Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Beyond good and bad: Challenging the suggested role of emotions in

customer experience (CX) research
Aikaterini Manthiou a, *, Ellie Hickman b, Phil Klaus c
a
NEOMA Business School, 1 Rue Du Mar�echal Juin, 76825, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France
b
Leicester Castle Business School, De Montfort University, UK
c
International University of Monaco INSEEC Research Center, Le Stella, 14 Rue Hubert Clerissi, 98000, Monaco

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Our paper challenges several notions regarding emotion’s role and their influence on the customer experience
Mixed emotions (hereafter CX). Based on our analysis, we develop the following five propositions to advance our understanding
Emotions of emotions’ role in customer experience research. First, we argue that positive and negative emotions can
Customer experience
coexist during the consumption experience. Second, positive emotions do not automatically lead to positive
Customer-employee interaction
Customer-firm interaction
consumption outcomes, and negative emotions may not necessarily generate negative results. Third, positive or
Customer-to-customer interaction negative emotions toward a company employee might not automatically transfer to the company as a whole.
Fourth, customers are not apathetic victims of their emotions with no capability to control their emotional ex­
periences. Our last proposition is that consumption emotions are not a purely intrapersonal phenomenon, but
that the social context matters and influences the consumption experience. We propose a related future research
agenda highlighting opportunities for scholars and managers alike.

1. Introduction positive and negative emotions about a purchase decision (Ramanathan

Customer experience (hereafter CX) is considered a differentiator in
markets where finding a competitive advantage is a really hard task
(Christopher et al., 1991; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). Abbott (1955, p.
40) introduced the idea that “what people really desire are not products
but satisfying experiences.” Pine and Gilmore (1998, p. 3) view expe­
riences as distinct from goods or services, implying that customers
purchase experiences to spend time enjoying a series of memorable
events that a company stages … to engage him in an inherently personal
way. Consumption experiences are multidimensional and include di­
mensions, such as the sensorial, affective, behavioral, and intellectual
(Brakus et al., 2009). Moreover, when goods or services are rich in terms
of experiential attributes, the potential to evoke an emotional response
becomes even greater (Otto and Ritchie, 1996). Emotions therefore play
a distinguishing role in customer experience (Klaus and Manthiou, 2020;
Oliver, 1997).
Previous CX research linked to emotional processes relied on foun­
dational assumptions that do not hold up well under close scrutiny. The
first assumption in the literature is related to customers individually
feeling either positive or negative emotions during a CX. However, this
does not always hold true, as customers may simultaneously experience
and Williams, 2007; Svari et al., 2011). Under specific consumption
situations, customers may simultaneously feel happy and unhappy. For
example, travelers may feel happy about a trip they bought, but un­
happy about the price paid. Both emotions therefore appear in the
experience (Diener, 1999).
In the past, researchers relied on a second assumption: positive CX
emotions are link to positive outcomes (e.g. satisfaction and repurchase
behavior), and negative emotions to negative consumption outcomes (e.
g. dissatisfaction and avoidance behavior) (e.g. Mehrabian and Russell,
1974; Holbrook and Batra, 1987; Russell et al., 1989). Fast et al. (2012)
note that excessive positive emotions can lead to overconfidence, which
is linked to negative outcomes. Similarly, negative emotions (e.g. stress,
anxiety) may be present in some consumption situations without
comprising the overall experience’s quality (Pool et al., 2015). We
recommend a more nuanced understanding of the outcomes linked to
positive and negative emotions.
The third assumption concerns the emotional experience’s targets.
The literature suggests emotions toward a company may also transfer to
its employees. However, companies need to analyze customers’ emo­
tions at a transaction-specific level and when they evaluate their overall
experience (Jones and Suh, 2000). Consequently, customers distinguish

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: aikaterini.manthiou@neoma-bs.fr (A. Manthiou), ellie.hickman@dmu.ac.uk (E. Hickman), pklaus@monaco.edu (P. Klaus).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102218

