., Saridakis, C. and Hartmans, S. (2014), “User-generated content behaviour of the
dissatisfied service customer”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 9/10, pp.
1600-1625.
Richins, M. (1983), “Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study”, Journal
of Marketing, pp. 68-78.
Rindell, A., Strandvik, T., and Wilén, K. (2014), “Ethical consumers’ brand avoidance”, Journal
of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 23, pp. 114–120.
24
 Romani, S., Grappi, S., and Dalli, D. (2012), “Emotions that drive consumers away from brands:
Measuring negative emotions toward brands and their behavioral effects”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29, pp. 55-67.
Romani, S., Grappi, S., Zarantonello, L., and Bagozzi, R. (2015), “The revenge of the consumer!
How brand moral violations lead to consumer anti-brand activism”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 658-672.
Romani, S., Sadeh, H., and Dalli, D. (2009), “When the Brand is Bad, I’m Mad! An Exploration
of Negative Emotions to Brands”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, pp. 494-
501.
Roseman, I. (1984), “Cognitive determinants of emotion: A structural theory”, Review of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 11-36.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Rosenbaum, M. and Levin, I. (1969), “Impression Formation as a Function of Source Credibility

and the Polarity of Information”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 34-37.
Rossiter, J. (2002), “The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 305-335.
Rossiter, J. (2012), “A new C-OAR-SE-based content-valid and predictively valid measure that
distinguishes brand love from brand liking”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 23, pp. 905-916.
Ruiz-Mafe, C., Aldas-Manzano, J., and Veloutsou, C. (2015), “Understanding and Managing
Negative eWom: The Role of Trust, Dissatisfaction and Negative Brand Relationships”,
10th Global Brand Conference, Turku, Finland.
Sandıkcı, Ö. and Ekici, A. (2009), “Politically motivated brand rejection”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62, pp. 208-217.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., and O'Connor, C. (1987), “Emotion knowledge: further
exploration of a prototype approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.
52, pp. 1061-1086.
Singh, J. (1988), “Consumer complaint intentions and behavior: definitional and taxonomical
issues”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 93-107.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986), “A triangular theory of love”, Psychological Review, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp.
119-135.
Sternberg, R. (2003), “A duplex theory of hate: Development and application to terrorism,
massacres, and genocide”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 299-328.
Sussan, F, Hall, R., and Meamber, L. (2012), ”Introspecting the spiritual nature of a brand
divorce”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, pp. 520-526.

25
 Thomson, M., Whelan, J., and Johnson, A. (2012), “Why brands should fear fearful consumers:
How attachment style predicts retaliation”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22, pp.
289-298.
Underhill, J. (2012), Ethnolinguistics and cultural concepts: truth, love, hate and war,
Cambridge University Press.
Wolter, J. S., Brach, S., Cronin, J. J., and Bonn, M. (2016), “Symbolic drivers of consumer–
brand identification and disidentification”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 2,
pp. 785-793.
Yuksel, U. and Mryteza, V. (2009), “An evaluation of strategic responses to consumer boycotts”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 248-259.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Zarantonello, L., Romani, S., Grappi, S., and Bagozzi, R. (2016), “Brand hate”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 11-25.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 31-46.
Zeki, S. and Romaya, J. (2008), “Neural correlates of hate”, PloS one, Vol. 3 No. 10, e3556.

26
 Table 1 Reliability and Validity Tests

Cronbach
Construct Alpha† AVE CR SIC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Brand hate .83 .57 .75
2. Negative past
.90 .75 .92 .13**
Experience
3. Symbolic incongruity .87 .63 .82 .27** -.06
4. Ideological
.90 .76 .93 .41** -.01 .29**
incompatibility
.28** .41** .23**
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

5. Brand avoidance .92 .77 .94 -.01

6. Negative WoM .85 .60 .79 .40** .19** .13** .20** .23**
7. Brand retaliation .91 .81 .96 .12** .24** -.09 .01 -.12* .26**
*p > .05; **p >.01 † rounded figures to two digits

Table 2 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Determinants on the Outcomes of Brand Hate

Link Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

Negative past experience  brand hate .27 - .27
Symbolic incongruity  brand hate .32 - .32
Ideological incongruity  brand hate .47 - .47
Brand hate  brand avoidance .41 - .41
Brand hate  negative WoM .63 - .63
Brand hate  brand retaliation .39 - .39
Negative past experience  brand avoidance - .09 .09
Negative past experience  negative WoM .27 .14 .41
Negative past experience  brand retaliation .30 .09 .39
Symbolic incongruity  brand avoidance .53 .14 .67
Symbolic incongruity  negative WoM .20 .21 .41
Symbolic incongruity  brand retaliation - .13 .13
Ideological incompatibility  brand avoidance .14 .19 .33
Ideological incompatibility  negative WoM .25 .30 .55
Ideological incompatibility  brand retaliation - .18 .18
Note: Effects are significant at p < .05 level

27
 Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Figure 1 Original model with standardized path coefficients

28
 Figure 2 Alternative model with standardized path coefficients
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 07:18 11 February 2017 (PT)

Biography:

Sabrina M. Hegner is a professor at the University of Applied Science in Bielefeld, Germany.

She holds a PhD from the University of Bremen in Germany. Her primary research interests
include the creation of brand relationships, crisis communication, online and offline word-of-
mouth communication, and socially responsible behaviours.

Marc Fetscherin is Associate Professor of Marketing at Rollins College, USA. He holds a PhD
from the University of Bern and Graduate Degrees from the London School of Economics
(LSE), UK and the University of Lausanne (HEC), Switzerland. He has published three edited
books, multiple book chapters and numerous journal articles.

Marianne van Delzen obtained a Master of Science in Communication Studies at the University
of Twente (Enschede) in the Netherlands. Her primary research interest is in consumer-brand
relationships.

29