A Study of the Relationships
Between Cognitive Appraisals
and Consumption Emotions
Prashanth U. Nyer
Chapman University
While emotions have been shown to be significant deter-
minants of various consumer behaviors, the antecedents
of these emotions have not received much attention in the
marketing literature. The current research examines a
cognitive model of emotion and uses an experiment to
show that the appraisals of goal relevance, goal congru-
ence, and coping potential are determinants of consump-
tion emotions such as anger, sadness, and joy/satisfaction.
These emotions are also shown to be determinants of
postconsumption behaviors such as word-of-mouth inten-
tions.
EMOTIONS
Research has established that emotions greatly affect
various aspects of marketing. Burke and Edell (1989; Edell
and Burke 1987) have shown that feelings evoked by ads
contribute significantly to predictions of AAd and AB, that
the effect of feelings occurs in addition to the effect of
judgments about the advertisement's characteristics, and
that this influence of feelings differs for the different
dimensions of feelings. Similarly, Holbrook and Batra
(1987) found that emotional responses to ads mediate the
effect of ad content on AAd,and that AAdand the emotional
responses partially mediate the effect of ad content on AB.
Affective responses have been shown to be able to influ-
ence cognitive processes such as evaluation, recall, and
judgment (Gardner 1985). Others have examined the role
of affective responses on consumption behavior (e.g., Hol-
brook and Hirschman 1982; Holbrook, O'Shaughnessy,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Volume 25, No. 4, pages 296-304.
Copyright 9 1997 by Academy of Marketing Science.
and Bell 1990). Westbrook (1987) found consumption
emotions to be significant predictors of complaining be-
havior and word-of-mouth transmission. It is thus clear
that emotions have a significant influence on various
aspects of consumer behavior. But what causes these
emotions?
Emotions as the Consequence
of Cognitive Appraisal
There are diverse opinions as to what causes emotions.
Arnold (1960) proposed that emotions arise when events
are appraised as being harmful or beneficial, and different
emotions arise because events are appraised in different
ways. Lazarus (1991) asserted that emotions occur as a
result of the cognitive appraisal of the person- environment
situation; according to him, cognitive appraisal is both
necessary and sufficient for the formation of emotions
(p. 177). Frijda (1986, 1993), Kemper (1978), Ortony,
Clore, and Collins (1988), and Scherer (1984, 1993) have
proposed detailed and comprehensive sets of appraisals to
explain the formation of different emotions. The idea that
emotions are caused by appraisals has a long history that
goes back to Aristotle, Descartes, and Spinoza.
Other researchers, such as Zajonc and Izard, believe
that while cognitions may be a sufficient cause for emo-
tions, cognitions may not be necessary for the formation
of emotions. They object to the central role assigned to
cognitions in something as immediate as emotional reac-
tions and claim that affective arousal can be triggered
without any evaluative processing at all (Izard 1993;
Zajonc 1980, 1984). Izard (1993) proposed that although
information processing is involved in all cases of emotion,
the information processing that generates emotion could
be noncognitive.
While the debate over the necessity of cognitions for
the formation of emotions continues, it should be noted
that from a practical perspective, the cognitive models