Available online 3 August 2020

0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Manthiou et al.
between employees and companies as two relational items (Yim et al.,
2008).
Employees’ role is often crucial in order to create positive customer
experiences (Liljander and Mattsson, 2002; Winsted, 2000). Marketers
tend to assume that emotions experienced toward an employee will
transfer to the company (Porath et al., 2010; Mende and Bolton, 2011).
While this might be true of many encounters, it is equally possible that
customers might experience a mixture of emotions toward a company
employee and the company itself, and treat them as two separate entities
(Mende and Bolton, 2011; Jones and Suh, 2000). For instance, cus­
tomers might be satisfied by the way a company employee responds to
their individual needs, but be dissatisfied with the company in general.
We stress that future research should explore the circumstances where
positive or negative emotions toward an employee might not automat­
ically transfer to the company as a whole.
The fourth common assumption in customer experience research is
that customers are in some way the passive victims of their emotions,
and that they have no power to interfere with or regulate their emotional
experiences. Psychological research shows, however, that individuals
can engage in a series of cognitive processes to control their emotions in
various settings (Gross et al., 1998; Grandey et al., 2004: Greenaway and
Kalokerinos, 2018). Customers displeased with a service encounter
might modify their emotional reactions, because their motivational goal
is not to allow a passing, external event to upset them. Customers might
also control their positive emotions, for example, by concealing them to
receive a better service or receive a discount. They might feel mixed
emotions throughout their experience, which could include positive and
negative aspects (Larsen et al., 2017). Current research lacks a coherent
understanding of how customers’ purchase decisions are followed by
persistent emotion regulation.
The fifth and final assumption that this paper challenges is that
emotions are a purely intrapersonal phenomenon. Customer experience
research tends to assess emotions as a personal outcome caused by a
specific interaction with a company (Brakus et al., 2009). However,
social processes also influence emotions (e.g., Hochschild, 1979).
Currently, there is a lack of research on social interactions with other
customers and these interactions’ emotional effects (Tombs and
McColl-Kennedy, 2013: Zomerdijk and Voss, 2010). Experiencing a
delightful service encounter in a social context that allows and promotes
communication with friends will cause very different emotions than a
similar encounter in a private setting. Other customers can affect both
the ambience and satisfaction levels in a customer’s experience Miao
et al., (2011); Mattila et al. (2014). The type and intensity of the emotion
experienced will differ, and future research should therefore elucidate
how the social context influences an emotional experience.
Our paper builds on affective theories from sociology and psychology
to present a critique of the five propositions. Our first proposition sup­
ports the proposition that positive and negative emotions occur
concurrently in a consumption experience. The second proposition
maintains that positive emotions do not automatically lead to positive
consumption outcomes and vice versa. The third proposition argues that
positive or negative emotions toward a company’s employee might not
automatically transfer to the company and vice versa. The fourth
proposition maintains that customers can control their emotional ex­
periences and are not victims of their emotions. The fifth and last
proposition suggests that consumption emotions are interpersonal issues
instead of intrapersonal ones. Our propositions are aimed at improving
the examination of emotions’ role in customer experience research.
The paper is structured as follows: we first review the existing
literature and develop the five propositions. Thereafter, we discuss the
key theoretical/practical implications derived from our study. Finally,
we recommend future research directions.
1.1. Positive and/or negative emotions and outcomes
Customers experience a wide range of emotions during all
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218
interactions with a company when searching for, choosing, and using
their services and products (Ruth et al., 2002). Positive and negative
emotions have been viewed as two ends of a continuum, and are
considered mutually exclusive (e.g., Russell, 1989). Researchers have
recently suggested that people can experience different emotions
simultaneously, but of opposite valence (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 1999;
Penz and Hogg, 2011; Pang et al., 2017). Ramanatham and Williams
(2007) demonstrate that customers experience a mixture of emotions,
both positive and negative, in response to indulgent consumption. Babin
et al. (1998) argue that feeling a negative emotion does not preclude the
occurrence of a positive one. For instance, happiness and unhappiness
are antithetical ends of the same emotional phenomenon. Consider a
typical consumption situation in which a couple has dinner at a fine
dining restaurant; although the atmosphere and decoration are splendid,
they have to wait long for their main course. The wine is excellent, but
the meat is overdone. The salad ingredients are fresh, but the salad
dressing is inadequate. The dessert is delicious and delivered on time,
but the two servers are not equally reliable and helpful. Will these
customers depart feeling satisfied, dissatisfied, or both?
Russell et al. (2011) maintain that customers can have coexisting
positive and negative views with regard to their willingness to buy
emblematic brands. Roster and Richins (2009) identify mixed emotions
in product replacement decisions, because customers experience mixed
feelings regarding what to do when they wish to replace their posses­
sions, and are caught between wishing to retain them and wanting to
replace them. Addis et al. (2018) show that in-store events designed to
elicit surprise and romantic emotions, also bring about negative emo­
tions, such as embarrassment.
Customers exposed to products/services’ positive and negative at­
tributes, develop bivalent evaluations and experience a high level of
ambivalence (Pang et al., 2017). An example of ambivalent decision is
whether to book a hotel with a cozy room (a positive attribute), but few
amenities (a negative attribute), or whether to buy a vehicle that is safe
(positive), but boring to drive (negative). For example, Olsen et al.
(2005) examine customers’ subjective ambivalence when consuming
seafood. Customers sometimes feel satisfied when having seafood, but
dissatisfied at other times; sometimes the food tastes good, but other
times they feel the taste is unpleasant; sometimes consuming seafood is
exciting, but other times it is simply boring. The occurrence of blended
emotional experiences has been demonstrated in a variety of contexts,
such as watching a movie (Andrade and Cohen, 2007), listening to music
(Hunter et al., 2008), consuming food (Olsen et al., 2005), making
product replacement decisions (Roster and Richins, 2009), watching
commercials (Madrigal and Bee, 2005), experiencing a disappointing
win or a relieving loss in a gambling setting (Larsen et al., 2004), and
experiencing indulgent consumption (Ramanathan and Williams, 2007).
We therefore expect that:
Proposition 1. Positive and negative emotions can coexist during a CX
(Table 1).
Besides playing a key role in customer experience, emotions also
predict customers’ future behavior (Gaur et al., 2014; Penz and Hogg,
2011). Experienced emotions affect customers at different stages of the
purchase decision process (Roster, and Richins, 2009; Maguire and
Geiger, 2015). According to Otnes et al. (1997; p. 82), “customer
simultaneous or sequential experience of multiple emotional states, as a
result of the interaction between internal factors and external objects,
people, institutions, and/or cultural phenomena in market oriented
contexts can have direct and/or indirect ramifications on pre-purchase,
purchase or post-purchase attitudes and behavior.” However, the
long-lasting view that positive emotions are linked to positive purchase
outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, behavioral intention, positive WOM), and
negative emotions with negative consumption results (e.g. dissatisfac­
tion, purchase avoidance) does not always hold (e.g. Namkung and
Jang, 2010; Bilgihan et al., 2016; Spielmann, 2020). In this study, we
view satisfaction as a positive global evaluation or feeling state (Olsen
A. Manthiou et al.
Table 1
Positive and negative emotions do coexist during a CX.
Reference Key Findings
Chepngetich et al. Consumption emotions shown with happiness, pleasure,
(2019) amazement, contentment, loneliness, excitement and
relaxation. The study includes only positive emotions and
ignores the negative ones.
Gaur et al. (2014) Four domains related to emotions in marketing: social/
personality issues, cognitive factors, the development of
emotions and their interactions with other consumption
factors. However, how to deal with the coexistence of emotions
was not highlighted.
Liljander and Negative and positive emotions as separate entities. The study
Strandvik ignores a mix of both.
(1997)
Namkung and Oriented in respect to a single emotional pole.
Jang (2010)
Spielmann (2020) The study includes only positive emotions and ignores negative
ones.
et al., 2005). Oliver (1997, p. 28) suggest that satisfaction is "the con­
sumer’s fulfillment response, the degree to which the level of fulfillment
is pleasant or unpleasant". We interpret behavioral intention as the
willingness to repurchase, to purchase more in the future, and to
recommend to others (Baker et al., 2002; Macintosh and Lockshin, 1997;
Liu and Jang, 2009). In terms of negative consumption outcomes,
dissatisfaction is a negative global evaluation of the offer, or an un­
pleasant fulfillment thereof (Oliver, 1997; Olsen et al., 2005), and
avoidance behavior describes customers’ unwillingness to repurchase
and recommend to others (Hightower et al., 2002; Namkung and Jang,
2010).
Think of being really happy with a product/brand (a positive
emotion), but dissatisfied because it is not available for purchase (a
negative result), or being discontent with the gym you use, but
continuing to go to this gym, because there are no other options close to
your home. Goodstein et al. (1990) observe that uneasy emotions lead to
more favorable attitudes toward an advertisement, whereas disinter­
ested feelings lead to more unfavorable ones. Feeling stress (a negative
emotion) increases when one wants a reward, which is a positive
outcome (Pool et al., 2015). Addis et al. (2018) maintain that an in-store
social event mainly created to evoke customers’ surprise and feelings of
romantic love, will not necessarily have a positive influence on their
purchase decisions. Although companies might design positive
customer-centric experiences to increased customers’ purchase inten­
tion, this might also have negative results. Based on the above discus­
sion, we introduce the following proposition.
Proposition 2. Under specific consumption situations, positive emotions
do not automatically lead to positive consumption outcomes, and negative
emotions may not necessarily generate negative consumption outcomes
(Table 2).
1.2. Emotional experiences with a company and its representatives
Companies must attract and retain customers to ensure they have a
sustainable competitive advantage. They therefore need to pay attention
to customers’ emotions at the transaction-specific level and for their
overall evaluation of their experience with the company. Both evalua­
tions have an influence on customer repurchase behavior, and, ulti­
mately, on the company performance (Jones and Suh, 2000; Klaus,
2015). Many companies invest heavily in relationship marketing on the
premise that close customer-company and customer-employee re­
lationships will lead to positive financial results (Palmatier et al., 2006).
This implies that customers regard company employees and companies
as two different relational targets (Yim et al., 2008; Jones and Suh,
2000). For example, a customer may have a dissatisfactory experience
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218
Key variables/dimensions Method Industry and contextual conditions
Customer emotions Regression luxury hotels: 20 in Nairobi,1 in
analysis Kisumu, and 10 in Mombasa
361 clients (questionnaires)
Social/personality issues Conceptual Conceptual
Cognitive factors 340 emotion-related articles from 19
Development of emotions different marketing journals published
Emotions’ interactions with from 2002 to 2013
other consumption factors
Satisfaction in service Structural Services - Customers visiting
quality, negative and Equation employment bureau for low paid jobs,
positive emotions Modeling USA
Emotions (a unipolar view) Structural Casual dining restaurants in the USA
equation 326 surveys
modeling
Positive emotions Experiment Green vs conventional products
design Cosmetics, coffee
4 studies in France
with a flight attendant on one flight and still be satisfied with the airline,
due to other positive touchpoints throughout this customer experience.
Customers are likely to comment on a service transaction’s particular
events (e.g. specific employee actions) when asked about a
transaction-specific experiences (Jones and Suh, 2000). However, when
asked about their overall satisfaction, customers are more likely to
comment on their global impressions and general experiences with the
firm (e.g., the firm’s honesty) (Yim et al., 2008). According to Porath
et al. (2010), discourteous encounters with employees cause consumers
to make false negative generalizations about (a) others who work for the
firm, (b) the firm as a whole, and (c) future encounters with the firm,
inferences that go beyond the discourteous incident. The appraisal
tendency framework (ATF) (Lerner and Keltner, 2000, 2001) explains
this behavior. The ATF serves as a basis for predicting specific emotions’
influence on customer decision making. The ATF addresses specific
emotions carried over from past situations and might color future
judgments and choices (Lerner and Keltner, 2000, 2001). In other words,
transaction-specific satisfaction/dissatisfaction does not always corre­
late with overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction with a firm. Mende and
Bolton (2011) theorize that employees are human attachment targets,
while the firm is an abstract attachment target. Their results found that
customers who cannot develop interpersonal bonds with a company’s
employees compensate for this deficiency by being more likely to bond
with the company (Mende and Bolton, 2011), which shows that cus­
tomers’ relational objectives differ from those of the firm and its
employees.
Beside the general customer-company relationship, a customer’s
experience with an employee is also as a key strategic competitive tool
(Mattila and Enz, 2002). Customers’ perceptions of face-to-face en­
counters with employees are an important determinant of customer
satisfaction and loyalty (Liljander and Mattsson, 2002; Winsted, 2000).
The role of service encounters is also well established in the marketing
literature (e.g. Mattila and Enz, 2002; Raajpoot, 2004; Jayawardhena
et al., 2007). Chandon et al. (1997) developed a dyadic assessment of
service encounters encompassing the employees’ competence, their
listening behaviors, their dedication, and their effectiveness. Winsted
(2000) developed a three-dimensional measure to assess service
encounter evaluation, encompassing concern, civility, and congeniality.
Raajpoot (2004) has created a measure of service encounter quality,
encompassing seven-dimensions: tangibility, reliability, assurance,
sincerity, personalization, formality, and responsiveness. Finally, Jaya­
wardhena et al. (2007) have revealed a four-factor structure of service
encounter quality, encompassing professionalism, civility, friendliness,
and competence dimensions.
Moreover, the employee interaction with a customer can synchro­
nously affect other customers’ experience either positively or negatively
3
A. Manthiou et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218

Table 2
Under specific consumption situations, positive emotions do not automatically lead to positive consumption outcomes, and negative emotions may not necessarily
generate negative consumption outcomes.
Reference Key Findings Key variables/ Method Industry and contextual conditions
dimensions

