Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Postpurchase Processes

Author(s): Robert A. Westbrook

Source: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Aug., 1987), pp. 258-270
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151636 .
Accessed: 17/11/2013 15:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ROBERTA. WESTBROOK*

The authorexaminesconsumeraffective responsesto product/consumptionex-

periencesand their relationshipto selected aspects of postpurchaseprocesses. In
separatefield studiesof automobileownersand CATVsubscribers,subjectsreported
the natureand frequencyof emotionalexperiencesin connectionwith productown-
ershipand usage. Analysisconfirmshypothesesabout the existenceof independent
dimensionsof positiveand negative affect. Both dimensionsof affective response
are found directlyrelated to the favorabilityof consumersatisfactionjudgnments,
extent of seller-directedcomplaintbehavior, and extent of word-of-mouthtrans-
mission.

Product/Consumption-B Affective Responses

and PostpurchaseProcesses

Traditional models of consumer behavior in the mar-
keting literature implicitly assume that consumer deci-
sion making is principally the result of cognitive pro-
cesses involving the semantic meaning of product
attributes(e.g., Bettman 1979; Howard and Sheth 1969).
Affective processes, broadly described as those involv-
ing subjective feelings, generally are relegated to a sec-
ondary role (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Peterson,
Hoyer, and Wilson 1986). However, recent advances in
social cognition, cognitive psychology, and social psy-
chology suggest that affective processes may constitute
not only a powerful source of human motivation, but
also a major influence on information processing and
choice (Hoffman 1986; Isen 1984; Zajonc 1980). As a
result, marketers are increasingly interested in under-
standing the nature of affect and its contribution to con-
sumer decision making and response to marketing vari-
ables (Aaker, Stayman, and Hagerty 1985; Batra and Ray
1986; Donovan and Rossiter 1982; Gardner 1985; Wein-
berg and Gottwald 1982).
Despite a growing number of conceptual and empiri-
cal studies of consumer affect, most attention to date has
been on its role in consumer prepurchaseprocesses. Af-
fect in postpurchase processes has been relatively ne-
*Robert A. Westbrook is Professor of Marketing, College of Busi-
ness and Public Administration, The University of Arizona.
The author gratefully acknowledges the many constructive criti-
cisms provided by three anonymous JMR reviewers.
258
glected (for noteworthy exceptions, see Holbrook et al.
1984; Westbrook 1980). This neglect is surprising for
several reasons. First, the postpurchaseperiod comprises
product ownership and usage, both of which might be
expected to provide opportunities for varied affective re-
sponse of considerable personal significance to con-
sumers (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982). Second, affec-
tive variablesmight be expected to contributesubstantially
to the explanation and prediction of postpurchase be-
havior, which in addition to product usage includes sat-
isfactionappraisal,seller-directedcomplaintactions, word-
of-mouth transmission, disposition behavior, and repur-
chase planning. Typically, accounts of these processes
have been limited to cognitive/semantic belief variables
(e.g., Beardenand Teel 1983; Oliver 1980; Richins 1983).
The inclusion of product/consumption affective re-
sponses therefore might be expected to extend the ex-
planatory ability of current theoretical postpurchase
models.
Accordingly, the role of product/consumption-based
affective responses is examined in three central forms of
postpurchase behavior: satisfaction appraisal, seller-di-
rected complaint actions, and word-of-mouth transmis-
sions. Satisfaction appraisal usually is regarded as the
central mediator of postpurchase behavior, linking pre-
choice product beliefs to postchoice cognitive structure,
consumer communications, and repurchase behavior
(Beardenand Teel 1983; LaBarberaand Mazursky 1983;
Oliver 1980). Complaint behavior is of interest as an
important form of market feedback to organizations

Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. XXIV (August 1987), 258-70