have the advantage of specifying the antecedents of the
emotions and thus have predictive capability. One should
also bear in mind that the ongoing debate is about whether
appraisals are necessary for the formation of emotions. The
proposition that certain appraisals are sufficient to cause
emotions is widely accepted.
Cognitive Models of Emotions
Although philosophers going back to Aristotle have
described situatitJns that are likely to elicit various emo-
tions, a concerted effort to study the cognitive antecedents
of emotions did not take place until relatively recently.
Lazarus (1974) suggested that emotions are the outcomes
of the cognitive appraisal of an event in terms of the event's
significance for the individual's well-being (primary ap-
praisal) and in terms of the available potential to cope with
the event (secondary appraisal). It is neither the charac-
teristics of the event nor the stimulus that determines the
emotional response; rather, it is the subjective appraisal of
the stimulus in the context of the individual's needs and
coping potential that determines the emotional responses.
Although termed cognitive, these appraisals need not in-
volve conscious processing. Omdahl (1995) provides a
review of various cognitive models of emotion.
Of the many cognitive models of emotion, the one
proposed by Lazarus (1991) most clearly specifies the
relationship between the appraisals and the resulting emo-
tions. According to Lazarus, an individual's appraisal of a
situation depends on conditions both internal (e.g., person-
ality, beliefs, goals) and external (e.g., product perform-
ance, responses of other people). The cognitive appraisal
of the situation leads to a subjective experience (affect),
action tendencies (e.g., the urge to attack when angry), and
physiological responses (e.g., increased heartbeat, facial
expressions). The combination of these three responses
determine which emotions are evoked.
Coping mechanisms are the psychological and behav-
ioral actions undertaken by the individual to manage the
demands of the emotion-evoking situation. While coping
behavior is influenced by both emotion and appraisals (for
example, an unhappy customer may decide not to com-
plain after thinking of all the trouble he has to go through
to complain), coping in turn can change subsequent ap-
praisals and hence subsequent emotions. Thus, a consumer
who is very unhappy with the performance of his 38-
month-old car may comfort himself by rationalizing that
most 38-month-old cars perform equally poorly. This cop-
ing process (the rationalization) changes the person-envi-
ronment situation and in turn results in a reduced level of
unhappiness.
Components of Appraisal
Many cognitive appraisal components have been sug-
gested by the various proponents of cognitive models of
emotion. Goal relevance, also known as goal significance
(Scherer 1984), is not unlike the very similar concept of
Nyer/ APPRAISALSAND EMOTIONS 297
personal involvement (e.g., Petty and Cacioppo 1981;
Richins and Bloch 1986; Zaichkowsky 1985). It indicates
the extent to which an event or an outcome is personally
relevant to the individual. The more goal relevant a situ-
ation, the stronger the consequent emotion is likely to be.
Goal congruence--also known as outcome desirability
(Roseman 1984), intrinsic pleasantness (Scherer 1984),
and pleasantness (Smith and EUsworth 1985)--indicates
the extent to which an event or an outcome is congruent or
incongruent with an individual's wants or desires. If an
event is perceived as being desirable (i.e., congruent with
the goals), then positive emotions (e.g., joy, pride) could
occur, and if the event is perceived as being undesirable,
negative emotions (e.g., anger, sadness) could occur. Attri-
bution (Roseman 1984), also known as responsibility and
control (Smith and Ellsworth 1985), can be internal
(blame/credit oneself) or external (blame/credit someone
else). A person is blamed or credited only if he or she is
perceived as being responsible and being in control over
the event or outcome. Coping potential (Scherer 1984)
reflects an evaluation by the individual of the potential for
and the consequences of engaging in a coping activity
(e.g., a restaurant patron who finds the food to be unpalat-
able may not complain to the waiter if he believes that
complaining might result in his attracting unwanted atten-
tion). Coping potential is an appraisal that has implications
for marketers because some of the coping mechanisms that
could be used by consumers include product return, com-
plaint behavior, word of mouth, and repurchase intention.
Coping potential is an appraisal that influences the nature
and the intensity of the coping mechanisms used.
HYPOTHESES
As discussed earlier, goal-congruent situations lead to
positive emotions, and goal-incongruent conditions lead to
negative emotions. Further, the more goal relevant a situ-
ation is, the more intense the evoked emotion will be. Thus,
subjects under conditions of high goal relevance and high
goal congruence will experience higher levels of positive
emotions than the other subjects; conversely, subjects un-
der conditions of high goal relevance and low goal congru-
ence will experience higher levels of negative emotions
than the other subjects.
I-I1: A significant Relevance x Congruence interaction
will exist such that individuals in the high relevance-
high congruence condition will experience signifi-
cantly higher levels of positive emotions, and
individuals in the high relevance-low congruence
condition will experience significantly higher levels
of negative emotions.
It was mentioned earlier how anger is facilitated when