Addis et al. Brand attitude and purchase intention are outcomes of Emotion Structural Equation In-store social event
(2018) positive and negative emotions. The study ignores how Brand attitude Modeling 220 customers
positive emotions are related to negative outcomes and Purchase intention
positive emotions to negative outcomes.
Bilgihan et al. Positive emotions have a strong effect on casino gamblers’ Emotions Structural Equation 3 casinos in USA
(2016) return patronage. The study ignores how positive emotions Intention to return Modeling 4511 surveys of gamblers
are related to negative outcomes and positive emotions to Actual return
negative outcomes.
Chepngetich Happiness, pleasure, amazement, contentment, loneliness, Customer emotions Regression analysis Luxury hotels: 20 in Nairobi,1 in Kisumu,
et al. (2019) excitement, and relaxation have an impact on purchase Purchase behavior and 10 in Mombasa
behavioral intentions. The study ignores how positive 361 clients (questionnaires)
emotions are related to negative outcomes and positive
emotions to negative outcomes.
Liu and Jang Positive emotion has a positive effect on perceived value and Positive emotions Structural Equation Chinese restaurants in the US
(2009) negative emotion has a negative effect on perceived value. Negative emotions Modeling 348 customers
Positive emotion has a positive effect on behavioral intentions Perceived values
and negative emotion a negative effect on these. The study Behavioral
ignores how positive emotions are related to negative intentions
outcomes and positive emotions to negative outcomes.
Ladhari et al. Positive emotions are positively related to satisfaction levels. Positive emotions 338 undergraduate business students
(2008) Negative emotions are negatively related to satisfaction Negative emotions Restaurant service
levels. The study ignores how positive emotions are related to Satisfaction
negative outcomes and positive emotions to negative
outcomes.
Maguire and Temporal aspect is critical for consumption emotions in Emotional Semi-inductive, 13 different service encounters in Ireland
Geiger (2015) service settings, as it impacts emotions during all stages of the experiences of the exploratory research 57 participants (SMS diaries and subsequent
consumption journey. The study ignores how positive servicescape method in-depth interviews)
emotions are related to negative outcomes and positive Pre Service
emotions to negative outcomes, Encounter Emotions
Post Service
Encounter Emotions
Namkung and Customers’ positive emotions have a positive effect on Positive emotions Structural equation Casual dining restaurants in the USA
Jang (2010) behavioral intentions and their negative emotions a negative Negative emotions modeling 326 surveys
effect on behavioral intentions. The study ignores how Behavioral
positive emotions are related to negative outcomes and intentions
positive emotions to negative outcomes.
Olsen et al. There is a negative relationship between ambivalence and Subjective Structural equation Seafood in Norway
(2005) satisfaction. Ambivalence has an independent and direct Ambivalence modeling 1194 respondents (survey)
effect on loyalty. The study ignores how positive emotions are Satisfaction
related to negative outcomes and positive emotions to Repurchase Loyalty
negative outcomes.
Penz and Hogg Emotional states such as pleasure, arousal, dominance, and Pleasure Multiple mediated Offline or online shopping
(2011) enjoyment have an impact on future shopping intentions. The Arousal regression analyses 335 questionnaires (responses from offline
study ignores how positive emotions are related to negative Dominance/control or online shopping (Austria n ¼ 127, Greece
outcomes and positive emotions to negative outcomes. Enjoyment n ¼ 111, the UK n ¼ 117)
Ambivalence
Intention to purchase
Roster and Emotions have an impact on pre-purchase and post-purchase Subjective Difference scores: An Durable goods (cars, boats, household
Richins (2009) phases. The study ignores how positive emotions are related ambivalence Extension of the appliances, TV, stereos, etc.)
to negative consumption outcomes and positive emotions to Attitude toward Griffin Survey 1: 404 responses
negative outcomes. replacement Measure Survey 2: 1 year later 131 responses
Ability to replace
Intention to replace
Attitude toward
retention
Ability to retain
Intention to retain
Russell et al. Emotional ambivalence is negatively related to willingness to Positivity Mixed methods American brands and non-American brands
(2011) buy American brands. The study ignores how positive Negativity 12 in-depth interviews across France
emotions are related to negative outcomes and positive Brand attitude 215 surveys from French customers
emotions to negative outcomes. Subjective
ambivalence
Objective
ambivalence
Willingness to buy
emblematic brands
Spielmann Green products are more likely to be purchased than Positive emotions Experiment design Green vs conventional products
(2020) conventional products, because they evoke positive emotions. Purchase intention Cosmetics, coffee
The study ignores how positive emotions are related to 4 studies in France
negative outcomes and positive emotions to negative
outcomes.

4
A. Manthiou et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218

(Bitner, 1992; Jung et al., 2017). These encounters might then become
an integral part of the customer’s image of the company and, in turn,
could play an influential role in determining its success (Bitner, 1990).
These important interactions occur in the strategic services triangle,
where the three interlinked groups (customers, company, and em­
ployees) work together to develop, promote, and deliver an offer (Zei­
thaml and Bitner, 2003).
The simultaneous investigation of a customer-company and a
customer-employee emotional experience has received relatively little
attention in the literature (Mende and Bolton, 2011; Jones and Suh,
2000; Porath et al., 2010). It is therefore important that academic re­
searchers and practitioners understand the distinction between the two
and their relative influence on repurchase intentions. Based on the dis­
cussion above, we develop the following proposition:
Proposition 3. Under specific consumption situations, customers’ positive
or negative emotions, triggered by experiences with a company employee, will
not necessarily lead to perceive the company positively or negatively
(Table 3).
1.3. Customers can regulate their emotional experiences
We posit that customers can regulate their emotional experiences,
whether they are negative, positive or mixed. Customers are not passive
victims of their emotions and can tolerate and control an emotional
experience; examples of these are: if a positive outcome outweighs the
negative emotion experienced, or if a positive emotion is concealed to
gain a reward or better service. Customers who regulate their emotions
are more likely to interpret a stressful encounter positively by putting it
into perspective. Gross (1998) argues that individuals can regulate their
emotions by means of suppression or reappraisal. Customers who use
reappraisal experience a reduction in an emotional experience’s nega­
tivity (Goldin et al., 2008).
Customers might feel mixed emotions during an experience, partic­
ularly during complex events with both pleasant and unpleasant aspects
(Larsen and McGraw, 2014; Larsen et al., 2017). If customers’ goal is to
have a positive outcome, such as a quick service or delivery, this might
outweigh the negative emotion experienced, such as having to pay a
premium for overnight delivery or for a rapid service encounter. Psy­
chological research (Gross, 1998; Grandey et al., 2004; Greenaway and
Kalokerinos, 2018) highlights that customers’ motivational goal might
allow them to modify their emotional reactions.
The model of goal-directed behavior (MGB; created by Perugini and
Bagozzi, 2001) integrates motivational and effective processes with past
behavior, and socio-psychological theories such as reasoned action
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980), as well as with the theory of planned
behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2005). Han and Rhu (2012) highlight that
planned behavior theory’s weakness is that it omits motivational pro­
cesses (desires), effective processes (positive and negative anticipated
emotions), and past behavior, all of which are crucial factors. Perugini
and Bagozzi (2001) introduce negative and positive emotions as drivers
of desire and behavioral intention in the MGB model. Meng and Choi

Table 3
Under specific consumption situations, customers’ positive or negative emotions, triggered by experiences with a company employee, will not necessarily lead to
perceive the company positively or negatively.
Reference Findings Key variables/dimensions Research tool Industry and Contextual conditions

Bansal et al. In a service-oriented economy, organizations Internal marketing (HR Conceptual Service industry
(2001) should emphasize employees’ well-being as a practices, internal customer)
means to attract and retain external customer Internal customer behavior
patronage. The study does not examine the External marketing (external
company’s role separately. service quality, external
customer satisfaction, external
customer)
Grigoroudis et al. The service provider’s overall efficiency is Efficiency evaluation MUSA (Multicriteria 16 bank branches
(2013) achieved on every level of its service delivery Customer satisfaction Satisfaction
process. Business performance Analysis) method
Efficiency happens on different levels: Employee appraisal
confirming customer expectations (level 1),
achieving customer satisfaction (level 2),
producing higher operational results, and
creating loyal customers (level 3). The study
does examine the company’s separately.
Jayawardhena Each service encounter matters for customers’ Service encounter quality Mixed methods Private safety inspection organization in New
et al. (2007) perceptions. The service encounter quality is (professionalism, civility, Zealand
directly related to customer satisfaction and friendliness, and competence 50 service providers (interviews).
service quality, and indirectly to loyalty. The dimensions) 778 customers from a private safety inspection
study does not examine the company’s role Customer satisfaction organization (surveys)
separately. Service quality perceptions
loyalty
Mende and In the service setting, customers with low levels Customer Attachment Anxiety Regression models A North American insurance company.
Bolton (2011) of attachment anxiety and attachment (Firm/Employee) (Least squares 932 customers
avoidance view a firm and its employees more Customer Attachment estimation)
favorably than those with high levels. Avoidance (Firm/Employee)
Insecurely attached customers who find the Satisfaction (Firm/Employee)
relationship with service employees Trust (Firm/Employee)
insufficient, might be better connected with the Affective commitment (Firm/
service firm. The study does not test an Employee)
emotional experience transfer from a company
to its employees and vice versa.
Porath et al. Customers make faster and more negative Employee incivility Experimental design Study 1. 73 respondents at a large university.
(2010) generalizations when encountering Anger Study 2. 117 undergraduate respondents.
discourteous employees. The study does not Rumination Study 3: 2 (courteous employee-employee
examine the company’s role separately. Negative generalizations reprimand versus discourteous employee-
employee reprimand) x 2 (customer delayed
versus not delayed by a discourteous service
provider) between-subjects design.
Study 4: 59 respondents.