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PRODUCT/CONSUMPTION-BASED RESPONSES
AFFECTIVE
(Fornell and Westbrook 1984). Finally, postpurchase
word-of-mouthtransmissionsare relevantas a signifi-
cantnon-marketer-dominatedpurchaseinfluence(Arndt
1967;Dichter1966).
THEORY
Affective Response
Thoughaffect has been defined variouslyin the lit-
erature,the conceptgenerallyis understoodto comprise
a class of mentalphenomenauniquelycharacterizedby
a consciouslyexperienced,subjectivefeeling state,com-
monly accompanyingemotionsand moods. Many vari-
etiesof affectcan be discerned,as evidencedby the large
numberof wordsin the Englishlanguagethatdenotedif-
ferent feeling states (Davitz 1969). However, several
taxonomieshavebeen proposedto classify the varietyof
subjectivefeelings into a small set of fundamental,or
primaryaffects (Izard 1977; Plutchik 1980; Tomkins
1980).Thesetaxonomiesarein substantialagreementon
the basic categoriesof affective experience(for a com-
parison,see Ekman,Friesen, and Ellsworth1982). Ta-
ble 1 lists the fundamentalaffects identifiedby one em-
piricallybasedtaxonomythathas been well receivedin
Table 1
IZARD'S
(1977) TAXONOMY
OF AFFECTIVE
EXPERIENCE
Funda-
mental Natureof
affect subjectiveexperience Valence
Interest Engaged,attentive,caught-up,curious, Positive
fascinated;when intense, a feeling of
excitementand animation
Joy Sense of confidenceand significance; Positive
feeling loved and lovable;a good re-
lationshipto the objectof joy
Anger Hostility,desireto attackthe sourceof Negative
anger,physicalpower, impulsiveness
Disgust Feelingsof revulsion;impulsesto es- Negative
cape from or removethe objectof
disgustfromproximityto oneself
Contempt Superiorityto otherpeople, groups,or Negative
things;hostility(mild);prejudice;
coldnessand distance
Distress Sadness;discouragement,downhearted- Negative
ness; lonelinessand isolation;feeling
miserable;sense of loss
Fear Apprehensionto terror,dependingon Negative
intensity;sense of imminentdanger;
feeling unsafe;slowed thought;ten-
sion
Shame Suddenlyheightenedself-consciousness, Negative
self-awareness;feelings of incompe-
tence, indignity,defeat;in mild form,
shyness
Guilt Gnawingfeelings of being in the wrong, Negative
"notright"with othersor the self
Surprise Fleetingsense of interruption of ongoing Neutral
thought;brief uncertainty;amazement
and startle
This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
259
the contemporary emotionsliterature(Izard1977).
Of the varietyof affectiveresponsesin Table 1, which
ones might be particularlyrelevantto consumerpost-
purchaseprocesses?Some insight is gained by consid-
ering the theoreticalmechanismspostulatedto explain
the elicitationof differenttypes of affect (for a review,
see Hoffman1986). One means throughwhich differ-
entialaffectelicitationis believedto occuris the process
of cognitive appraisal(Arnold 1960; Lazarus,Kanner,
andFolkman1980;Weiner,Russell, andLerman1979).
In essence, affects are held to arise as a functionof the
individual'sevaluationof the meaning, causes, conse-
quences, and/or personal implicationsof a particular
stimulus.
Considerthe variousunpleasant,negativelyvalenced
fundamental affectsin Table 1 andtheirunderlyingcog-
nitiveappraisals.Anger, disgust, and contempteach re-
flect an underlyingattributionof causal agency to the
elicitingstimulus,guilt andshamedeflectthe attribution
for causalagencyto the individualhim- or herself, and
fearandsadnessinvolve an assignmentof causalagency
neitherto the stimulusnor the individualbut insteadto
the situation(Izard1977; Scherer1982; Smithand Ells-
worth1985). In the contextof product/consumption ex-
periences,onlythoseaffectsinvolvingattribution of causal
agencyto the productor its seller might be expectedto
have a systematicinfluence on postpurchasebehavior
relativeto the product.
As an illustration,consideran unfavorableconsump-
tionexperience,suchas a majorenginefailuresoon after
expirationof an automobile'swarranty.If causalagency
is assignedto the automobileand/or its manufacturer-
that is, if the consumerbelieves the problemis due to
defectivedesign or manufacture-affectsof anger, dis-
gust, and contemptare likely to be aroused, possibly
motivatingdemandsfor free repairor replacement.If
insteadcause is assignedto oneself-that is, if the con-
sumerbelieves he or she failed to maintainthe engine
properlyor heed its operatinginstructions-affects of
guilt and shameare likely to be aroused,perhapsstim-
ulatingfurthercognitionabout how the problemcould
have been averted.Finally, if cause is attributedto sit-
uationalfactorssuch as an earlierunavoidableaccident
thatdamagedthe engine and led to the presentfailure,
affects of fear and sadness would tend to be aroused,
possibly stimulatingwithdrawalbehavior such as dis-
posingof the vehicle.
In relationto the positive affects in Table 1, previous
researchindicatesthat pleasantemotionalexperienceis
thatis, linkeddirectlyto
invariablyoutcome-dependent,
an elicitingstimuluswith no furtherattributionalsearch
(Weiner,Russell, andLerman1979). Hencejoy and in-
terest, once elicited in a consumptionexperience, are
necessarilyinvolvedin behaviorrelevantto the stimulus.
Finally,the affectof surprisealso is likely to be involved
in stimulus-relevant behaviorbecause of its theoretical
role as an amplifierof eitherpositive or negativeemo-
tionalexperience(Izard1977; Tomkins 1980).
260
Dimensions of Product- and Consumption-Based
Affective Response
Though the phenomenology of product ownership and
consumption involves discernible states of joy, surprise,
anger, and so on, the relationship of affect to postpur-
chase behaviorcan be conceived parsimoniouslyin terms
of the dimensions of meaning underlying these differ-
entiated affects. Considerable research has addressed the
dimensionality of affective experience (for reviews, see
Daly, Lancee, and Polivy 1983; Smith and Ellsworth
1985). In essence, dimensional analyses treat discrete
types of affect as salient, familiar regions of a multidi-
mensional psychological space of affective response.
The major structural dimension of affective experi-
ence often is found to be the ubiquitous bipolar contin-
uum of pleasantness-unpleasantness(e.g., Russell 1983).
However, research on personal reports of individual af-
fective experiences has indicated two largely indepen-
dent unipolar dimensions corresponding to positive and
negative affect (Abelson et al. 1982; Bradburn 1969).
Because the bidimensional conceptualization allows for
ambivalence or the joint occurrence of pleasant and un-
pleasant states, as well as indifference or the occurrence
of neither pleasant nor unpleasant states, it appears more
suitable than the unidimensional view for investigating
product ownership and consumption experiences. Isen
(1984) likewise has argued for a bidimensional concep-
tualization of affect in everyday situations that might in-
volve only mild, "everyday" affect ("feelings"). Thus it
is hypothesized that:
H1: Consumeraffective response relevant to postpur-
chase processes can be describedby separateuni-
polardimensionsof positive and negativeaffect.
In terms of the fundamental classes of affect in Table 1,
the positive dimension is expected to comprise product/
consumption experiences involving joy and interest. The
negative dimension is expected to encompass experi-
ences of anger, disgust, and contempt. Both positive and
negative affect dimensions may contain the affect of sur-
prise, for reasons noted before.
Satisfaction
As described by Hunt (1977, p. 459), "Satisfaction is
not the pleasurableness of the [consumption] experience
..it is the evaluation renderedthat the experience was
at least as good as it was supposed to be." Thus it can
be distinguished from cognitive beliefs about product/
consumption outcomes and from affective responses to
the outcomes. Satisfaction appraisal is believed to occur
as a two-stage process (Oliver 1980). In the first stage,
post-usage beliefs about product attributes or outcomes
actually realized are compared with prepurchase expec-
tations, yielding a new belief about the extent of expec-
tancy disconfirmation. Expectancy disconfirmation can
range from positive (obtained outcomes exceed those ex-
This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING AUGUST1987
RESEARCH,
pected) to neutral (obtained outcomes exactly meet those
expected) to negative (obtained outcomes fall short of
those expected). In the second stage, expectancy dis-
confirmationbeliefs and initial expectation beliefs, as re-
called from memory, are combined additively to produce
the satisfaction evaluation.
As a global evaluative judgment about product usage/
consumption, however, satisfaction judgments logically
should be determined at least in part by the occurrence
of product/consumption-related affective responses in
addition to the effects of cognitive/semantic belief vari-
ables. Though subjective experiences of product/con-
sumption affect may be relatively transient during the
postpurchase period, they also can be highly salient in
consciousness, depending on intensity (Izard 1977;
Tomkins 1980), which facilitates their retrieval from
memory (Robinson 1976, 1980; Waldfogel 1948). Thus
past affective responses may be available to exert effects
on the evaluative processes yielding satisfaction judg-
ments. Abelson et al. (1982) provide empirical support,
in the context of political candidate preferences, for the
proposition that evaluative judgments may be influenced
by both affective responses and cognitive beliefs. More-
over, the two dimensions of positive and negative af-
fective response were related independently to prefer-
ence formation,the formerdirectlyand the latterinversely.
Hence,
H2: The frequencyof positive product/consumption af-
fective responseis relateddirectlyto judgmentsof
satisfactionwith the product.
H3: The frequencyof negativeproduct/consumption af-
fective responseis relatedinverselyto judgmentsof
satisfactionwith the product.
H4: Neitherexpectationnor disconfirmationbeliefs me-
diatethe relationshipbetweenpositive and negative
product/consumption-based affective response and
judgmentsof satisfaction.
Complaint Behavior
Postpurchase complaining behavior comprises con-
sumer-initiated communications to marketers, their
channel members, or public agencies to obtain remedy
or restitution for purchase- or usage-related problems in
particularmarkettransactions. Research has shown com-
plaint behavior to be chiefly the result of judged dissat-
isfaction with the product and/or its consumption (e.g.,
Bearden and Teel 1983; Richins 1983), that is, to be
relatedinversely to satisfactionappraisal.Day (1984) has
proposed, however, that the actual source of complaint
motivation is not the judgment of (dis)satisfaction per
se, but rather the antecedent negative emotional state
produced by the appraisal of unfavorable product/con-
sumption outcomes. Positive affective responses, being
independentof their negative counterparts,do not reduce
or offset any subsequent negative affects during con-
sumption; thus complaint behavior theoretically is un-
related to positive product/consumption-based affective
responses.
PRODUCT/CONSUMPTION-BASED RESPONSES
AFFECTIVE
The foregoing notions suggest that (dis)satisfaction
mediatesthe influenceof negative affect on complaint
behavior.However,negativeaffect also seems likely to
influencecomplaintactionsdirectlybecauseoveralldis-
satisfactionwith a productis not a requisitefor voicing