the coping potential for attack is favorable. Complaining
is a coping mechanism similar to attack in that both give
angry individuals a chance to cope with their anger. There-
298 JOURNALOF THEACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE
fore, anger will be facilitated in those angry consumers
who are given a chance to comment or complain about the
source of their anger. Since the coping mechanism used in
this experiment is complaining behavior--a coping
mechanism associated with anger---coping potential is not
expected to have any effect on the other emotions. This
leads to the second hypothesis:
I-I2: A significant Relevance x Congruence x Coping
Potential interaction for anger wiJl exist such that
individuals who experience high goal relevance, low
goal congruence, and high coping potential will
experience significantly higher levels of anger than
the individuals in the other conditions.
In their research on customer satisfaction, Oliver and
Westbrook have argued that satisfaction co-occurs with
consumption emotion and that postconsumption behaviors
are best modeled using satisfaction, as well as the other
consumption emotions, as antecedents of behavior (Oliver
1989; Westbrook 1987; Westbrook and Oliver 1991). Dif-
ferent emotions call for very different coping strategies;
hence, different emotions tend to be associated with dif-
ferent patterns of behavior. Satisfaction by itself will be
unable to adequately differentiate among the various post-
consumption behaviors. Thus, two equally dissatisfied
customers, one experiencing anger and the other experi-
encing sadness, can be expected to behave very differently.
The angry individual may complain and engage in nega-
tive word of mouth; the sad individual is less likely to do
so. Thus, postconsumption behaviors are best modeled by
using a range of consumption emotions.
H3: The emotions anger, sadness, joy, and satisfaction
will be significant predictors of intention to engage
in word of mouth.
The final hypothesis brings together the preceding three
hypotheses. Hypotheses 1 and 2 claim that cognitive ap-
praisals influence emotions, and Hypothesis 3 argues that
these emotions are significant predictors of word-of-
mouth intentions. But do the emotions mediate the effects
that cognitive appraisals have on word-of-mouth intentions?
H4: The effects of cognitive appraisals on behaviors such
as the intention to engage in word of mouth are
mediated by the emotions anger, sadness, joy, and
satisfaction.
METHODOLOGY
Overview
The subjects were 164 students recruited from a large
Midwestern university. The subjects participated voluntar-
ily in return for a payment of $10 and a chance to win a
grand prize of $200. Subjects were mostly nonbusiness
FALL1997
undergraduates. They were recruited by two associates
from several locations on campus. No more than eight
subjects were recruited from any one location.
The nature of the experiment and the complexity of the
required equipment meant that the experiment could be
administered to only one subject at a time. Subjects were
instructed to go to a designated room at the time of their
appointment. All instructions and manipulations were put
down on paper to keep the instructions and manipulations
standardized across the 164 experimental sessions.
Design and Procedure
Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the eight
cells in the 2 (high and low goal relevance) x 2 (high and
low goal congruence) x 2 (high and low coping potential)
full-factorial experimental design.
Subjects were seated in front of an IBM compatible
computer and were informed that they would be evaluating
the computer system with the help of a benchmark soft-
ware. The cover story was that the computer system was
one of the few being considered for procurement for the
computer labs, and the university was interested in getting
feedback from the students. Subjects were then handed a
letter from the university that repeated the cover story and
also included the manipulation of goal relevance. Subjects
in the high goal relevance condition were informed that the
purchase of the new computer systems would be funded
through student tuition and that the new systems would be
installed in 2 months. Subjects in the low goal relevance
condition were merely told that the new systems would not
be available for use for at least 2 years. All subjects were
then asked to complete a questionnaire containing meas-
ures of goal relevance.
Subjects were then instructed on how to run and inter-
pret the benchmark test. The benchmark test was designed
to look and sound like a real computer benchmark test.
Unknown to the subjects, the results of the benchmark tests
were predetermined depending on the experimental group
to which the subjects were assigned. Thus, subjects in the
high goal congruence condition were informed by the
benchmark program that the computer's performance was
very high, whereas subjects in the low goal congruence
condition found the performance to be relatively low. The
results of the benchmark test were displayed both graphi-
cally and numerically.
Subjects then filled out a questionnaire that included the
measures of goal congruence and the manipulation of
coping potential. Subjects in the high coping potential
condition were informed that they would be given an
opportunity to express any comments, compliments, or
complaints they might have about the computer system.
Subjects in the low coping potential condition were told
that they would be asked to write a brief description of their
prior experience with computers (a filler task).
Finally, subjects were handed a third questionnaire that
included the measures of emotions and intention to engage
in word of mouth.