5
A. Manthiou et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218

(2016) later extend the MGB model in the tourism sector and support
that emotions and past behavior have a positive influence on desire and
behavioral intention. This literature highlights both the importance of
emotions in customer experience and how they can influence behavioral
intention.
It is well cited that emotions (both negative and positive) can predict
customer intention, desire and behavioral change (see Perugini and
Bagozzi, 2001; Larsen and McGraw, 2014). Emotions can also be
attributed to re-purchase intention, Bui and Kemp (2013) argue that
emotional regulation has both a direct and mediating effect on repeat
purchase intentions. For example, when customers purchase online
music regularly, this can regulate their emotions and leads to their
repeat purchase intentions. Customers engage in emotion regulation to
attain desired benefits; they might, for example, change their behavior
to seek a reward or desired goal (Tamir, 2016). However, as mentioned
by Balaji et al. (2017), there is a surprising lack of research into cus­
tomers’ emotional regulation and its influence on subsequent customer
behavior.
It is well documented in the literature that there is a strong rela­
tionship between emotions and satisfaction. Han and Rhu’s (2012) re­
sults highlight that customer satisfaction is a function of positive and
negative emotion, and that customer satisfaction has the greatest impact
on customers’ re-purchase intention. Customer satisfaction might be a
function of anticipated positive and negative emotions, which have a
positive impact on customers repurchase intention. In the context of
service failure, both positive and negative emotions have an impact on
satisfaction (Schoefer, 2010) and recovery satisfaction (Kuo and Wu,
2012).

Table 4
“Customers can regulate their emotional experiences”.
Reference Key Findings Key variables/dimensions Research tool Industry and contextual
conditions

Audrezet et al. These findings do not include emotional regulation, but do Satisfaction, negative, and Interviews & Structural Services - banking customers
(2016) highlight that emotions play a large role in determining positive emotions, perceived Equation Modeling USA
intentions and behaviors in complex social behaviors (such quality
as breast feeding). Positive anticipated emotions have a
stronger influence on novice vs. experienced mothers’
intentions and desires.
Balaji et al. This paper only focuses on customer satisfaction and Emotion regulation, negative/ Structural Equation Services - service failure
(2017) injustice, not on the regulation of their emotional experience. positive emotion, customer Modeling (hospitality) in Malaysia
It does, however, find support for customers’ emotion satisfaction
regulation through suppression and reappraisal, which
influence satisfaction’s effects on both negative word-of-
mouth and repurchase intentions. Positive and negative
emotions mediate the relationship between perceived
injustice and customer satisfaction.
Bui and Kemp Greater complexity leads to a greater emotional state, which Emotion regulation, hedonic Structural Equation Retail - UG students, USA -
(2013). in turn leads to a higher purchase intention. This study value, emotional response, Modeling digital music shoppers
ignores the ways customers can regulate their emotional
experiences.
Caruelle et al. Proposes a model for goal-directed behavior (MGB), Customer emotions Conceptual Literature review - conceptual
(2019). introducing negative and positive anticipated emotions as measurements - EDA
drivers of desire, intention, and BI. This study only focusses
on goal-orientated behavior and not on the regulation of
emotional experiences.
Mattila et al. This study does not measure emotion regulation, but does Perception of fairness, positive Experimental design Services - USA, regular
(2014) link emotion with behavioral intentions. It also supports the and negative BI, service restaurant visitors
double deviation effect regarding customers witnessing recovery
unfair treatment experiencing negative emotions and
therefore giving lower fairness ratings and indicating lower
likelihood of returning.
Meng and Choi This study extends the MGB model (Perugini and Bagazzi, Goal-directed behavior and Structural Equation Tourism - South Korean
(2016) 2001), finding that, in the tourism sector, positive and negative/positive anticipated Modeling tourists in a slow tourist
negative anticipated emotion and past behavior have a emotion destination
positive influence on desire. This study does not measure
emotion regulation, but does posit that perceived behavior
control, negative anticipated emotion, and subjective norms
are the more important determinants of desire.
Namkung and This study only focuses on perceived fairness in a service Fairness, negative and positive Structural Equation Services - Restaurant visitors
Jang (2010) setting (restaurant) that negate negative emotions. Price emotions, and BI Modeling in USA
fairness is a significant predictor of both positive and
negative emotions and future BI. This research does not
examine emotion regulation.
Parkinson et al. This research highlights the importance of emotions and Positive and negative Structural Equation Healthcare - USA vs AUS
(2018) experience in complex social behaviors such as breast anticipated emotions, desires/ Modeling women that have breastfed
feeding. It does not, however, measure emotion regulation. intentions/behavior.
Positive anticipated emotions have a stronger influence on
novice vs. experienced mothers’ intentions and desires.
Perugini and Proposes a model of goal-directed behavior (MGB), Goal-orientated behavior, Structural Equation Healthcare/education - Study
Bagozzi introducing negative and positive anticipated emotions as positive and negative emotion. Modeling 1 wt, study 2 studying/Italy
(2001) drivers of desire, intention, and BI. This study does not longitudinal study.
examine emotion regulation and experience.
Quoidbach et al. Emotion regulation strategies can be used before, during, Situation selection Conceptual Conceptual Conceptual
(2015) and after positive emotional events. This study lacks Situation modification
empirical data and does not examine the customer’s Attentional deployment
emotional experience. Cognitive change
Response modulation

6
A. Manthiou et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218

Customers’ emotions can change over time (Maguire and Geiger, above discussion, we posit that:
2015); it is therefore important to capture emotions not as recall, but
Proposition 4. Customers can regulate their emotional experiences
during an actual CX (Caruelle et al., 2019). Physiological experiments
(Table 4).
are used to measure emotional arousal (such as the galvanic skin
response), which could influence altruistic behavior, particularly when
1.4. #Social interactions can influence an emotional experience
the participants are given hedonic choices (Guerreiro et al., 2015).
Caruelle et al. (2019) call for more research using physiological exper­
Customers can not only regulate their emotions, but other customers
iments such as EDA (electrodermal activity) to measure emotional
can also influence them. Researchers have viewed emotion as purely
arousal more accurately and in real time rather than in recall.
intrapersonal. We challenge this viewpoint and highlight the way social
Greenaway and Kolokerinos (2018) highlight that customers do not
interactions influence a customer’s emotional experience.
always show what they feel, and do they always feel what they show.
There is a lack of empirical research into customer-to-customer
Emotion goals occur when there is a discrepancy between a current and
interaction (Huang and Hsu, 2010; Zhang et al., 2010), and particu­
desired state, and this differs from emotion regulation strategies (Tamir,
larly into this social interaction’s influence on a customer’s emotional
2016). Greenaway and Kolokerinos (2018) call for research into the
experience (Tombs and McColl-Kennedy, 2013: Zomerdijk and Voss,
predictors of an emotional goal, and how customers use multiple
2010). Other customers can adversely affect the ambience, which could
emotion regulation strategies to respond to an experience. Following the
reduce consumption and in turn affect customer satisfaction (Miao et al.,

Table 5
“Emotions are not purely intrapersonal, since social interactions can influence an emotional experience”.
Reference Key Findings Key variables/dimensions Research tool Industry and contextual
conditions