complaints;even satisfied consumerscomplainto note
minorconcernsor problems(JacobyandJaccard1981).
Thusproductoutcomescan promptnegativeaffect, trig-
geringcomplaining,thoughthe net effect of such neg-
ative affect on satisfactionmay be outweighedby other
occurrencesof positive affect, high levels of expecta-
tions, or positive disconfirmationbeliefs.
Findingsin the consumercomplaintliteratureare con-
sistent with the foregoingtheoreticalmodel. External,
product-based attributionsof causalagency for unfavor-
able productoutcomesare relateddirectlyto increased
complaintactivity (Krishnanand Valle 1979; Richins
1983) and such attributionsalso increasethe likelihood
of feelings of angerin consumers(Folkes 1984). Three
hypothesesare indicated.
H5: The extentof postpurchaseconsumercomplaintbe-
havior is a function of the frequencyof negative
affect.
product/consumption-based
H6: The extentof postpurchaseconsumercomplaintbe-
havioris unrelatedto the frequencyof positiveprod-
uct/consumption-based affect.
H7: The relationship between negative product/con-
sumptionaffectandcomplaintbehavioris not wholly
mediatedby satisfactionjudgments.
Word-of-MouthTransmission
In a postpurchasecontext, consumerword-of-mouth
(WOM)transmissionsconsist of informalcommunica-
tions directedat other consumersaboutthe ownership,
usage, or characteristics
of particulargoods and services
and/or their sellers. The determinantsof WOM trans-
mission seldom have been studied,but theory suggests
these communicationsare the result of consumer in-
volvementin the product/usesituation(Dichter 1966).
Threedifferentstates of involvementhave been identi-
fied: (1) productinvolvement,in which the user desires
to talk about the purchaseand the gratificationsit af-
fords, (2) self-involvement,in which the user seeks to
gainattention,recognition,or statusin tellingothersabout
the purchase,and (3) other-involvement, wherethe user
seeks to help other consumersby sharinghis or her
knowledgeor experiences.
Each of these forms of involvementhas a substantial
affectivebasis. For example, productinvolvementmay
".. . produce a tension . . . not eased by use of the
productalone but [which]mustbe channeledby way of
talk, recommendation and enthusiasm . . . to provide
relief" (Dichter1966, p. 148). Both self- and other-in-
volvementcomprise comparablysignificantemotional
needs and/or experienceson the part of the potential
WOMsender.The literatureon public opinionrumors,
which are conceptuallysimilarto productWOM trans-
missions, has amply noted the centralityof emotional
This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
261
determinants andelementsin suchcommunications(All-
port and Postman 1947).
The foregoingconceptualizationsuggests that salient
affectiveresponsesof eithervalencemay stimulatecon-
sumerWOM transmissions.Though empiricalstudies
offer conflictingevidence on the directionof the rela-
tionshipbetweenthe favorabilityof postpurchaseeval-
uationsand the extent of WOM transmission(Engel,
Kergerreis,andBlackwell 1969;Holmesand Lett 1977;
TARP1981), nonehas controlledfor the effects of prod-
uct/consumption-based affectiveresponses,which may
have confoundedobserved results. Because affective
variablesare believed to occur temporallypriorto sat-
isfactiondetermination,their effects on WOM may be
considereddirectand unmediated.Hence,
H8: The frequenciesof both positive and negativeprod-
uct/consumption-based affectsarerelateddirectlyto
the extent of postpurchaseword-of-mouthtransmis-
sion.
Because product/consumption-basedaffective re-
sponsesareheldto influencebothsatisfactionandWOM
transmission,at least some of the latterrelationshipmay
be due to their common emotionalantecedents.How-
ever, whetheror not the relationshipis solely the result
of affectiveresponses-that is, completelyspurious-is
unknown.The situationis similarfor the relationshipbe-
tweencomplaintbehaviorand WOM.
METHOD
Sample and Procedure
Becauseof limitedknowledgeof affective responses
in actualconsumptioncontexts, data were gatheredin
field studies of consumersreportingon their personal
productownership/usageexperiencesand postpurchase
behavior.Such naturalisticsettingsare increasinglyfa-
voredfor examiningthe influenceof affectivephenom-
ena in "everyday"environments(Abelson et al. 1982;
Smithand Kluegel 1982).
Two productcategorieswere selected for study be-
cause of their potentialto evoke varioustypes of both
positive and negative affect in the course of product/
service usage: automobilesand cable pay television
(CATV)subscriptionservices.Suchvarianceis essential
if emotionalresponsesare to be relatedeffectively to
postpurchasebehavior through correlationalanalysis
methodsnecessitatedby field studies. Automobilesare
associatedwith large variationsin consumerinvolve-
ment (Bloch 1981) and CATV services afford a wide
rangeof psychologicalgratifications(McGuire1974).
Separatefield studiesfor each productcategorywere
based on independentsurvey samplesrepresentativeof
theirrespectiveconsumerpopulations.For CATV ser-
vices, a self-weightingareaprobabilitysampleof house-
holds in a U.S. metropolitanarea was used, yielding a
total of 154 adultmale and female heads of household.
Respondentswere interviewedat home and in personby
262
trainedprofessionalsurvey interviewers.For automo-
biles, 200 vehicle ownersin the same metropolitanarea
were obtainedby an area-basedjudgmentalsampling
procedure.Respondentscompletedpersonallydelivered,
self-administered questionnairesthat were retrievedin
person within two daysof delivery.Bothsamplesmatched
closely their respectivepopulationson selected demo-
graphicand productusage characteristics.
Measures
Affect. Product/consumption-based affective re-
sponseswereassessedby usingthe DES-II(Izard1977),
a self-administered inventoryof discreteemotionalex-
periences(e.g., happy,scornful,amazed)to which sub-
jects providerelativefrequencyreportsin relationto des-
ignatedexperiences,stimuli,or time periods.The DES-
II consistsof 10 subscalescorrespondingto the funda-
mentaltypes of affect describedin Table 1. In effect,
the DES-II is an aided recall task employingaffective
wordprompts;studiesof the retrievalof autobiograph-
ical memoryconfirmthe accessibilityof past emotional
experiencesby means of such cues (Robinson 1976,
1980).Substantial validationevidencefor the DES-IIhas
beenreported:(1) each of the DES-IIsubscalesprovides
internallyreliable estimates of affect frequency, and
moreovereach converges with independentself-report
indicatorsof emotionalstate (Izard1977), (2) the sub-
scales demonstratediscriminantvalidity in distinguish-
ing variedemotionalincidents(Bartlettand Izard 1972;
McHugo, Ianzetta, and Smith 1982), and (3) self-re-
portsbased on DES-II scale descriptorsagree with ex-
ternalobservationsof subjects'emotionalfacial expres-
sions (Ekman,Friesen, and Ancoli 1980).
BothstudiesincludedDES-IIsubscalemeasuresof the
six types of affect relevantto postpurchaseprocesses
(anger,disgust, contempt,interest,joy, and surprise).
Beforethey were used in the final field studies, several
checksweremadeon theirsuitabilityfor use in the prod-
uct consumptioncontext. After an exploratorystudyon
a small conveniencesampleof consumersto assess the
feasibilityof retrospectiverecall of product-relatedaf-
fects, three pilot studies were conductedamong auto-
mobile owners (N = 66), new car shoppers (N = 162),
andnew CATVsubscribers(N = 98). The DES-IImea-
sures were found consistentlyreliable, exceeding .75
(Cronbach'salpha)in all instances.
The pilot studies also indicatedthat the DES-II sub-
scales varied significantlyby productcategory (auto-
mobiles vs. CATV) and experientialfocus (shopping
vs. consumption),necessarypreconditionsfor measure
validity.'Moreover,none of the six subscaleswas cor-
'Becauseproductusagegenerallyis considereda consummatory ac-
tivity in whichconsumergoals or desiresare fulfilled, in contrastto
shoppingwhichis an instrumental activityundertakento bringabout
suchconsummation,morefrequentreportsof bothpositiveand neg-
ative affect were predictedfor productusage experiencesthan for
shopping.One-tailedt-testsbetweenautoowners(N = 66) and auto
This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING AUGUST1987
RESEARCH,
relatedwith social desirabilityresponseset (Crowneand
Marlowe1964) in the auto owner pilot study. Finally,
to confirmthatthe DES-IIsubscaleswere assessing af-
fective responsesto specific product/consumptionout-
comes as opposed to generalizedproductcategory af-
fect, in two pilot studies respondentswere asked to
indicateto what,if anything,theiraffectreportsrelated.2
At least65%of the respondentsin eachproductcategory
nameda specific attribute/outcome,or class thereof, in
relationto each affect type. Moreover,the modalrefer-
ents differedsubstantiallyby DES-II subscale. For au-
tomobiles,reportsof joy typicallywere associatedwith
productperformancecharacteristicsand appearance;in-
terestwith upkeepand maintenance; anger,disgust,and/
or contemptwith productmalfunctionand repairs;and
surprisewith specificunusualperformance outcomes.For
CATV,reportsof joy typicallywereassociatedwith spe-
cific types of programming; interestwith particularpro-
gramsandthe initiationof service;anger,disgust, and/
or contemptwith serviceinterruptions, installationprob-
lems, andbillingerrors;and surprisewith programming
variety.However,these resultsdo not rule out the pos-
sibilitythat the affective responseswere due to gener-
alizedcategory-basedaffect, becausethe namingof spe-
cific product/consumption outcomes might reflect
cognitiveconsistencybiasesonce respondentshad named
a particularaffect.
Descriptivestatistics,reliabilityestimates,and inter-
correlationsfor the six DES-II subscalesfrom the final
auto and CATV field studies are reportedin Table 2.
Thoughthe affect measuresagain have acceptablein-
ternalconsistencyreliabilityfor analyticalpurposes,the
positive affects are substantiallyintercorrelated,as are
thosecorrespondingto the negativeaffects. These find-
ings suggestsome cautionaboutthe discriminantvalid-
ity of the individualDES-IIsubscalesin relationto each
otherin the product/consumption context.
Postpurchase constructs. Measurement procedures for
postpurchaseconstructsof satisfaction,complainingbe-
havior,and word-of-mouth,as well as for expectations
and disconfirmationbeliefs, are given in Table 3. Be-
cause both criterionand predictormeasureswere ad-
shoppers(N = 162) were significant(p < .05) for five of the six
DES-IIsubscales.No a priori predictionswere made for differences
betweenautomobileand CATV consumption.Two-tailedt-tests of
mean affect ratingswere significant(p < .05) for four of the six
subscales.Thesefindingswereregardedas an indicationof the ability
of the DES-IImeasuresto discriminateaffectivefrequencybetween
differentconsumercontexts.Thoughhelpfulfor the purposesof the
study,these data obviouslydo not providea comprehensiveassess-
mentof the discriminantvalidityof the individualDES-II subscales
as indicatorsof differentaffectiveresponsesin product/consumption
contexts.
2Thesedataalso provideempiricalsupportfor the analysisof affect
categoriesrelevantto postpurchaseprocesses.Auto ownerstypically
namedaccidentaldamageor theftin relationto fearandsadness,and
lack of routinemaintenancein relationto guilt and shame. CATV
subscribersnamedspecificdramaticprogramsin relationto affective
reportsof fear and sadness, and excessive televisionviewing in re-
lationto guilt and shame.
 RESPONSES
AFFECTIVE
PRODUCT/CONSUMPTION-BASED 263