Measures
The variables used in this study fall into three catego-
ries: measures of emotion, measures of postconsumption
behavior (intention to engage in word of mouth), and
manipulation checks for the independent variables. All
constructs were measured with at least two indicators, with
most constructs having at least three measures each. Also
included in the questionnaires were measures of perceived
performance of the computer system.
The four emotions measured in this study were anger,
joy, sadness, and satisfaction. Satisfaction has been con-
ceptualized as an emotional response to consumption ex-
perience (Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins 1987; Day 1983;
Sirgy 1984). The psychology literature is replete with
studies in which researchers have included satisfaction
along with other emotional terms such as happiness and
anger in their treatments of emotion (Bagozzi 1992; Clore,
Ortony, and Foss 1987; Plutchik 1980; Russell 1980; Wat-
son and Tellegen 1985). Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, and
O'Connor (1987) found satisfaction to be one of the many
emotion words representing joy.
Most of the measures of the emotional constructs were
based on the emotional terms used in Shaver et al. (1987).
A few of the indicators were based on the measures used
by Holbrook and Batra (1987).
Anger was measured using scales anchored on enraged,
furious, irritated, angry, and annoyed. Joy was measured
using joyful, happy, delighted, glad, and pleased. Sadness
used the scales gloomy, distressed, sorrowful, sad, and
dejected. The emotions were measured by asking subjects
to indicate the extent to which they experienced each of
these feelings. As mentioned earlier, subjects also evalu-
ated the computer's performance. Subsequent analysis
showed that these product performance evaluations and
the self-reported emotional reactions were distinct con-
structs.
These emotion variables were measured on 7-point
unipolar scales (e.g., 1 = not at all happy, 7 = very much
happy). Unipolar scales were chosen over bipolar scales
because of the difficulty in identifying emotional opposites
(Aaker, Stayman, and Hagerty 1986). Cattell (1960) con-
cluded that emotions are best viewed as unipolar con-
structs.
Satisfaction was measured using three unipolar scales
anchored on the words satisfied, dissatisfied, and con-
tented. The contented scale was based on Oliver's (1989)
suggestion that contentment is a satisfaction prototype.
RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
The manipulation of goal relevance was tested using the
two questions "How important is it to you that the comput-
ers to be procured by the university be of the highest
quality?" and "Do you care if the computers that are to be
Nyer/ APPRAISALSAND EMOTIONS 299
purchased by the university have superior performance or
not?" The manipulation of goal congruence was tested
using two questions about the performance of the comput-
ers. The scales for the responses went from very undesir-
able to very desirable for the first question and from much
worse than what ! had hopedfor to much better than what
I had hoped for for the second question. Questions about
whether the subjects were given an opportunity to com-
plain, compliment, or otherwise comment on the perform-
ance of the computers constituted the manipulation check
for coping potential. All manipulation check measures
used 7-point scales. All three manipulations were signifi-
cant at the .01 level. The means of these three variables in
the high and low conditions were as follows: goal rele-
vance (4.80, 3.24), goal congruence (5.75, 2.39), and cop-
ing potential (5.54, 2.85).
Measurement Properties
of the Dependent Variables
The dependent measures were tested for reliability and
convergent and discriminant validities before further
analyses were conducted. The constructs of joy and satis-
faction failed to attain discriminant validity, and hence the
measures for these two constructs were merged to form one
joy/satisfaction scale. The decision to combine the mea-
sures of joy and satisfaction to form a single consmact has
precedents. It has been argued in the literature that satis-
faction is a type of joy (Shaver et al. 1987). One measure
of satisfaction (the dissatisfaction measure) was dropped
from this combined scale because of a relatively low
item-to-total correlation. A factor analysis of all the emo-
tional, behavioral, and evaluative measures extracted six
factors: joy/satisfaction, anger, sadness, positive word of
mouth, negative word of mouth, and perceived product
performance. The factor loadings after an oblique rotation
are shown in Table 1. The factor analysis also showed that
the emotional responses were distinct from the evaluations
that subjects were making about the product (see Edell and
Burke 1987 for a discussion on why this is necessary). As
Table 1 indicates, Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all
scales were well above .80.
Hypotheses Testing
An omnibus test using multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was conducted with the three emotions as
dependent variables. While anger exhibited a significant
three-way interaction, joy/satisfaction and sadness exhib-
ited the hypothesized Relevance x Congruence interaction.
Hypothesis1
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted on the
joy/satisfaction scale confirmed the presence of a signifi-
cant Goal Relevance x Goal Congruence interaction, F(1,
155) = 13.12, p = .00. This two-way interaction can be
attributed to the fact that under conditions of high goal
congruence, subjects in the high goal relevance group
experienced significantly higher levels of joy/satisfaction
300 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 1997