Goldenberg et al. Participants are found to be influenced more by other Emotional influence, emotional motivation Lab experiment Lab experiment and Twitter
(2020) participants’ weaker emotions than their own. The study and Twitter analysis USA students
highlights how motivational forces influence other analysis
customers’ emotions. This study does not, however,
examine the emotional experience.
Heinonen et al. Identifies customer-to-customer interaction drivers, i.e. C2c interaction. Value, drivers of C2C Conceptual Literature review -
(2018) the desire for social interaction, self enhancement, and interactions conceptual
self-approval. These drivers lead to value outcomes that
include emotion and social value. This study lacks
empirical data and does not focus on the emotional
experience.
Hochschild Highlights how the links between emotion management Emotion management, feeling rules, social Conceptual Literature review -
(1979) and feelings come alive during a social exchange with exchange conceptual
others. This study lacks empirical data and does not focus
on the emotional experience.
Huang and Hsu Highlights the lack of empirical research on C2C C2C interaction, cruise experience, Structural Tourism - USA cruise ship
(2010) interaction in services. The quality rather than the satisfaction Equation tourists
quantity of interaction with customers is found to be more Modeling
significant. This study only focuses on the tourism sector
and does not examine the emotional experience.
Jung et al. This study does not focus on the emotional experience but Positive C2C interactions, dysfunctional Structural Services - Gym members,
(2017) posits that supportive behaviors from other customers can customer behavior, support from other Equation South Korea x 2 surveys
influence a customer’s judgement of service quality. It’s customers, customer perceived service Modeling
important for services to develop a positive customer climate
perception of service climate to aid in positively
influencing C2C interactions.
Liljander and Highlights the lack of research on other customers’ impact Satisfaction in service quality, negative and Emotions and Services - Customers visiting
Strandvik in service encounters. According to the negative script- positive emotions SERVQUAL employment bureau for low
(1997) incongruent behaviors theory, negative customers have paid jobs, USA
stronger psychological effects than those with a positive
nature. This study does not examine the emotional
experience.
Lin et al. (2018) This study focuses on emotional influence, not on the Social influence, emotion, and satisfaction Online Online experiment - USA &
emotional experience. The results highlight that we shift experiments Chinese online experiment
our emotion to be aligned with the ingroup rather than the students USA
outgroup. The social and physical environment has a
positive influence on customers’ emotion and satisfaction.
Miao et al. Behaviors of others (particularly negative) can affect the Psychological closeness, script-congruent Script theory, Services - USA, UG students
(2011) ambience adversely and will reduce the consumption behavior, felt/displayed emotions, emotional
utility, which in turn affects satisfaction. This study satisfaction response
focuses on emotions and satisfaction not on the emotional
experience.
Rosenbaum and When customers receive social and emotional support Social-emotional interaction vs Structural Services -gym members,
Massiah from other customers, they exhibit CVP (customer instrumental support Equation USA
(2007) voluntary performance) regarding the service and other Modeling
customers. This study only focuses on the social
interaction and not on the emotional experience.
Sierra and This study focuses on inseparability and shared Inseparability, shared responsibility, Structural Services - UG students, USA
McQuitty responsibility rather than on the emotional experience. emotional response, service brand loyalty Equation
(2005) Social exchanges create a sense of shared responsibility Modeling
for service settings, whose inseparability produces
customer perceptions of shared responsibility for service
outcomes, resulting in greater emotions.

7
A. Manthiou et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218

Table 6
Future research directions.
Proposition Future research avenues Reference

Proposition 1
Positive and negative emotions can coexist during a CX.
Proposition 2
Under specific consumption situations, positive emotions do not
automatically lead to positive consumption outcomes, and
negative emotions may not necessarily generate negative
consumption outcomes.
Proposition 3
Under specific consumption situations, customers’ positive or
negative emotions, triggered by experiences with a company
employee, will not necessarily lead to perceive the company
positively or negatively.
Proposition 4
Customers can regulate their emotional experiences
Proposition 5
Emotions are not purely intrapersonal, since social interactions
can influence an emotional experience
� What kinds of specific consumption situations (e.g. buying a Namkung and Jang (2010)
luxurious good vs. a non-luxurious one, a physical good vs. a
service or experience) capture blended consumption-related
emotions better?
� How do customers act when experiencing mixed emotions
during a consumption CX?
� Which view of emotions (unipolar vs. bipolar) is appropriate in
different consumption CXs?
� What role does the subjective and objective ambivalence play in Olsen et al., 2005; Penz, and Hogg
consumption CXs? (2011); Otnes et al. (1997); Pang et al.
� How can ambivalence or mixed consumption emotions be (2017); Ruth et al. (2002)
resolved?
� What is the relationship between time and blended emotions? Maguire and Geiger (2015); Schmalz and
How can the association between these two perspectives be Orth (2012); Roster, and Richens (2009)
quantified?
� Do mixed consumption emotions vary in a longitudinal setting?
� How does the blended emotional experience of indulgent Ramanathan and Williams (2007)
consumption and of non-consumption indulgences happen?
� Which positive emotions relate to negative outcomes and which Pool et al. (2015); Olsen et al. (2005);
negative emotions relate to positive outcomes? Chepngetich et al. (2019); Bilgihan et al.
� Do cultural and subcultural factors influence the consumption (2016);
outcomes of positive and negative emotions? Penz and Hogg (2011); Otnes et al.
� What role does service recovery play in changing emotions and (1997)
consumption outcomes? DeWitt et al. (2008); Chebat and
Slusarczyk (2005)
� Do customers feel a mixture of emotions towards a company and Bansal et al. (2001); Jones and Suh 2000;
its employees? Mende and Bolton (2011)
� Do customers treat them as two separate entities?
� What are the boundary conditions for this situation?
� Does only the last experience with an employee affect Jayawardhena et al. (2007); Mende and
customers’ repurchase behavior, while the others affect their Bolton (2011)
overall experience with the company? Porath et al. (2010)
� What are the outcomes of mixed emotions with a company and
its service employees (e.g. word-of-mouth, trust, commitment,
value, etc.)?
� Can longitudinal data provide better results to better understand
and track when, why, and the extent to which customers’ mixed
emotions toward the two entities vary over time?
� Do the mixed emotions of these two entities differ across
industries (high-tech, hospitality, insurance, banking, etc.) and
across cultures?
� What are the roles of existing competition and other Grigoroudis et al. (2013)
environmental variables in developing blended emotions toward
a company and its employees?
� What is the impact of service expectations on consumer Mattila et al. (2014).
perceptions and emotions? Investigating the presence of specific
emotional reactions to injustice toward other customers and the
conditions under which they occur.
� Explore whether multiple opposite-valence emotions allow Larsen and McGraw (2014)
greater insight into whether some opposite-valence emotions (e.
g., high-arousal emotions) co-occur more frequently than polar
opposite emotions.
� Investigate emotions in real time, as service encounters can be Maguire and Geiger (2015)
emotional rollercoasters and can change. The use of portable
neural imaging devices could be used - link these findings to
service evaluation and satisfaction.
� Use the MGB model in different contexts (non-restaurant) to Han and Ryu (2012)
assess actual consumption in real-time. Do personal character­
istics, i.e. personality, income, and cultural background affect
consumption?
� Use physiological (such as skin arousal or eye detecting Caruelle et al. (2019); Bui and Kemp
software) experiments to measure customer emotions in real 2013)
time.
� What drives group members to feel/show emotion? Measure the Goldenberg et al. (2020)
motivations and strength of emotional influence.
� Investigate the negative drivers of C2C interaction, i.e. what Heinonen et al. (2018).
hinders interaction and which factors moderate the drivers’
effects? How do different types of C2C interactions contribute to
the customer journey/experience?
� Use real time experience rather than recall. Investigate types of Huang and Hsu (2010)
social interactions, i.e. interactions with other travelers, cruise
staff, and the local community.
� Investigate the influences of positive and dysfunctional Jung et al. (2017).
customers and test them as separate constructs and the
(continued on next page)

8
A. Manthiou et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218

Table 6 (continued )
Proposition Future research avenues Reference

frequency of the occurrences. How can this supportive behavior

aid consumption and the perceived value of taking a new class?
Could C2C be linked to brand communities where the service
organization is part of the community?
� Explore intergroup influences, but instead of investigating Lin et al. (2018).
negative emotions, investigates positive emotions. Different Miao et al. (2011)
types of negative emotion, such as anger, fear, and sadness could
also be used. Customer characteristics could be investigated, i.e.
personality types and motivations, as these may affect one’s
perception of the social or physical environment.
� Examine psychological costs in response to other customers’
behaviors in service encounters. Explore why other customers’
felt and displayed emotions can affect encounter satisfaction
negatively.
� Using the SSQT social-emotional and instrumental scale, inves­ Rosenbaum and Massiah (2007)
tigate variables such as income, the frequency of interaction,
and loneliness, which could encourage customers to form sup­
portive relationships.
� Apply the affect theory of social exchange to goods - not services Sierra and McQuitty (2005)
- to examine emotion and third-party customers. Investigate
other services (not restaurants) and test their scales and validate.
� Explore emotions and third-party customers in other service Tombs and McColl-Kennedy (2013)
contexts (not restaurants and cafes) such as hospitals, banks, and
supermarkets. Explore customer compatibility - does this affect
the experience and perception of the service environment?
Explore the threshold levels of customers’ displayed emotions, i.
e. are these a low intensity or positive display of negative
emotions?