Table 2
STATISTICSFOR AFFECTMEASURESAND REGRESSIONMODELVARIABLE$
DESCRIPTIVE

Automobiles CATV
DES-II (N = 200) (N = 151) DES-IIsubscale correlations
measures M S M S 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Joy 3.43 .91 2.78 .83 (.79, .69) .66 -.08 .10 .04 .60
2. Interest 3.25 .91 2.85 .88 .76 (.78, .74) -.02 .07 .09 .58
3. Anger 1.48 .77 2.00 .91 -.43 -.22 (.89, .80) .62 .66 .22
4. Disgust 1.45 .70 2.14 .86 -.28 -.27 .66 (.89, .76) .57 .30
5. Contempt 1.33 .69 1.56 .78 -.25 -.15 .67 .82 (.76, .86) .30
6. Surprise 2.30 1.07 2.28 .84 .38 .42 -.07 .14 .15 (.76, .77)

Regression
Regeson
model Regressionmodelvariablecorrelations
variables' M S M S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. POS AFF 3.51 .86 3.12 .88 .02 .01 .40 .36 -.04 .29
2. NEG AFF 2.02 .91 2.34 .88 -.37 -.05 -.24 -.32 .32 .32
3. EXP BEN 8.09 1.62 .32 -.21
4. EXP PRB 4.25 2.70 -.23 .09 -.18
5. EXP TOT 11.14 2.59 -.23 .02 -.01 .02
6. DISCONF 4.59 1.13 5.51 1.84 .47 -.30 .22 -.18 .53 -.28 -.11
7. SAT 7.18 1.33 5.04 1.16 .54 .45 .46 -.32 .61 -.47 -.20
8. COMPLN 1.85 2.47 .31
9. WOM 6.60 4.43
Note:Entriesin parenthesesareCronbachalphaestimatesof DES-IIreliabilityfor automobilesandCATV, respectively.Valuesbelow diagonal
areproduct-moment correlationsfor automobiles;those above arefor CATV. Valuesgreaterthan .12 are statisticallyat the .05 level andbeyond
for autos;for CATVthe correspondingvalue is .14. Blanksindicatedatanot availablebecauseof study design.
'See Table 3 for constructs.

Table 3
MEASUREMENT
OF POSTPURCHASEVARIABLES

Construct Legend Operationalization Study Reliability

Satisfaction SAT Averageof circles and D-T satisfactionratingscales (Andrewsand Withey AUTO .80
1976) CATV .81
Complaining COMPLN Indexformedby averaging(a) numberof complaintincidentsand (b) CATV .84
behavior numberof topics voiced
Word-of-Mouth WOM Indexformedby averaging(a) reportedfrequencyof discussionswith CATV .86
transmission othersaboutCATV and local cable operator,(b) numberof persons
involved, and (c) numberof topics discussed
Expectation
beliefs'
Benefits EXP BENb Ratingof prechoicesubjectivelikelihoodof receivingproductbenefits, AUTO
advantages,and good points along 10-pointcontinuum
Problems EXP PRBb Same as EXP BEN except for focus on productproblems,disadvantages, AUTO
and bad points
Overall EXP TOT Averageof (a) ratingof prechoicelevel of overallexpectationsalong 10- CATV .62
pointcontinuum(10 = expecteda lot, 1 = expectedvery little); (b)
ratingof extentof prechoiceanticipationalong 5-pointcontinuum(5 =
lookingforwarda lot, 1 = not looking forwardat all)
Disconfirma- DISCONF Averageof ratingsof the extentto which (a) productbenefits, advantages, AUTO .84
tion beliefsa and good points, (b) productproblems,disadvantages,and bad points, CATV
and (c) the productoverallwere seen as better/worsethanexpected,
along 7-pointcontinuum;developedby Oliver (1980); only measure(c)
used for CATV
of these constructsin the two field studies.
'Differencesin productcontextrequiredslightlydifferentoperationalizations
bMeasuresnot combinedbecauseof weakly negativecorrelation(n = -.19, p < .05).

ministered during a single interview, a check was made
on the seriousness of potential common methods vari-
ance. In the CATV pilot study the affective measures
were assessed on two separate occasions, the first time
alone and the second time in conjunction with the sat-
isfaction measures. The multiple correlations between
satisfaction and the two sets of affect measures do not
differ significantly (F73,73= 1.072; p > .05), indicating
that the inflation in relationships due to this source of
methods variance is minimal.

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
264 JOURNAL
OF MARKETING AUGUST1987
RESEARCH,

Finally, a test for order effects in the sequence of mea- 8.30, 7 d.f., p = .305; GFI = .981. Though in the case
sure administrationwas made among subsamples (N = of automobiles the chi squaretest suggests the two-factor
20) of respondents in both final field studies, who were model leaves unexplaineda statisticallysignificant amount
given the DES-II subscales prior to other measures in of the covariationamong the DES-II subscales, the model
lieu of the opposite ordering as used among the rest of GFI of .960 indicates that relatively little variation of
the respondents. No significant differences were found practical import remains to be explained. Therefore, the
between the two order conditions in affect, satisfaction, two-factor model can be considered a plausible repre-
complaining, or word-of-mouth measures (all F-statis- sentation of the interrelations among the DES-II affect
tics p > .10). measures in the product/consumption contexts studied.
Parameterestimates for the two-factor model are re-
RESULTS ported in Table 4, as well as estimates of construct re-
liability and shared indicator variance. All factor load-
DES-II Subscales ings are statistically significant and in the expected
Table 2 indicates the relative frequency with which direction in both product categories. The positive and
each type of postpurchase affect was reported for auto- negative affect factors are uncorrelated for CATV, but
mobiles and CATV. Joy and interest are more frequent inversely related for automobiles (p < .001). Thus H1
for automobiles than for CATV (t = 6.12 and 2.81, can be accepted for both automobiles and CATV, though
p < .01), whereas anger and disgust are more frequent the independence of the factors appears to vary by prod-
for CATV than for autos (t = 4.83 and 6.78, p < .01). uct category.
Despite these differences, the relationships between the
six classes of affect appear broadly similar within the Relationships to Postpurchase Behavior
two product categories. An exception is surprise, which Hypothesized relationships between affective response
correlatesmore highly with the affect measuresfor CATV dimensions and satisfaction appraisal, complaint behav-
than for automobiles. ior, and word-of-mouth activity were evaluated by hi-
erarchicalOLS regressions. Factor scores (computed by
Factor Structure of Affective Response the regression method) from the two-factor confirmatory
To examine the validity of the hypothesized dimen- models served as indicators of positive and negative af-
sional structure of product- and consumption-based af-
fective response, confirmatory factor analysis was per-
formed on the six DES-II subscales. Tests were made of Table 4
both one- and two-factor models corresponding to the DES-IISUBSCALE
FACTOR TWO-FACTOR
LOADINGS:
unidimensional and bidimensional conceptualizations of MODELSa
affective response. Because the covariance structures of
the affect measures varied significantly by product cat- Automobiles CATV
egory (X2 = 124.59, 21 d.f., p < .000), separate con- DES-II Positive Negative Positive Negative
firmatory analyses were conducted. subscale affect affect affct affect
aect
The single-factor model of affective response does not Joy .888 .000 .710 .000
have a suitable fit to the original covariance matrix in t 13.483b 10.758b
each product category (for automobiles, x2 = 315.71, 9 Intearest .761 .000 .700 .000
t 11.377b 10.040b
d.f., p < .000; for CATV, X2 = 182.74, 9 d.f., p < Antger .000 .622 .000 .774
.000). In both instances the Joreskog-Sorbom (1986) t 11.629b 11.003b
goodness-of-fit index indicates that substantial unex- Dis gust .000 .578 .000 .608
plained variation remains. The null hypothesis of a un- t 13.579b 9.243b
idimensional model of affective response structurethere- Contempt .000 .614 .000 .569
t 15.102b 10.137"
fore is rejected. Surprise .573 .313 .592 .260
Next, a simple two-factor model was tested in which t 6.614b 3.859" 9.213b 4.432b
joy and interestloaded on a positive affect factor whereas
Factor
anger, disgust, and contempt loaded on an independent correlation
(possibly correlated) negative affect factor. Surprise was -.379 .002
assumed to load on both factors because of its theoretical t 4.952b .016
properties. To identify the model, the variances of the
common factors were fixed to 1.0. This model achieved Construct
a large and significant improvement in goodness of fit reliability .784 .769 .725 .762
Shared indicator
over the one-factor model (X2iff = 295.61, 2 d.f., p < variance .555 .468 .467 .472
.000 for automobiles; X2ff = 174.40, 2 d.f., p < .001
'All parameters based on LISREL VI maximum likelihood esti-
for CATV). For automobiles, test statistics on the two- mation (Joreskog and Sorbom 1986); only standardized values are
factor model are X2 = 20.10, 7 d.f., p = .005; GFI = shown; zero values fixed.
.960. For CATV, the corresponding statistics are X2 = bp < .001.