TABLE 1
Factor Analysis
Factor Loadings After Oblimin Rotation a
Measure Joy~Satisfaction Anger Sadness Word-of-Mouth
Positive Word-of-Mouth
Negative Performance

Joyl .73
Joy2 .85
Joy3 .65
Joy4 .83
Joy5 .80
Satl .73
Sat2 .59
Angerl .66
Anger2 .68
Anger3 .90
Anger4 .86
Anger5 .89
Sadl .63
Sad2 .79
Sad3 .90
Sad4 .64
Sad5 .60
WOMP1 .61
WOMP2 .69
WOMN1 .85
WOMN2 .92
Perl .97
Per2 .87
Per3 .94
Cronbach's ct .95 .94 .91 .83 .89 .93
a. Factor loadings less than .30 have been blanked out to reduce clutter.

(M = 4.20) than the subjects in the low relevance group
(M = 3.17), t(80) = -5.61, p = .00, d = 1.24 (where d is the
effect size or the mean difference in the groups expressed
in standard deviation units); whereas under conditions of
low goal congruence, subjects in the high goal relevance
group (M = 1.95) and low goal relevance group (M = 1.81)
did not experience significantly different levels of joy/
satisfaction, t(75) = -0.86, p = .39.
The sadness variable exhibited the presence of a signifi-
cant Goal Relevance x Goal Congruence interaction, F(1,
155) = 15.33, p = .00. Under conditions of low goal
congruence, subjects in the high goal relevance group
experienced significantly higher levels of sadness (M =
3.11) than the subjects in the low relevance group (M =
2.36), t(75) = -5.18, p = .00, d = 1.18; whereas under
conditions of high goal congruence, subjects in the high
goal relevance group (M = 1.41) and low goal relevance
group (M = 1.35) did not experience significantly different
levels of sadness, t(80) = -0.61, p = .55.
Hypothesis 2
ANOVA conducted on the anger variable confirmed the
presence of a significant Goal Relevance x Goal Congru-
ence x Coping Potential interaction, F(1,151) = 7.45, p =
.01. To explain the three-way interaction, two two-way
ANOVAs were conducted at the two levels of goal rele-
vance. The results are depicted in Figure 1.
Under conditions of low goal relevance, the only effect
present was a main effect of goal congruence, F(1, 75) =
64.56, p = .00, such that subjects in the low goal congru-
ence condition (M = 2.41) experienced significantly higher
levels of anger than the subjects in the high goal congru-
ence condition (M = 1.40), t(77) = 8.13, p = .00, d = 1.84.
Under conditions of high goal relevance, a significant Goal
Congruence • Coping Potential interaction was present,
F(1,76) = 16.34,p = .00. This interaction can be attributed
to the fact that under conditions of low goal congruence,
subjects in the high coping potential experienced signifi-
cantly higher levels of anger than subjects in the low
coping potential condition (M = 4.31 vs. M = 3.11), t(38) =
-4.69,p = .00, d = 1.48. There was no significant difference
in the levels of anger experienced by high and low coping
potential subjects under conditions of high congruence (M =
1.44 vs. M = 1.48), t(38) = 0.24, p = .808.
Hypothesis 3
Intention to engage in positive and negative word of
mouth were independently measured. Table 2 summarizes
the results of the regressions of positive and negative word
of mouth. As hypothesized, the emotions are significant
predictors of intention to engage in word of mouth.
F tests indicate that the models with joy/satisfaction as
the only predictor of word of mouth (Models 1 and 3) were
significantly inferior to the models that also included sad-
 Nyer/APPRAISALS AND EMOTIONS 301