2011). Mattila et al. (2014) support these findings in a service failure
scenario, whereby customers respond to witnessing other customers
being treated unfairly, and experience negative emotion, give lower
fairness ratings, and are less likely to return.
Sierra and McQuitty (2005) highlights the importance of social ex­
change in the service industry and posit that social exchanges create a
sense of shared responsibility. They argue that inseparability produces
customer perceptions of shared responsibility, which leads to a positive
emotional response and loyalty. Arnold (2017) argue that other cus­
tomers’ supportive behaviors influence a customer’s judgement of ser­
vice quality. She highlights that although customer-to-customer
interactions are uncontrollable, a positive experience will help achieve a
positive interaction with customers. This supports Rosenbaum and
Massiah (2007), who find that when customers receive social and
emotional support from other customers, they exhibit voluntary per­
formance with regard to the service and the other customers.
Lin et al. (2018) investigated ingroup and outgroup social influence
on emotion. Although their research only examines negative emotion,
their findings highlight the importance of ingroup behavior; the more
similar respondents are to one another, the more influential they are in
the group. This leads to participants shifting their emotions to reward
and positive valuation. Goldenberg et al. (2020) support this and argue
that the motivation to feel weak emotions lead participants to be more
influenced by weaker emotions than their own, which highlights social
influences’ impact on emotion. This leads us to our fifth proposition:
Proposition 5. Emotions are not purely intrapersonal, since social in­
teractions can influence an emotional experience (Table 5 and 7).
1.5. Research contribution and managerial implications
Our study’s theoretical contribution is three-fold. First, we present
the five propositions regarding customer emotional experience research.
Second, this paper adds to the increasing body of research on emotions’
important role in CX. Third, this study identifies various future research
opportunities for an effective stream of emotional experience research.
In terms of practical contributions, this research provides marketing

Table 7
Existing assumptions and new propositions.
Existing assumptions New propositions References

Positive and negative consumption
emotions are separate.
Positive emotions lead to positive
consumption outcomes and negative
emotions to negative outcomes.
Positive or negative emotions toward a
company’s employees automatically
transfer to the company and vice versa.
Customers are passive victims of their
emotions and cannot regulate their
emotional experience.
Customers’ emotions are intrapersonal.
Proposition 1: Positive and negative emotions can coexist during
a CX.
Proposition 2: Under specific consumption situations, positive
emotions do not automatically lead to positive consumption
outcomes, and negative emotions may not necessarily generate
negative consumption outcomes.
Proposition 3: Under specific consumption situations,
customers’ positive or negative emotions, triggered by
experiences with a company employee, will not necessarily lead
to perceive the company positively or negatively.
Proposition 4: Customers can regulate their emotional
experiences
Proposition 5: Emotions are not purely intrapersonal, since
social interactions can influence an emotional experience
Namkung and Jang (2010); Olsen et al. (2005); Penz, and Hogg
(2011); Otnes et al. (1997); Pang et al. (2017); Ruth et al. (2002);
Maguire and Geiger (2015); Schmalz and Orth (2012); Roster,
and Richens (2009); Ramanathan and Williams (2007)
Penz, and Hogg (2011); Otnes et al. (1997); Chepngetich et al.
(2019); Bilgihan et al. (2016);
Maguire and Geiger (2015); Quoidbach et al. (2015); Roster and
Richins (2009); Gaur et al. (2014)
Bansal et al. (2001); Jones and Suh (2000); Mende and Bolton
(2011); Jayawardhena et al. (2007); Mende and Bolton (2011)
Balaji et al. (2017); Han and Ryu (2012); Matilla et al. (2014);
Perugini and Bagozzi (2001)
Goldenberg et al. (2020); Heinonen et al. (2018); Huang and Hsu
(2010); Jung et al. (2017); Miao et al. (2011); Rosenbaum and
Massiah (2007); Tombs and McColl-Kennedy (2013)