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RESPONSES
AFFECTIVE
PRODUCT/CONSUMPTION-BASED 265

fective response. Table 5 gives the estimated regression
coefficients and Table 2 indicates the simple zero-order
correlations among the regression model variables.
Note first the effects of affective responses alone. Ta-
ble 5 indicates that the multiple correlations in equations
la, lb, 4, and 10 are all statistically significant and at
least moderate in size. The magnitude of the multiple
R's is greatest for the prediction of satisfaction and least
for complaint behavior. Moreover, the multiple R's also
exceed the largest of the correlations between individual
affect factor scores and each criterion. Both positive and
negative affect regression coefficients in satisfaction
equations la and lb and WOM equation 10 are statis-
tically significant (p < .001). In complaint behavior
equation 4, only the negative affect factor has a signif-
icant coefficient, as expected. Thus, product/consump-
tion-based affect is linked to all three forms of postpur-
chase behavior as hypothesized: positive affect relates
directly to satisfaction appraisal (H2) and WOM activity
(H8) but not to complaint behavior (H6), whereas nega-
tive affect relates inversely to satisfaction (H3) and di-
rectly to complaint behavior (H5) and WOM (H8).
To what extent do positive and negative dimensions
of affective response add to the explanatory ability of
cognitive satisfaction determinants? Comparing equa-
tions 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b in Table 5, one sees that the
affective variablesadd significantlyto the predictivepower
of the cognitive expectation and disconfirmation belief
variables alone (F2,194 = 16.855, p < .001 for auto-
mobiles; F2,46 = 8.922, p < .001 for CATV). The af-
fective variables alone (equations la and lb) explain al-
most as much variance in satisfaction judgments as do

Table 5
OLSREGRESSIONS
OF SATISFACTION, COMPLAINT BEHAVIOR, AND WORD-OF-MOUTHTRANSMISSION
(beta with
coefficients significancelevels in parentheses)

Criterion Predictorvariables' Multiple

Product variable POS AFF NEG AFF EXP BEN EXP PRB EXP TOT DISCONF SAT COMPLN R N Equation
AUTO Satisfaction .435 -.296 .609 200 la
(.000) (.000)
CATV Satisfaction .365 -.323 .483 151 lb
(.000) (.000)
AUTO Satisfaction .321 .169 .511 .718 200 2a
(.000) (.001) (.000)
CATV Satisfaction .147 .565 .550 151 2b
(.039) (.000)
AUTO Satisfaction .172 -.209 .252 -.146 .387 .767 200 3a
(.002) (.000) (.000) (.002) (.000)
CATV Satisfaction .193 -.214 .102 .428 .605 151 3b
(.009) (.002) (.145) (.000)
CATV Complaining -.047 .324 .327 151 4
(.542) (.000)
CATV Complaining .118 .117 -.454 .514 151 5
(.126) (.020) (.000)
CATV Complaining -.082 -.301 .293 151 6
(.311) (.001)
CATV Complaining -.017 -.053 -.440 .514 151 7
(.819) (.558) (.000)
CATV Complaining .056 .259 -.059 -.257 .393 151 8
(.509) (.002) (.463) (.005)
CATV Complaining .137 .168 -.015 -.075 -.423 .518 151 9
(.090) (.030) (.837) (.413) (.000)
CATV Word-of-mouth .284 .315 .427 151 10
(.000) (.000)
CATV Word-of-mouth -.006 -.108 .107b 151 11
(.947) (.201)
CATV Word-of-mouth .024 .007 -.203 .200b 151 12
(.773) (.947) (.058)
CATV Word-of-mouth .379 .230 -.262 .485 151 13
(.000) (.003) (.002)
CATV Word-of-mouth .402 .220 .009 -.092 -.225 .491 151 14
(.000) (.005) (.906) (.325) (.015)
CATV Word-of-mouth .358 .199 -.183 .173 .507 151 15
(.000) (.011) (.042) (.038)
CATV Word-of-mouth .379 .192 .012 -.080 -.153 .168 .512 151 16
(.000) (.016) (.878) (.392) (.115) (.046)
aSeeTable 3 for constructs.
bp > .05.