FIGURE 1
Three-Way Interaction Effect on Anger

Low Coping Potential J - - H i g h C o p i n g Potential

Low Goal Relevance H i g h G o a i Relevance

Anger Anger
5

!
1
Low Goal H i g h Goal L o w Goal H i g h Goal
Congruence Congruence Congruence Congruence

appraisals have on the behaviors are due to the effects that

TABLE 2
the appraisals have on the mediating emotions. Hypothesis 4
Regression of Word of Mouth
was tested using a step-down analysis using MANOVA
Positive Word of Mouth Negative Word of Mouth (Bagozzi and Yi 1989).
Joy~Satisfaction All Joy~Satisfaction All Hypothesis4
Only Emotions Only Emotions
(}) (2) (3) (4) It has to be shown that cognitive appraisals have sig-
nificant effects on emotions and behaviors. Once that is
Independent variable
established, the next step is to verify that the significant
Joy/satisfaction 13 .76*** .56*** -.56*** -.22***
effects that the appraisals have on the behaviors are due
Anger 13 -.13" .44***
solely to the mediating role of emotions (Model A in Figure 2).
Sadness 13 -.18"* .10
Having done that, the third step is to show that the alternate
Significance of F .00 .00 .00 .00
R2 .58 .62 .31 .48 Model B in Figure 2, in which the behaviors are causally
Adjusted R 2 .58 .61 .31 .47 antecedent to emotions, is not true.
SS residual 90.13 80.43 145.71 110.71 Table 3 summarizes the results of the step-down analy-
df 157.00 155.00 157.00 155.00 sis. Step 1 is a regular MANOVA in which the emotions
(anger, sadness, and joy/satisfaction) and the behaviors
*Significant at Gt=.10; **significant at tx = .05; ***significant at ot = .01. (positive and negative word of mouth) are the dependent
variables. The many significant effects denote that the
cognitive appraisals have a significant effect on these
ness and anger (Models 2 and 4) as predictors of word of variables. In Step 2, the dependent variables are the two
mouth; F(2, 155) = 9.35, p < .001, for positive word of behavior variables, and the three emotions are used as
mouth, and F(2, 155) = 24.50, p < .001, for negative covariates. As Table 2 indicates, there are no significant
word-of-mouth. effects (at the p < .05 level) of the appraisals on the
The preceding analyses have shown that cognitive ap- behaviors once the effects of the emotions have been
praisals have a significant influence on the consumption covaried out. Step 3 indicates that the alternative model is
emotions and that these emotions are good predictors of not valid because even after the effects on behaviors have
certain behaviors. What has not been demonstrated yet is been covaried out, the cognitive appraisals still have very
that emotions mediate the relationship between cognitive significant effects on the emotions. Thus, this step-down
appraisals and behaviors. In other words, what remains to analysis clearly shows that emotions mediate the relation-
be shown is that any significant effects the cognitive ship between cognitive appraisals and behaviors.
302 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 1997

FIGURE 2
Step-Down Analysis

Model A

Model B

TABLE 3 emotions are experienced. The use of an artificial scenario

Step-Down Analysis (p values of and the use of student subjects may have caused a dilution
the multivariate F-test statistic) of the external validity of this study. The postconsumption
behaviors examined in this study are word-of-mouth in-
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Dependent Dependent Dependent tentions, not behaviors. Follow-up studies using a wider
Variables E, B VariablesB VariablesE range of actual postconsumption behaviors need to be done
Effect Covariates None Covariates E CovariatesB to fully validate the propositions put forward here. This
study did not require subjects to engage in an open-ended
Relevance .00 .71 .00
recital of their thoughts, and so it could be argued that
Congruence .00 .08 .00
cognitive appraisals may not have occurred prior to the
Relevance x Congruence .00 .81 .00
formation of emotions. As mentioned earlier, even though
Relevance x Congruence x
Coping Potenlial .20 .99 .09
the appraisals are termed cognitive, they need not involve
conscious processing, and therefore an open-ended elici-
NOTE: E = emotions (joy~satisfaction, sadness, and anger), B = behaviors ration of the conscious thoughts may not be very useful.
(positive and negative word-of-mouth).
Cognitive Antecedents of
CONCLUSIONS Consumption Emotions

Limitations Consumption emotions have been shown by prior stud-

This research has a few limitations. The manipulation
of goal relevance did not pose a strong risk to the subjects
and as such may not have caused the high-involvement
conditions that consumers sometimes experience in real
life. Consequently, the emotions generated by this study
may not have reached the strong emotional levels that
sometimes occur in actual consumption situations. This
shortcoming is perhaps unavoidable considering the ethics
of using human subjects. Despite the relatively low levels
of emotional arousal, the effect sizes for the hypothesized
effects were fairly substantial and ranged from d = 1.18 to
d = 1.84. In other words, the manipulations had caused
differences in group means of more than 1 standard devia-
tion. The hypothesized effects can be expected to be even
more significant when stronger levels of consumption
ies to have a significant influence on various consumer
behaviors, While the consequences of emotions have been
studied extensively, the determinants of emotions have
received lesser attention in the marketing literature. This
study has reviewed and found empirical support for a
cognitive model of consumption emotion. In the limited
model tested in this study, emotions were predicted to be
consequences of the cognitive appraisals of goal relevance,
goal congruence, and coping potential.
Theory suggests that goal-congruent situations will
lead to positive emotions and goal-incongruent situations
will lead to negative emotions, and that goal relevance acts
as a moderator, causing the emotions to be experienced
more intensely when the situation is more relevant. Thus,
a two-way interaction between goal relevance and goal
congruence was hypothesized for the emotions joy, satis-
faction, and sadness.

Complaining behavior is one of the coping mechanisms
consumers use to deal with unfavorable consumption situ-
ations. The theory of coping suggests that if individuals
believe coping is possible using a particular coping mecha-
nism, then the emotions associated with that particular
coping mechanism will be facilitated (Lazarus 1991). Be-
cause complaint behavior (a form of attack) is a coping
mechanism associated with anger, consumers high in goal
relevance and goal incongruence will experience even
more anger when they are explicitly given a chance to
complain rather than when they are not given that oppor-
tunity. Thus, a three-way interaction of goal relevance,
goal congruence, and coping potential was hypothesized
for anger. Both hypotheses proposed above received ade-
quate empirical support.
Improved Prediction
of Consumer Behavior
The proposition that consumer emotions will signifi-
cantly add to the predictive power offered by satisfaction
in the modeling of postconsumption behaviors such as
word-of-mouth intentions was tested. This hypothesis also
received considerable empirical support. It was shown that
postconsumption behavior is best modeled using the pre-
dictor variables joy/satisfaction, anger, and sadness. This
result is not surprising, considering that different emotions
have different action tendencies. Thus, an angry consumer
and a sad consumer may experience identical levels of
dissatisfaction and yet behave very differently because the
action tendencies associated with anger and sadness tend
to be very different. The addition of anger and sadness to
joy/satisfaction improved the prediction of both positive
and negative word of mouth.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks Richard P. Bagozzi, Rajeev Batra,
Youjae Yi, and three anonymous reviewers for their in-
sightful comments on a previous version of this article. The
financial support of the Michigan Business School and
Chapman University is also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A., Douglas M. Stayman, and M. R. Hagerty. 1986.
'WCarmthin Advertising: Measurement, Impact and Sequence Effects."
Journal of Consumer Research 12 (March): 365-381.
Arnold, M. B. 1960. Emotion and Personality. 2 vols. New York: Colum-
bia University Press.
Bagozzi, Richard P. 1992. "The Self-Regulation of Attitudes, Intentions,
and Behavior." Social Psychology Quarterly 55 (2): 178-204.
and Youjae Yi. 1989. "On the Use of Structural Equation Models
- -
in Experimental Designs." Journal of Marketing Research 26 (Au-
gus0: 271-284.
Burke, Marian C. and Julie A. Edell. 1989. "The Impact of Feelings on
Ad-Based Affect and Cognition." Journal of Marketing Research 26
(February): 69-83.
Nyer / APPRAISALS AND EMOTIONS 303
Cadotte, Ernest R., Robert B. Woodruff, and Roger L. Jenkins. 19879
"Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction9 Jour-
nal of Marketing Research 24 (August): 305-314.
Cattell, Raymond B. 19609 "The Dimensional (Unitary Component)
Measurement of Anxiety, Excitement, Stress and Other Mood Reaction
Patterns." In Drugs and Behavior. Eds. L. Uhr and J. G. Miller. New
York: John Wtiey, 438-461.
Clore, Gerald L., Andrew Ortony, and Mark A. Foss. 1987. "The Psycho-
logical Foundations of the Affective Lexicon." Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 53 (4): 751-766.
Day, Ralph L. 1983. "The Next Step: Commonly Accepted Constructs
for Satisfaction Research." In International Fare in Consumer Satis-
faction and Complaining Behavior. Eds. Ralph L. Day and Keith H.
Hunt. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 113-117.
EdeU, Julie A. and Marian C9 Burke. 1987. "The Power of Feelings in
Understanding Advertising Effects." Journal of Consumer Research
14 (December): 421-433.
Fdjda, Nico H. 1986. The Emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
- - . 1993. "The Place of Appraisal in Emotion." Cognition and
Emotion 7 (3-4): 115-143.
Gardner, Meryl P. 1985. "Mood States and Consumer Behavior: ACritical
Review." Journal of Consumer Research 12 (December): 281-300.
Holbrook, Morris B. and Rajeev Batra. 1987. "Assessing the Role of
Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to Advertising." Jour-
nal of Consumer Research 14:404-420.
--and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. 19829"The Experiential Aspects of
Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and Fun." Journal of
Consumer Research 9 (September): 132-140.
, John O'Shaughnessy, and Stephen Bell. 1990. "Action and
Reaction in the Consumption Experience: The Complimentary Roles
of Reasons and Emotions in Consumer Behavior9 Research in Con-
sumer Behavior 4:131 - 163.
Izard, Carroll E. 1993. "Four Systems for Emotion Activation: Cognitive
and Noncoguitive Processes." Psychological Review 100 (January):
68-90.
Kemper, T. D. 1978. A Social Interactional Theory of Emotions. New
York: John W'dey.
Lazarus, Richard S. 1974. The Riddle of Man. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
9 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Oliver, Richard L. 1989. "Processing of the Satisfaction Response in
Consumption: A Suggested Framework and Research Propositions."
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior 2: 1-16.
Omdahl, Becky Lynn. 1995. Cognitive Appraisal, Emotion, and Empathy.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ortony, Andrew, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins. 1988. The Cognitive
Structure of Emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo. 1981. "Issue Involvement as
Moderator of the Effects on Attitude of Advertising Content and
Context." In Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 8. Ed. Kent B.
Monroe. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 20-24.
Plutchik, Robert. 1980. Emotions: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis. New
York: Harper & Row.
Richins, Marsha L. and Peter H. Bloch. 1986. "After the New Wears Off:
The Temporal Context of Product Involvement." Journal of Consumer
Research 13 (September): 280-285.
Roseman, Ira. 1984. "Cognitive Determinants of Emotion: A Structural
Theory." In Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 5. Ed.
P. Shaver. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 11-369
Russell, James A. 1980. "A Circumplex Model of Affect." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 39: 1161-1178.
304 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
Scherer, Klaus R. 1984. "On the Nature and Function of Emotion: A
Component Process Approach." In Approaches to Emotion. F_As.K. R.
Scherer and P. Ekman. Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbanm, 293-317.
-. 1993. "Studying the Emotion-AntecedentAppraisal Process: An
Expert System Approach." Cognition & Emotion 7 (3-4): 325-355.
Shaver, Phillip, Judith Schwartz, Donald Kirson, and Cary O'Connor.
1987. "Emotion Knowledge: Further Exploration of a Prototype Ap-
proach." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (6): 1061-
1086.
Sirgy, Joseph M. 1984. "A Social Cognition Model of CS/D: An Experi-
ment." Psychology and Marketing 1 (Summer); 27-44.
Smith, Craig A. and Phoebe C. Ellsworth. 1985. "Patterns of Cognitive
Appraisal in Emotion." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
48 (4): 813-838.
Watson, David and Auke Tellegen. 1985. "Toward a Consensual Structure
of Mood." Psychological Bulletin 98 (2): 219-235.
Westbrook, Robert A. 1987. "Product/Consumption Based Affective
Responses and Post Purchase Processes." Journal of Marketing Re-
search 24 (August): 258-270.
FALL 1997
--and Richard L. Oliver. 1991. "The Dimensionality of Consump-
tion Emotion Patterns and Consumer Satisfaction." Journal of Con-
sumer Research 18 (June): 84-91.
Zaichkowsky, Judith L. 1985. "Measuring the Involvement Construct."
Journal of Consumer Research 12 (December): 341-352.
Zajonc, R. B. 1980. "Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Infer-
ences." American Psychologist 35: 151-175.
9 1984. "On the Primacy of Affect." American Psychologist 39:
117-123.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Prashanth U. Nyer (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is an assis-
tant professor of marketing in the School of Business and Eco-
nomics at Chapman University, Orange, California. His research
interests include consumption emotions, complaining behavior,
cognitive models of emotion, and covariance structure modeling.