9
A. Manthiou et al.
practitioners with guidance to deal with the different aspects and targets
of emotional customer experience. Our first proposition allows practi­
tioners to interpret the role that mixed emotions play in consumer
decision-making further. We suggest that managers should be aware
that customers’ emotional state might be a mixture of contrary feelings
and that all the conflicting emotions need to be evaluated. In a restau­
rant setting, customers might really like the food, but be unhappy with
the ambience and the physical evidence. For instance, asking customers
to fill out a satisfaction survey is not enough, since they might indicate
some level satisfaction, but never return, due to the high levels of
negative emotion they also experienced. Consequently, their negative
views should also be assessed.
The second proposition helps managers capture positive and nega­
tive emotions toward the offer as well as the subsequent consumption
outcomes. Managers need to understand that positive emotions experi­
enced with the product/service do not necessarily generate positive
consumption outcomes, while negative emotions do not always
engender negative consumption outcomes. For instance, a customer may
be excited about a product just launched, but cannot buy it due to its
high price. Or customers may have a negative emotion about brand/
product, but still recommend it to others. In addition, managers need to
analyze which positive or negative emotions have the greater impact on
consumption outcomes. Past research has shown contradictory results.
Liljander and Strandvik (1997) reveal negative emotions’ effect is
stronger with regard to services than that of positive emotions. On the
other hand, Ladhari et al. (2008) and Liu and Jang (2009) show that
positive emotions have a stronger impact than negative ones on
customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in restaurant settings.
Our third proposition recommends that practitioners should assess
customers’ emotions separately concerning their experiences with em­
ployees and with the company as a whole. For instance, a new guest at a
hotel may be content with the service that the front desk employees
provide, but unhappy with the room, and therefore has no intention of
returning. Managers therefore need to assess and treat the two entities
(company and employees) separately.
Moreover, employees need to understand their role as a separate
entity and be trained in this regard.
Our fourth proposition highlights that customers can regulate their
emotional experience; it is therefore important that managers deliver a
positive customer experience, and that they react and reassure cus­
tomers when they experience a negative emotion. It is important that
staff members are trained to gain a better understanding of customers’
emotional responses, and to highlight positive outcomes, and can reas­
sure customers if needed. Managers should not just rely on data to
predict consumer behavior; they need to understand individual
customer drivers and provide qualitative one-to-one feedback.
Table 8
Propositions and managerial implications.
Propositions
Proposition 1: Positive and negative emotions can coexist during a CX.
Proposition 2: Under specific consumption situations, positive emotions do not
automatically lead to positive consumption outcomes, and negative emotions may not
necessarily generate negative consumption outcomes.
Proposition 3: Under specific consumption situations, customers’ positive or negative
emotions, triggered by experiences with a company employee, will not necessarily lead
to perceive the company positively or negatively.
Proposition 4: Customers can regulate their emotional experiences
Proposition 5: Emotions are not purely intrapersonal, since social interactions can
influence an emotional experience
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218
The last proposition maintains that managers cannot ignore other
customers and social interactions’ impact. Service providers need to
manage not only customer emotions, but also how other customers can
influence these emotions. It is important for managers to understand
that they cannot always control and manage customers’ experience.
They should, however, create a service design to control social in­
teractions in advance, which should encourage positive outcomes. For
example, a manager might stagger customers’ entrance times according
to their surname or address, so that they do not have to queue. During
the Covid-19 pandemic, Italian post offices assigned pensioners a spe­
cific time according to their surnames, which meant that they did not
have to queue for too long. Another example could be for retailers to
allocate a specific area - away from the sales desks - for exchanges/re­
funds to reduce these customers’ interaction with others. Staff members
need to be trained to not only manage the relevant customer when a
service failure threatens, but to also control those customers who have
observed this failure and respond with a negative emotion (Table 8).
1.6. Future research directions
Although this paper proposes several propositions to advance our
understanding of the role that emotions play in customer experience
research, there are still many research gaps and challenges across many
levels of emotions in the customer experience domain. In order to
stimulate further reflection on emotions in customer experience, we
conclude by outlining several research questions aligned with the five
propositions.
In respect of Proposition 1, research should focus on the coexistence
of positive and negative emotions during one consumption experience.
A promising research avenue is one that better capture the blended
emotions in specific consumption situations.
Proposition 2 argues that positive emotions do not necessarily
generate positive consumption outcomes and negative emotions do not
engender negative consumption ones. Future research should test these
opposing relationships in different consumption settings. Another future
research avenue could be to examine service recovery’s role in fluctu­
ating emotions and in consumption outcomes (DeWitt et al., 2008;
Chebat and Slusarczyk, 2005).
Proposition 3 concentrates on the mixture of emotions related to a
company employee and the company itself. Positive or negative emo­
tions due to an interaction with a firm’s employee will not shift to the
entire company and vice versa. Future research should examine a
company and its employees as separate constructs.
Proposition 4 highlights that customers can regulate their emotions if
the benefit of doing this outweighs the experienced sacrifice/negative
emotion. Emotions can change over time and during a purchase
Managerial implications
Managers need to simultaneously assess positive and negative consumption emotions.
They should use tools that can capture emotional ambivalence, for example, surveys
measuring opposing emotions.
Managers need to evaluate positive and negative consumption emotions, as well as the
opposing results they might bring about. They should use mechanisms that reveal the
contrary relationships between emotions and consumption outcomes.
Managers need to appraise the two entities (company and employees) separately and
treat them as such. They require tools that can measure customers’ emotional states in
respect to the two entities separately.
Managers need to focus on one-to-one qualitative feedback from customers and not just
use data interactions to predict consumer behavior. It is important that the individual
drivers of customers’ emotional experience are actioned and that managers do not only
focus on the outcome.
Managers need to understand that they cannot always control customer experience, as
they cannot manage the entire experience. However, they can design service experiences
to control social interactions in advance. For example, a retailer could allocate a service
desk, far from the sales desks, for exchanges/refunds
A. Manthiou et al.
decision, which is why it is important to analyze customers’ experiences
in real time. The recall of an experience has its limitations, and does not
always capture all the emotions exhibited during a service episode;
portable neural images devices could therefore be used to do so
(Maguire and Geiger, 2015). Future research could use experiments that
track an emotional experience in real time by using skin arousal ex­
periments or eye-tracking software.
Proposition 5 suggests that social interactions might influence an
emotional experience. Consequently, it is important to measure other
customers’ experiences and their effect on their emotion during a
customer experience. Although there is a body of literature on customer-
to-customer interaction, there is very little literature that investigates
other customers’ emotional engagement and its effect on their experi­
ences in the service industry (Huang and Hsu, 2010; Zomerdijk and
Voss, 2010). Future research could investigate all customers’ positive
and negative emotions during a service experience to identify the social
interactions’ influence, drivers, and outcomes. Challenging this propo­
sition and investigating when social interactions do not influence a
customer’s emotional experience could be very interesting, giving rise to
the question whether this would change the proposition’s context or its
goal? Could the goal achieved outweigh the emotional experience that
specific contexts might mediate or moderate? For example, do other
customers’ experiences have a potential emotional effect on discounted
items during a Black Friday sale or not? Does the use of isolation
headphones on an airplane or when traveling on public transport reduce
the noise and interaction of other customers, making the emotional
experience more intrapersonal that interpersonal? (Table 6)
References
Abbott, L., 1955. Quality and Competition. Columbia University Press, New York.
Addis, M., Miniero, G., Soscia, I., 2018. Facing contradictory emotions in event
marketing: leveraging on surprise. J. Consum. Market. 35 (2), 183–193.
Ajzen, I.F., Fishbein, M.M., 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Andrade, Eduardo B., Cohen, J.B., 2007. On the consumption of negative Feelings.
J. Consum. Res. 34 (October), 283–300.
Arnold, M., 2017. Fostering sustainability by linking co-creation and relationship
management concepts. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 179–188.
Audrezet, A., Olsen, S.O., Tudoran, A.A., 2016. The GRID scale: a new tool for measuring
service mixed satisfaction. J. Serv. Market. 30 (1), 29–47.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Babin, L.A., 1998. Negative emotions in marketing research:
affect or artifact? J. Bus. Res. 42, 271–285.
Baker, J.A., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., Voss, G.B., 2002. The influence of multiple
store environment cues on perceived merchandise vale and patronage intentions.
J. Market. 66 (2), 120–141.
Bansal, H.S., Mendelson, M.B., Sharma, B., 2001. The impact of internal marketing
activities on external marketing outcomes. J. Qual. Manag. 6 (1), 61–76.
Balaji, M.S., Roy, S.K., Quazi, A., 2017. Customers’ emotion regulation strategies in
service failure encounters. Eur. J. Market. 51 (5–6), 960–982.
Bilgihan, A., Madanoglu, M., Ricci, P., 2016. Service attributes as drivers of behavioral
loyalty in casinos: The mediating effect of attitudinal loyalty. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. 14–21.
Bitner, M.J., 1990. Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surrounding on
employee responses. J. Market. 54 (2), 69–82.
Bitner, M.J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
Employees. J. Market. 56 (2), 57–71.
Brakus, J., Schmitt, B.H., Zarantonello, L., 2009. Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty? J. Market. 73 (May 2009), 52–68.
Bui, M., Kemp, E., 2013. E-tail emotion regulation: examining online hedonic product
purchases. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 41 (2), 155–170.
Cacioppo, J.T., Gardner, W.L., Berntson, G.G., 1999. The affect system has parallel and
integrative processing components: form follows function. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76
(5), 839–855.
Caruelle, D., Gustafsson, A., Shams, P., Lervik-Olsen, L., 2019. The use of electrodermal
activity (EDA) measurement to understand consumer emotions–A literature review
and a call for action. J. Bus. Res. 104, 146–160.
Chandon, J., Leo, P., Philippe, J., 1997. Service encounter dimensions - a dyadic
perspective: Measuring the dimensions of service encounters as perceived by
customers and personnel. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 8 (1), 65–86.
Chebat, J.-C., Slusarczyk, W., 2005. How emotions mediate the effects of perceived
justice on loyalty in service recovery situations: an empirical study. J. Bus. Res. 58
(5), 664–673.
Chepngetich, B., Ouma, O.K., Aila, F.O., 2019. Influence of customer experience
dimensions on purchase behavior in Kenyan hotels. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 11 (21),
50–62.
11
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218
Christopher, M., Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., 1991. Relationship Marketing: Bringing