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
266
the cognitive/semantic belief variables(equations2a and
2b).
The full regressionmodelof equations3a and 3b also
affordsa morerigoroustest of the affect-satisfaction hy-
pothesesH2, H3, and H4by holdingconstantthe effects
of the cognitive satisfactionantecedents.Both positive
andnegativeaffectdimensionsmaintaintheirsignificant
positive and negative coefficients, respectively,of ap-
proximately equalmagnitude.Disconllinationbeliefsalso
continueto relatedirectlyto satisfaction(p < .001). Ex-
pectationbeliefs are relatedsignificantlyto satisfaction
in the case of automobiles(expectedbenefits directly,
expectedproblemsinversely).ForCATV, the single ex-
pectationbelief measurefails to attainconventionalsta-
tisticalsignificance,despitethe correctsign. This find-
ing may reflectthe marginalreliabilityof the measure,
as noted previously.Overall, these findings strengthen
supportfor H2 and H3 and affirmthat the influenceof
affectivevariableson satisfactionis unmediated(H4).
As the hypothesizedrelationshipof negativeaffect to
complaintbehavior(H5)is supported,the next issue is
whetherthis linkageis director wholly mediatedvia sat-
isfactionjudgments.To test the possible mediatingrole
of satisfaction,the analysisof covariance(ANOCOVA)
approachwas employed (Batraand Ray 1986; Insko,
Turnbull,and Yandell 1974). This approachcompares
directand mediatedcausal models by enteringthe hy-
pothesizedmediatorinto the regressionequationas a
covariate.When satisfactionis introducedin this way,
the regressioncoefficientof negativeaffectdoes not drop
to nonsignificance,indicatingthat satisfactiondoes not
completelymediatethe affect-complainingrelationship.
Theseresultsare shownin Table 5, equation5. Hence,
negativeaffectappearsto influencecomplainingactivity
directly,independently of its indirecteffects throughsat-
isfaction,supportingH7.
As a furtherexplorationof the role of satisfactionin
mediatingcomplaintbehavior, equations6 and 7 ex-
aminethe relationship betweencognitiveexpectationand
disconfirmationbeliefs and complaintbehavior.Equa-
tion 6 reveals that disconfirmationbeliefs (but not ex-
pectationbeliefs) are negatively (p < .01) related to
complaining.However, its regressioncoefficient drops
to nonsignificancewhen satisfactionis enteredas a cov-
ariatein equation7. Thussatisfactionfully mediatesthe
effectsof disconfirmation beliefs on complaintbehavior.
This mediationalrole is uniqueto satisfactionand is not
sharedwith the affectivevariables.When the latterare
enteredinto the regressionof complainingon expecta-
tion and disconfirmation beliefs (equation8), disconfir-
mationretainsits significant(p < .01) effect.
Next, it is of interestto see whetherthe simple rela-
tionshipsbetweenproduct/consumption affectandWOM
transmissionsnoted before occur directly, as hypothe-
sized in H8, or are mediatedthroughsatisfactionjudg-
mentsand/or its cognitiveantecedents.First, however,
note fromequations11 and 12 thatthe lattercontribute
This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING AUGUST1987
RESEARCH,
littleto the explanationof WOM;neitherof the multiple
R values is significant(p > .05). By the ANOCOVA
approach,neithersatisfactionalone (equation 13) nor
satisfactionin conjunctionwith its cognitive belief an-
tecedents(equation14) eliminatesthe significanteffects
of the affectiveresponsevariables.Likewise, the intro-
ductionof the complaintbehaviorvariable,whetherwith
satisfactionalone (equation15) or togetherwith its cog-
nitive antecedents(equation16), has no impacton the
significance of the affectivevariablesin explainingWOM.
Thusthe affect-WOMlinkagescan be considereddirect
andunmediatedby the otherpostpurchasevariables.
Finally,the regressionmodelof equations14, 15, and
16 indicatesthat aftercontrollingfor the effects of af-
fective responses,satisfactionhas a modest inverse re-
lationshipand complaintbehaviora modestpositive re-
lationshipto extent of WOM transmissions.Hence the
relationshipsbetween satisfactionand WOM and be-
tween complaintbehaviorand WOM do not appearto
be the spuriousresultof theirjoint dependenceon post-
purchaseaffectiveresponses.
DISCUSSION
Themajorresultsof thisresearchon product-andcon-
sumption-based affectin two separateproductcategories
arethreefold.First,good andbad feelings representrel-
ativelyindependentdimensionsof affective responseto
productsin use. Second, reportsof such feelings relate
directly to product satisfactionjudgments, extent of
complaint behavior, and volume of word-of-mouth
transmissionin the postpurchaseperiod.Third,affective
responsesappearto accountfor significantincremental
variancebeyondextanttheoreticalexplanationsof these
postpurchase phenomena.
Dimensionality of Affective Response
Especiallynoteworthyis the relativeindependenceof
positiveandnegativeaffectiveresponsein postpurchase
processes.The two dimensionsof affect are completely
orthogonalin the case of CATVandonly modestlyneg-
atively relatedfor automobiles.Evidentlypleasant af-
fects in relationto product/consumption outcomes,such
asjoy, interest,andexcitement,do not necessarilyimply
the absenceof unpleasantaffectssuch as anger,disgust,
andcontempt.The resultsconfirmthe findingsof Abel-
son et al. (1982) for politicalcandidatesandquestionthe
assumptionof a single bipolar affective dimensionof
good-bad(e.g. Davitz 1969; Russell 1983). Dual uni-
polaraffectivedimensionsareparticularlyappropriate in
product/consumption contextsbecause they make pos-
sible a distinctionbetween ambivalenceand indiffer-
ence, which may not be infrequentreactionsin this do-
main.
Thoughaffecttaxonomies(e.g., Izard1977)assertthat
subjectivefeelings are organizedinto a finite set of dis-
tinctiveaffect categories,the resultshere indicatethata
 RESPONSES
AFFECTIVE
PRODUCT/CONSUMPTION-BASED
parsimonioustwo-dimensionalrepresentationmay suf-
fice for understandingpostpurchaseprocesses. Empiri-
cally, high covariationis observed among the interest
andjoy DES-II subscales, and similarlyamongthe an-
ger, disgust,andcontemptsubscales,raisingsome ques-
tion about the discriminantvalidity of the individual
measureswith respect to one anotherin product/con-
sumptioncontexts. However,this patternof resultsalso
could have occurredif severalaffects had been elicited
simultaneously,perhapsas a resultof a commonunder-
process(Izard1977).
lying cognitiveappraisal/attribution
Finally, it must be acknowledgedthat the two-factor
structureobservedhere and elsewhere (Abelson et al.
1982;Bradburn1969) mightsimplyreflectthe common
analyticalpracticeof aggregatingemotionalreportsacross
variedelicitingstimuliand/or circumstances.Furtherre-
searchon the dimensionalityof affective responsecon-
trollingfor variedproduct/consumption outcomeswould
be helpfulin evaluatingthis possibility.
Affect and Satisfaction Judgment
As hypothesized,both pleasantand unpleasantaffec-
tive responsesin the postpurchaseperiodare relatedto
satisfactionappraisal,approximatelyequally in magni-
tude and oppositelyin direction,in a strikinglysimilar
manneracrosstwo dissimilarproductcategories.More-
over, theserelationshipsarenot mediatedby expectation
and disconfirmationbeliefs. Hence, they suggest that
productsatisfactionjudgmentsare determinednot only
by ex post cognitive/semanticcomparisonprocessesas
typicallyassumed,but also by additionalprocesses in-
volvingthe retrievaland integrationof relevantproduct-
relatedaffectiveexperiences.
Thoughparalleling the findingsof Abelsonet al. (1982)
on the role of affect in the evaluationof political can-
didates,the presentstudy does not supportthe finding
thatpositiveaffect is the dominantinfluence.However,
the focal stimuli,affectivemeasures,and criterionvari-
ables all differbetweenthe studies. Also noteworthyis
the greateroverlapin the presentfindings between af-
fective reportsand cognitive/semanticbelief variables;
Abelson et al. (1982) found little redundancybetween
the two classes of measures.In this researchpositiveaf-
fective responsesshow substantialcovariationwith dis-
confirmation beliefs, thoughthe latterpresumablyreflect
"pure" semantic judgmentsostensiblyfree of affect. This
finding indicates either shared methods variance or a
common causal antecedent,such as the cognitive ap-
praisalprocesspostulatedto accountfor differentialaf-
fect elicitation.In either instance, perhapsgreatercre-
denceshouldbe givento the affectivereports;theirgreater
validityis suggestedby theirmore "primitive"andnaive
nature(Zajonc 1980) whereas disconfirmationbeliefs
appearto involve higherlevels of cognitiveprocessing.
Furtherstudy of the discriminantvalidity of disconfir-
mationbeliefs vis a vis affective responses clearly is
needed.
This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
267
Thoughthe findingsare consistentwith the hypothe-
sized causalsequenceof consumptionoutcome-- affect
- satisfaction,it must be acknowledgedthat the true
temporalorderingof this linkagecannotbe established
conclusivelyby meansof correlationalanalyses. Alter-
natively,positiveand negativeaffectiveresponsemight
resultfrom satisfactionappraisal.Weiner, Russell, and
Lerman(1979) have suggestedthe possibilityof inter-
play betweencognitivebeliefs and affective responses,
each evokingthe otherin a dynamicsequentialprocess.
Certainaffectsmightoccurearlyin the causalchainand
triggerappraisalof satisfaction,which in turnelicits ad-
ditional(anddifferent)affects, in turnmodifyinginitial
satisfactionappraisal.Furtherstudy is neededto disen-
tanglethese issues of causal sequence. At a minimum,
however, the affect -* satisfactionportion of the se-
quenceappearswell supportedby priorwork(Isen 1984;
Schwarzand Clore 1983).
A plausiblerival interpretationof these findings is
suggestedby the effects of affective state on cognitive
retrievalprocesses(Isen 1984). In this view, reportsof
pastexperiencesduringpostpurchaseprocessesmightbe
biasedsystematicallyin the directionof the affectivestate
at the time of reporting.As a result, the relationships
betweenpostpurchaseaffect, cognitivebeliefs, and sat-
isfactioncould be overstatedsubstantially.
Affect and Postpurchase Communications
Though the role of product/consumptionaffect in
postpurchase communications has been suspected,direct
empirical evidence heretoforehas been lacking. Both
positive and negative dimensions of affect are relatedto
the amountof word-of-mouthtransmitted.Moreover,
consumersappearmore likely to voice their product/
consumptionexperiencesto otherconsumersto the ex-
tentthatthose experiencesinvolve notableaffectiveele-
ments-good or bad-independently of their overall
judgmentsof satisfactionand/or seller-directedcom-
plaintactions. Satisfactionactuallyshows a weak neg-
ative relationshipto word-of-mouthonce the affective
influenceshave been partialledout, suggestingit is the
affectthatstimulatesthe "webof word-of-mouth" rather
thansatisfactionper se, therebyqualifyingconventional
marketingwisdom.
Seller-directedcomplaintbehavior also appearsdi-
rectlyrelatedto negativepostpurchaseaffects involving
anger,disgust, and contempt.However,these variables
exert some effect directlyon complaintbehavior, and
productsatisfactiondoes not fully mediatethe relation-
ship.Thuseven satisfiedconsumerswill complainif often
enoughangered,disgusted,or contemptuousin connec-
tion with consumptionof a particularproduct/service.
The absenceof any relationshipbetweenpositive affect
and complainingsuggests that affects of differentva-
lences are not "nettedout" againsteach otherin a com-
pensatoryway in the productionof such behavior.
Theforegoingrelationshipsareparticularlysignificant
268
because they position product/consumption affective re-
sponses as a potentially pervasive influence throughout
the postpurchase period, perhaps rivaling satisfaction as
a central mediating construct. This role sharply contrasts
with that of expectation and disconfirmation belief vari-
ables, whose contribution in the postpurchase period ap-