Quality, Customer Service and Marketing Together. Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
DeWitt, T, Nguyen, D.T., Marshall, R., 2008. Exploring customer loyalty following
service recovery. J. Serv. Res. 10 (3), 269–281.
Diener, Ed, 1999. Introduction to the special section on the structure of emotion. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 76 (5), 803–804.
Fast, N.J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N.D., Galinsky, A.D., 2012. Power and overconfident
decision-making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117 (2), 249–260.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 2005. Theory-based behavior change interventions: Comments on
Hobbis and Sutton. J. Health Psychol. 10 (1), 27–31.
Gaur, S.S., Herjanto, H., Makkar, M., 2014. Review of emotions research in marketing,
2002–2013. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21 (6), 917–923.
Goldenberg, A., Garcia, D., Halperin, E., Zaki, J., Kong, D., Golarai, G., Gross, J.J., 2020.
Beyond emotional similarity: the role of situation-specific motives. J. Exp. Psychol.
Gen. 149 (1), 138–159.
Goldin, P.R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., Gross, J.J., 2008. The neural bases of emotion
regulation: reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biol. Psychiatr. 63 (6),
577–586.
Goodstein, Ronald C., Edell, Julie A., Mooren, Marian Chapman, 1990. When are feelings
generated? Assessing the presence and reliability of feelings based on storyboards
and animatics. In: Agres, Stuart J., Dubitsky, Tony M., Edell, Julie A. (Eds.), Emotion
in Advertising: Theoretical and Practical Explorations. Questia, Westport, CT.
Grandey, A.A., Fisk, G.M., Ganster, D.C., Perrew, P., 2004. Display rules and strain in
service jobs: What’s fairness got to do with it. Explor. interpers. Dynam 265–293.
Greenaway, K.H., Kalokerinos, E.K., 2019. The Intersection of goals to experience and
express emotion. Emotion Rev. 11 (1), 50–62.
Grigoroudis, E., Tsitsiridi, E., Zopounidis, C., 2013. Linking customer satisfaction,
employee appraisal, and business performance: an evaluation methodology in the
banking sector. Ann. Oper. Res. 205, 5–27.
Gross, J.J., 1998. The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review. Rev.
Gen. Psychol. 2 (3), 271–299.
Guerreiro, J., Rita, P., Trigueiros, D., 2015. Attention, emotions and cause-related
marketing effectiveness. Eur. J. Market. 49 (11/12), 1728–1750.
Han, H., Ryu, K., 2012. The theory of repurchase decision-making (TRD): Identifying the
critical factors in the post-purchase decision-making process. Int. J. Hospit. Manag.
31 (3), 786–797.
Heinonen, K., Jaakkola, E., Neganova, I., 2018. Drivers, types and value outcomes of
customer-to-customer interaction: an integrative review and research agenda.
J. Serv. Theory Pract. 28 (6), 710–732.
Hightower, R., Brady, M.K., Baker, T.L., 2002. Investigating the role of the physical
environment in hedonic service consumption: an exploratory study of sporting
events. J. Bus. Res. 55 (4), 697–707.
Holbrook, M.B., Batra, R., 1987. Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer
responses to advertising. J. Consum. Res. 14 (3), 404–420.
Hochschild, A.R., 1979. Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. Am. J. Sociol.
85 (3), 551–575.
Huang, J., Hsu, C.H., 2010. The impact of customer-to-customer interaction on cruise
experience and vacation satisfaction. J. Trav. Res. 49 (1), 79–92.
Hunter, P.G., Schellenberg, E.G., Schimmack, U., 2008. Mixed affective responses to
music with conflicting cues. Cognit. Emot. 22 (2), 327–352.
Jayawardhena, C., Souchon, A.L., Farrell, A.M., Glanville, K., 2007. Outcomes of service
encounter quality in a business-to-business context. Ind. Market. Manag. 36 (5),
575–588.
Jones, M.A., Suh, J., 2000. Transaction-specific satisfaction and overall satisfaction: an
empirical analysis. J. Serv. Market. 14 (2), 147–159.
Jung, J.H., Yoo, J.J., Arnold, T.J., 2017. Service climate as a moderator of the effects of
customer-to-customer interactions on customer support and service quality. J. Serv.
Res. 20 (4), 426–440.
Klaus, Ph, 2015. Measuring Customer Experience How to Develop and Execute the Most
Profitable Customer Experience Strategies. Springer.
Klaus, Ph, Manthiou, K., 2020. Applying the EEE customer mindset in luxury:
reevaluating customer experience research and practice during and after corona.
J. Serv. Manag. In press.
Kuo, Y.F., Wu, C.M., 2012. Satisfaction and post-purchase intentions with service
recovery of online shopping websites: perspectives on perceived justice and
emotions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 32 (2), 127–138.
Ladhari, R., Brun, I., Morales, M., 2008. Determinants of dining satisfaction and post-
dining behavioral intentions. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 27, 563–573, 2008.
Larsen, J.T., Coles, N.A., Jordan, D.K., 2017. Varieties of mixed emotional experience.
Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 15, 72–76.
Larsen, Jeff T., Peter McGraw, A., Mellers, Barbara A., Cacioppo, J.T., 2004. The agony of
victory and thrill of defeat. Psychol. Sci. 15 (May), 325–330.
Larsen, J.T., McGraw, A.P., 2014. The case for mixed emotions. Soc. Pers. Psychol.
Compass 8 (6), 263–274.
Lemon, K.N., Verhoef, P.C., 2016. Understanding customer experience throughout the
customer journey. J. Market. 80 (6), 69–96.
Lerner, J.S., Keltner, D., 2000. Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific
influences on judgment and choice. Cognit. Emot. 14 (4), 473–493.
Lerner, J.S., Keltner, D., 2001. Fear, anger, and risk. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 (1),
146–159.
Liljander, V., Mattsson, J., 2002. Impact of customer preconsumption mood on the
evaluation of employee behavior in service encounters. Psychol. Market. 19,
837–847.
Liljander, V., Strandvik, T., 1997. Emotions in service satisfaction. Int. J. Serv. Ind.
Manag. 8 (2), 148–169.
A. Manthiou et al.
Lin, L.C., Qu, Y., Telzer, E.H., 2018. Intergroup social influence on emotion processing in
the brain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 115 (42), 10630–10635.
Liu, Y., Jang, S.C., 2009. The effects of dining atmospherics: an extended
Mehrabian–Russell model. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 28, 494–503, 2009.
Macintosh, G., Lockshin, L.S., 1997. Retail relationships and store loyalty: a multi-level
Perspective. Int. J. Res. Market. 14 (5), 487–497.
Madrigal, R., Bee, C., 2005. Suspense as an experience of mixed emotions: feelings of
hope and fear while watching suspenseful commercials. In: Menon, Geeta,
Rao, Akshay R. (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 32. Association
for Consumer Research, Duluth, MN, pp. 561–567.
Maguire, L., Geiger, S., 2015. Emotional timescapes: the temporal perspective and
consumption emotions in services. J. Serv. Market. 29 (3), 211–223.
Mattila, A.S., Enz, C.A., 2002. The role of emotions in service encounters. J. Serv. Res. 4
(4), 268–278.
Mattila, A., Hanks, L., Wang, C., 2014. Others service experiences: emotions, perceived
justice, and behavior. Eur. J. Market. 48 (3/4), 552–571.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mende, M., Bolton, R.N., 2011. Why attachment security matters: how customers’
attachment styles influence their relationships with service firms and service
employees. J. Serv. Res. 14 (3), 285–301.
Meng, B., Choi, K., 2016. The role of authenticity in forming slow tourists’ intentions:
developing an extended model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism Manag. 57,
397–410.
Miao, L., Mattila, A.S., Mount, D., 2011. Other consumers in service encounters: a script
theoretical perspective. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 30 (4), 933–941.
Namkung, Y., Jang, S.C., 2010. Effects of perceived service fairness on emotions, and
behavioral intentions in restaurants. Eur. J. Market. 44 (9/10), 1233–1259.
Oliver, R.L., 1997. Satisfaction; A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. Irwin/
McGraw-Hill, NewYork.
Olsen, S.O., Wilcox, J., Olson, U., 2005. Consequences of ambivalence on satisfaction and
loyalty. Psychol. Market. 22 (3), 247–269.
Otnes, Cele, Lowrey, Tina M., Shrum, L.J., 1997. Toward an understanding of consumer
Ambivalence. J. Consum. Res. 24 (June), 80–93.
Otto, J.E., Ritchie, B.R., 1996. The service experience in tourism. Tourism Manag. 17 (3),
165–174.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., Evans, K.R., 2006. Factors influencing the
effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. J. Market. 70 (4), 136–153.
Pang, J., Keh, H.T., Li, X., Maheswaran, D., 2017. Every coin has two sides: the effects of
dialectical thinking and attitudinal ambivalence on psychological discomfort and
consumer choice. J. Consum. Psychol. 27 (2), 218–230.
Parkinson, J., Russell-Bennett, R., Previte, J., 2018. Challenging the planned behavior
approach in social marketing: emotion and experience matter. Eur. J. Market. 52 (3),
837–865.
Penz, E., Hogg, M.K., 2011. The role of mixed emotions in consumer behaviour:
investigating ambivalence in consumers’ experiences of approach-avoidance
conflicts in online and offline settings. Eur. J. Market. 45 (1), 104–132.
Perugini, M., Bagozzi, R.P., 2001. The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-
directed behaviours: broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. Br.
J. Soc. Psychol. 40 (1), 79–98.
Pine, B.J., Gilmore, J.H., 1998. Welcome to the experience economy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 76
(4), 97–106.
12
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102218
Pool, E., Brosch, T., Delplanque, S., Sander, D., 2015. Stress increases cue-triggered
“wanting” for sweet reward in humans. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Learn. Cognit. 41 (2),
128.
Porath, C.L., MacInnis, D.J., Folkes, V.S., 2010. Witnessing incivility among employees:
Effects on consumer anger and negative inferences about companies. J. Consum. Res.
37, 292–303.
Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., Gross, J.J., 2015. Positive interventions: an emotion
regulation perspective. Psychol. Bull. 141 (3), 655–693.
Raajpoot, N., 2004. Reconceptualizing service encounter quality in a non-Western
context. J. Serv. Res. 7 (2), 181–201.
Ramanathan, S., Williams, P., 2007. Immediate and delayed emotional consequences of
indulgence: the moderating influence of personality type on mixed emotions.
J. Consum. Res. 34 (2), 212–223.
Rosenbaum, M.S., Massiah, C.A., 2007. When customers receive support from other
customers: exploring the influence of intercustomer social support on customer
voluntary Performance. J. Serv. Res. 9 (3), 257–270.
Roster, C.A., Richins, M.L., 2009. Ambivalence and attitudes in consumer replacement
decisions. J. Consum. Psychol. 19 (1), 48–61.
Russell, C., Russell, D., Klein, J., 2011. Ambivalence toward a country and consumers’
willingness to buy emblematic brands: the differential predictive validity of
objective and subjective ambivalence measures on behavior. Market. Lett. 22 (4),
357–371.
Russell James, A., Weiss, A., Mendelsohn, G.A., 1989. Affect grid - a single-item scale of
pleasure and arousal. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57 (3), 493–502.
Ruth Julie, A., Brunel Frederic, F., Otnes Cele, C., 2002. Linking thoughts to feelings:
investigating cognitive appraisals and consumption emotions in a mixed-emotions
context. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 30 (1), 44–58.
Schmalz, S., Orth, U.R., 2012. Brand attachment and consumer emotional response to
unethical firm behavior. Psychol. Market. 29 (11), 869–884.
Schoefer, K., 2010. Cultural moderation in the formation of recovery satisfaction
judgments: a cognitive-affective perspective. J. Serv. Res. 13 (1), 52–66.
Sierra, J.J., McQuitty, S., 2005. Service providers and customers: social exchange theory
and service loyalty. J. Serv. Market. 19 (6), 392–400.
Spielmann, N., 2020. Green is the new white: how virtue Motivates green product
purchase. J. Bus. Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04493-6. April 2020.
Svari, S., Svensson, G., Slåtten, T., Edvardsson, B., 2011. A SOS construct of negative
emotions in customers’ service experience (CSE) and service recovery by firms
(SRF). J. Serv. Market. 25 (5), 323–335.
Tamir, M., 2016. Why do people regulate their emotions? A taxonomy of motives in
emotion regulation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 20 (3), 199–222.
Tombs, A.G., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., 2013. Third party customers infecting other
customers for better or for worse. Psychol. Market. 30 (3), 277–292.
Winsted, K.F., 2000. Service behaviors that lead to satisfied customers. Eur. J. Market. 34
(3/4), 399–417.
Yim, Chi Kin, DavidTse, K., Kimmy Wa Chan, 2008. Strengthening customer loyalty
through intimacy and passion: Roles of customer-firm affection and customer staff
relationships in services. J. Market. Res. 45, 741–756.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J., 2003. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus
across the Firm. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Zomerdijk, L.G., Voss, C.A., 2010. Service design for experience-centric services. J. Serv.
Res. 13 (1), 67–82.