pears limited to determining satisfaction.
Implications
The findings have implications for future research,
methodology, and management practice. Further study
of product/consumption affect is warranted,both to con-
firm the results of this exploratory inquiry and to ex-
amine the role of such affect in other important post-
purchase processes. Especially worthy of attention are
the cognitive appraisal processes underlying differential
affect elicitation. Also importantare issues of causal se-
quence, particularly the linkages between affective re-
sponses and specific consumption outcomes and/or
product attributes.
For methodology, the results suggest that the DES-II
measurement approach can be fruitfully employed in
studying affect in additional research contexts. Adver-
tising researchers in particular should find its compre-
hensive taxonomic framework useful in more fully ex-
ploring the range of emotional experiences evoked by
advertising. Extant research has been limited to ad hoc
measures of affective response not grounded explicitly
in theory (e.g., Schlinger 1979), or has addressed only
selected regions of the affective space, such as warmth
(Aaker, Stayman, and Hagerty 1985) or surgency/ela-
tion/vigor/activation and social affection (Batra and Ray
1986).
Finally, the results suggest several interesting impli-
cations for management consideration that should be
verified through future research. Most notably, the sub-
stantial role of positive affect in product satisfaction
judgmentsraises the possibility that customerloyalty could
be enhanced by stimulating consumers' affective re-
sponses in the postpurchase period. Tranformationalad-
vertising (Puto and Wells 1984), which seeks to trans-
form product ownership and consumption into a more
affectively significant experience, affords an interesting
opportunityfor accomplishing this enhancement through
market communications. Such efforts also might be ap-
propriatefor eliciting the positive affect central to stim-
ulating the "web of word-of-mouth." Though clearly a
significant purchase influence, word-of-mouth by con-
sumers typically has been considered beyond the direct
control of marketers. Regardless of success in these en-
deavors, however, marketers cannot assume that en-
hancing positive affect in the postpurchase period will
correspondinglyreduce consumer complaints; rather, the
independence of positive and negative affect dimensions
suggests that effective channels of redress still will be
needed to ensure high levels of "ultimate"customer sat-
isfaction.
This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL
OF MARKETING AUGUST1987
RESEARCH,
REFERENCES
Aaker,DavidA., DouglasM. Stayman,andMichaelR. Hag-
erty(1985), "Warmthin Advertising:Measurement,Impact
andSequenceEffects,"Journalof ConsumerResearch, 12
(March),365-81.
Abelson,RobertP., DonaldR. Kinder,MarkD. Peters, and
SusanT. Fiske (1982), "Affectiveand SemanticCompo-
nentsin PoliticalPersonPerception,"Journalof Personality
and Social Psychology,42 (April), 619-30.
Allport,Gordonand Leo Postman(1947), ThePsychologyof
Rumor.New York:Holt, Rinehartand Winston,Inc.
Andrews,FrankM. and StevenB. Withey(1976), Social In-
dicatorsof Well-Being.New York:PlenumPress.
Arndt,Johan(1967), "TheRole of ProductRelatedConver-
sationsin the Diffusionof a New Product,"Journalof Mar-
ketingResearch,4 (August),291-5.
Arnold,MagdaB. (1960), Emotionsand Personality,Volume
1: PsychologicalAspects. New York:ColumbiaUniversity
Press.
Bartlett,EdwardS. and CarrollE. Izard(1972), "A Dimen-
sionalandDiscreteEmotionsInvestigationof the Subjective
Experienceof Emotion,"in Patternsof Emotions:A New
Analysisof Anxietyand Depression, CarrollE. Izard, ed.
New York:AcademicPress, Inc., 129-73.
Batra, Rajeev and Michael L. Ray (1986), "Affective Re-
sponsesMediatingAcceptanceof Advertising,"Journalof
ConsumerResearch, 13 (September),234-49.
Bearden,William 0. and Jesse E. Teel (1983), "Selected
Determinantsof Consumer Satisfaction and Complaint
Reports,"Journal of MarketingResearch, 20 (February),
21-8.
Bettman,JamesR. (1979), An InformationProcessingTheory
of ConsumerChoice. Reading,MA: Addison-WesleyPub-
lishingCompany.
Bloch, Peter H. (1981), "An ExplorationInto the Scaling
of Consumers'Involvementwith a Product Class," in
Advancesin ConsumerResearch,Vol. 8, KentB. Monroe,
ed. Ann Arbor,MI: Associationfor ConsumerResearch,
61-5.
Bradbur, NormanM. (1969), TheStructureof Psychological
Well-Being.Chicago:Aldine PublishingCompany.
Crowne,D. and D. Marlowe(1964), The ApprovalMotive.
New York:JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.
Daly, E. M., W. J. Lancee,andJ. Polivy (1983), "A Conical
Modelfor the Taxonomyof EmotionalExperience,"Jour-
nal of PersonalityandSocialPsychology,45 (August),443-
57.
Davitz,JoelR. (1969), TheLanguageof Emotions.New York:
AcademicPress, Inc.
Day, RalphL. (1984), "ModellingChoices Among Alterna-
tive Responsesto Dissatisfaction,"in Advances in Con-
sumerResearch,Vol. 11, ThomasC. Kinnear,ed. Ann Ar-
bor, MI: Associationfor ConsumerResearch,496-9.
Dichter,ErnestA. (1966), "HowWordof MouthAdvertising
Works,"HarvardBusinessReview,44 (November-Decem-
ber), 147-57.
Donovan,RobertJ. and JohnR. Rossiter(1982), "StoreAt-
mosphere:An Environmental PsychologyApproach,"Jour-
nal of Retailing,58 (Spring),34-57.
Ekman,Paul, WallaceV. Friesen,and SusanAncoli (1980),
"FacialSigns of EmotionalExperience,"Journal of Per-
sonalityand Social Psychology,39 (December),1125-34.
 RESPONSES
AFFECTIVE
PRODUCT/CONSUMPTION-BASED
, and PhoebeEllsworth(1982), "WhatEmo-
tion Categoriesor DimensionsCan ObserversJudgeFrom
Facial Behavior?" in Emotion in the Human Face, 2nd ed.,
P. Ekman,ed. Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,
39-55.
Engel, JamesF., RobertJ. Kergerreis,and Roger D. Black-
well (1969), "Wordof MouthCommunicationby the In-
novator," Journal of Marketing, 33 (July), 15-19.
Folkes, Valerie S. (1984), "ConsumerReactionsto Product
Failure:An AttributionalApproach,"Journalof Consumer
Research, 10 (March),398-409.
Forell, ClaesandRobertA. Westbrook(1984), "TheVicious
Circleof ConsumerComplaints,"Journalof Marketing,48
(Summer),68-78.
Gardner,MerylP. (1985), "ConsumerMoodStates:A Critical
Review," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December),
281-300.
Hoffman,MartinL. (1986), "Affect, Cognition, and Moti-
vation," in Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foun-
dations of Social Behavior, R. M. Sorrentino and E. T. Hig-
gins, eds. New York:GuilfordPress, 244-80.
Holbrook,MorrisB., RobertW. Chestnut,TerenceA. Oliva,
andEric A. Greenleaf(1984), "Playas a ConsumptionEx-
perience:The Roles of Emotion,Performanceand Person-
ality in the Enjoyment of Games," Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 11 (September),728-39.
andElizabethC. Hirschman(1982), "TheExperiential
Aspectsof Consumption: ConsumerFantasies,Feelingsand
Fun," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 132-
40.
Holmes,JohnD. andJohnD. Lett(1977), "ProductSampling
and Word of Mouth," Journal of Advertising Research, 17
(October),35-9.
Howard,JohnA. andJagdishN. Sheth(1969), TheTheoryof
BuyerBehavior.New York:JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.
Hunt,,H. Keith (1977), "CS/D: Overview and FutureRe-
search Directions," in Conceptualization and Measurement
of ConsumerSatisfaction and Dissatisfaction, H. Keith Hunt,
ed. Cambridge,MA: MarketingScience Institute,455-88.
Insko,ChesterA., W. Turbull, and B. Yandell(1974), "Fa-
cilitativeand InhibitingEffects of Distractionon Attitude
Change."Sociometry,34, 508-28.
Isen, Alice M. (1984), "TowardUnderstandingthe Role of
Affect in Cognition," in Handbook of Social Cognition, R.
Wyer and T. Srull, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum
Associates, 179-236.
Izard,CarrollE. (1977), HumanEmotion.New York:Plenum
Press.
Jacoby, Jacob and James L. Jaccard(1981), "The Sources,
MeaningandValidityof ConsumerComplaintBehavior:A
PsychologicalAnalysis,"Journalof Retailing,57 (Fall), 4-
24.
J6reskog,KarlG. andDag Sorbom(1986), LISRELVI:Anal-
ysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of
MaximumLikelihood,Mooresville,IN: ScientificSoftware,
Inc.
Krishnan,S. andValerieA. Valle (1979), "DissatisfactionAt-
tributionsandConsumerComplaintBehavior,"Advancesin
ConsumerResearch, Vol. 6, William L. Wilkie, ed. Ann
Arbor,MI: Associationfor ConsumerResearch,445-9.
LaBarbera,PriscillaA. and DavidMazursky(1983), "A Lon-
gitudinalAssessmentof ConsumerSatisfaction/Dissatisfac-
tion:The DynamicNatureof the CognitiveProcess,"Jour-
This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
269
nal of Marketing Research, 20 (November), 393-404.
Lazarus,RobertS., A. D. Kanner,and S. Folkman(1980),
"Emotions:A Cognitive PhenomenologicalAnalysis," in
Emotion: Theory, Research and Experience: Vol. 1, Themes
of Emotion,R. PlutchikandH. Kellerman,eds. New York:
AcademicPress, Inc., 189-217.
McGuire,William J. (1974), "PsychologicalMotives and
Communication Gratification,"in The Uses of Mass Com-
munications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Re-
search, J. F. Blumlerand E. J. Katz, eds. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications,Inc., 106-7.
McHugo,Gregory,Craig Smith, and John Lanzetta(1982),
"TheStructureof Self-Reportsas EmotionalResponsesto
Film Segments," Motivation and Emotion, 6, 365-85.
Oliver,RichardL. (1980), "A CognitiveModel of the Ante-
cedentsandConsequencesof SatisfactionDecisions,"Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 17 (November), 460-9.
Peterson,RobertA., WayneD. Hoyer, and WilliamR. Wil-
son, eds. (1986), The Role of Affect in Consumer Behavior:
Emerging Theories and Applications. Lexington, MA: D.
C. Heathand Company.
Plutchik, Robert (1980), Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Syn-
thesis. New York:Harper& Row Publishers,Inc.
Puto, ChristopherP. and William D. Wells (1984), "Infor-
mationaland Transformational Advertising:The Differing
Effects of Time," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
11, ThomasC. Kinnear,ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association
for ConsumerResearch,849-67.
Richins,MarshaL. (1983), "NegativeWordof Mouthby Dis-
satisfiedConsumers:A Pilot Study,"Journalof Marketing,
47 (Winter),68-78.
Robinson, John A. (1976), "Sampling Autobiographical
Memory," Cognitive Psychology, 8 (October), 578-95.
(1980), "AffectandRetrievalof PersonalMemories,"
Motivation and Emotion, 4 (June), 149-74.
Aspectsof the Human
Russell,JamesA. (1983), "Pancultural
ConceptualOrganizationof Emotions,"Journalof Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 45 (June), 1281-8.
Scherer,KlausR. (1982), "Emotionas Process:Function,Or-
igin and Regulation," Social Science Information, 21 (415),
555-70.
Schlinger,Mary Jane (1979), "A Profile of Responses to
Commercials," Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (April),
37-46.
Schwarz,Norbertand GeraldL. Clore (1983), "Mood,Mis-
attribution,andJudgementsof Well-Being:Informativeand
DirectiveFunctionsof Affective States," Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 45 (September), 513-23.
Smith, CraigA. and Phoebe C. Ellsworth(1985), "Patterns
of CognitiveAppraisalin Emotion,"Journalof Personality
and Social Psychology, 48 (April), 813-38.
Smith, Elliott R. and James R. Kluegel (1982), "Cognitive
and Social Bases of EmotionalExperience:Outcome, At-
tribution, and Affect," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,43 (June), 1129-41.
TARP/TechnicalAssistanceResearchPrograms(1981), Mea-
suring the Grapevine-Consumer Response and Word-of-
Mouth,Washington,DC.
Tomkins,Sylvan S. (1980), "Affectas Amplification:Some
Modificationsin Theory," in Emotion: Theory, Research and
Experience,R. PlutchikandH. Kellerman,eds. New York:
AcademicPress, Inc.
Waldfogel, Samuel (1948), "The Frequencyand Affective
270 JOURNAL
OF MARKETING AUGUST1987
RESEARCH,

Characterof ChildhoodMemories,"PsychologicalMono- texts," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37

graphs: General and Applied, 62 (4), Whole No. 291, 1-
39.
Weinberg,Peterand WolfgangGottwald(1982), "Impulsive
ConsumerBuying as a Result of Emotions,"Journal of
Business Research, 10 (March), 43-57.
Weiner,Bernard,DanRussell,andDavidLerman(1979), "The
Cognition-EmotionProcess in Achievement-RelatedCon-
(July), 1211-20.
Westbrook,RobertA. (1980), "Intrapersonal
Affective Influ-
ences Upon ConsumerSatisfaction,"Journalof Consumer
Research, 7 (June), 49-54.
Zajonc,RobertB. (1980), "FeelingandThinking:Preferences
Need No Inferences," American Psychologist, 35 (Febru-
ary), 151-75.

World
names
Becausemostwesternlanguagesderivefroma singlesource
(Indo-European), it is possibleto construct'worldnames"'..
productand companynameswhich are properlymeaningfulin
mostwesternnationsandJapan.(Roughly10%of urbanJapanese
is derivedfromEnglish.)
At NameLab,weVemade such worldnamesasAcura,
CognosandSentraby constructionallinguistics.
Theresultof a NameLabprojectis a reportpresentingand
analyzingtrademark-cleared nameswhichexpressyourmarketing
identitypreciselyand powerfully. Wequotecosts accuratelyin
advanceand completemostprojectswithinfourweeks.
Foran informationpacket,contactNameLabInc.,
711MarinaBlvd.,SanFrancisco,CA94123,415-563-1639.

NAMELAB"

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:52:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions