Why do consumers procrastinate and what

happens next?
Shabnam Azimi
Department of Marketing, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA, and
George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller
Department of Marketing, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the factors leading to and resulting from procrastination under high price uncertainty and provide
recommendations for how managers can reduce consumer procrastination, thus decreasing consumer regret, anger and retaliatory behaviors.
Design/methodology/approach – Hypothesized relationships were tested through two scenario-based experiments using student samples. Data
was analyzed using general linear model, path analysis and Wald chi-square test.
Findings – Long time limits, price uncertainty and price consciousness, all increase the likelihood of procrastination. Prestige seeking reduces
procrastination, but only when time limits are short. When one delays a purchase and later the price of the item gets increased or one makes a
purchase and later the price gets further reduced, procrastination and purchase decision both equally can lead to anger, which then increases the
probability of exit, voice or word of mouth (WOM); however, procrastination has a much stronger impact than deciding to purchase on self-
responsibility and regret, which in turn increases negative WOM.
Research limitations/implications – This paper provides a greater understanding of antecedents and consequences of procrastination as well as
the drivers of retaliatory behavior. Further, the findings highlight differential consequences of consumer regret and anger on consumption behaviors.
Practical implications – This paper provides practical suggestions for reducing consumers’ procrastination through leveraging the effects of
purchase time limit and price uncertainty in general, and more specifically, for prestige-seeker and price conscious consumers. The findings provide
evidence for a silent path from procrastination to retaliation and highlight the importance of possible remedies or interventions by the companies to
mitigate consumer emotions resulting from procrastination.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to apply temporal motivation theory in the context of consumer
behavior under price uncertainty, and examine consequences of consumer procrastination in terms of thoughts, feelings and retaliatory behavior.
Keywords Procrastination, Delay decision-making, Price uncertainty, Consumer emotions, Consumer complaint
Paper type Research paper

Introduction understanding antecedents and consequences of consumer’s

Many consumers experience buying an item at a price and later
observing others bought the same item from the same company
for a much cheaper price as a result of downward price
adjustment. Research indicates that in such situations, firms’
most valuable customers may feel antagonized and stop
purchasing from the company resulting in significant loss of
revenue (Anderson and Duncan, 2008). While research has
explored the implications of downward price adjustments, the
reverse situation, or the upward price adjustment, has received
limited attention, even though it is also common. What
happens if a consumer decides to delay a purchase when an
item is on sale and later sees the firm is charging a higher price
for the same item? Would he/she feel any regret or anger?
Would he/she become hostile? Why did he/she decide to delay
the purchase in the first place? In this research, we focus on
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0736-3761.htm
intentional delay of a purchase which will be referred to as
“consumer procrastination.”
Procrastination behavior is often defined as a delay in
completing a task (Akerlof, 1991; Shu and Gneezy, 2010). The
term is not necessarily used in a negative sense as several
researchers also define procrastination as a functional delay or
avoiding rushed decisions (Bernstein, 1998; Choi and Moran,
2009; Chu and Choi, 2005). Specifically, procrastination can
be a sound strategy when the outcome is uncertain and more
information is needed (Bernstein, 1998). Along with this line of
research, we define consumer procrastination as an intentional
delay of a purchase task under uncertain outcome conditions
despite one’s intent and ability to buy.
Consumer procrastination is a common behavior, especially,
as in an intensely competitive business environment,
consumers are extensively challenged and confused when there
is a high level of price uncertainty. Using a detailed price data
set, Nakamura and Steinsson (2008) have estimated that the
median frequency of consumer price change is around 20% per

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Received 16 July 2019
37/7 (2020) 795–805 Revised 6 March 2020
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] 28 May 2020
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-07-2019-3329] Accepted 15 July 2020

795
 Consumers procrastinate
Shabnam Azimi, George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller
month. This level of price fluctuation makes it very unlikely for
consumers to predict outcomes of their purchase decisions,
increases the complexity of consumer decision-making and can
result in delayed decisions. Not only does this lack of
confidence in the price hinder purchase decisions, it can also
deteriorate shopping enjoyment and post-purchase satisfaction
for consumers. This paper studies consumer procrastination as
an outcome of this price change climate and as a delay strategy
used by consumers in hope of maximizing the chance of buying
at the best possible price. Through two studies, we examine
both the variables leading to (Study 1) and the ones resulting
from (Study 2) consumer procrastination.
Prior research has looked at causes of consumers’ decisions
to delay purchases (Greenleaf and Lehmann, 1995; Shu and
Gneezy, 2010) but have not organized those reasons into a
comprehensive theoretical framework that might guide greater
understanding of consumer procrastination under certain
boundary conditions. In addition, while the marketing
literature has examined the outcomes of consumers’ actions
(i.e. purchases), the consequences of consumers’ inactions (i.e.
procrastination) has not been studied. To address these gaps
and extend the previous findings, in this paper, we aim to first
understand why consumers choose to procrastinate in the
context of price variability. To address this research question,
we adapt an integrative theory of motivation to study the effects
of several marketing-related factors on the decision to
procrastinate. Our second purpose is to examine whether
consumer procrastination has any cognitive (i.e. self-blame),
emotional (i.e. regret and anger) and behavioral (i.e. retaliation
decisions such as negative word of mouth [WOM], exit and
complaining [voice]) outcomes. Hypothesized effects are
subsequently tested through scenario-based experiments.
Our findings contribute to marketing theory and practice by
providing a greater understanding of the antecedents and
consequences of procrastination as well as the drivers of
retaliatory behavior. The following sections present the
theoretical framework to address antecedents and
consequences of consumer procrastination followed by Studies
1 and 2, their results and discussion of the implications.
Antecedents of consumer procrastination
Past research identifies two sets of antecedent factors that lead
to consumer procrastination: situational (e.g. market-related)
and individual. Examples of situational causes are: lack of time,
aversive shopping tasks, performance and financial risks of the
purchase, the need for advice, the need for further research and
fear of price changes (Greenleaf and Lehmann, 1995).
Individual causes of procrastination on shopping tasks may
include indecision or lack of energy (Ferrari, 1993). This
research uses the temporal motivation theory (TMT) to
provide an overarching framework for categorizing situational
and individual variables that have been shown to explain
consumer procrastination and provides new insights into their
joint influence on procrastination. TMT is a theory of
motivation in social psychology that has been found to be useful
in explaining procrastination (Steel, 2007). TMT proposes that
four factors, expectancy, value, delay and sensitivity to delay,
predict the motivation or desirability of a task according to
equation (1):
796
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2020 · 795–805
E V
Utility ¼ (1)
C D
Where, utility is defined as the desirability of a behavior; this
formula has been used to explain the likelihood of
procrastination by assuming that tasks with higher utility are
more desirable and hence less likely to be procrastinated.
Expectancy (E) is the probability that an action leads to an
outcome; value (V) is the attractiveness or the perceived
satisfaction from an outcome; delay (D) represents a task’s
deadline or time limit to complete a task; and sensitivity to delay
(C) is related to the variability in individuals’ personality traits
which influences the effect of delay on procrastination (Steel
and König, 2006). Based on this theory, people are less likely to
procrastinate activities with higher expectancy and value, as
such activities are more desirable and have higher utility.
Further, tasks for which the rewards are delayed or have long
deadlines are perceived to have less utility and lead to higher
likelihood of procrastination. Individuals with greater
sensitivity to deadlines have greater likelihood of
procrastination on tasks with long deadlines.
Although TMT has been found to be useful in explaining
procrastination that is defined in a negative sense, the domain
of its applicability to other contexts is not yet clear (Steel,
2007). In this research, we apply TMT to the consumer
behavior context in which procrastination is not defined as a
self-regulatory problem but is used as an intentional strategy in
hope of gaining a more positive outcome. In doing so, we
explore the roles of expectancy (degree of uncertainty), delay
(time limit) and sensitivity to delay (personal characteristics) on
consumer procrastination. The attractiveness of the purchase
decision which represents the impact of the value component in
TMT is excluded for simplicity.
Role of price uncertainty
The degree of uncertainty about a purchase decision in the
consumer behavior context, which often occurs because of
frequent price promotions (Mehta et al., 2003), represents the
role of expectancy factor in TMT. Past research indicates that
consumers procrastinate on their decisions when they are
uncertain about their decisions and when they perceive a
financial risk (Greenleaf and Lehmann, 1995). An underlying
reason for this inaction can be related to anticipation of regret.
In a scenario-based experiment, Simonson (1992) asked the
participants to choose between buying an available item or wait
for a better sale. In the treatment condition, people were
prompted to consider the regret they may feel if they wait for a
better sale and then realize their decision was wrong. A greater
number of people in this condition chose to buy the available
item (rather than wait) compared to the control condition.
Based on the above discussion, when people are uncertain
about the price and anticipate a price fall, they tend to maintain
inaction to avoid possible future regret. Therefore, we
hypothesize:
H1. In purchase situations with higher price uncertainty,
consumers are more likely to procrastinate rather than
buying an available product at regular price.
 Consumers procrastinate
Shabnam Azimi, George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller
Role of time limit
According to TMT, the time between action and reward (i.e.
task deadline) is an important factor in determining the level of
procrastination. While past research provides a good
understanding of the effect of deadlines on procrastination in
completing aversive tasks (Ariely and Wertenbroch, 2002), the
effect of time limits is rarely studied for positive enjoyable
activities. One of the few examples is Shu and Gneezy’s (2010)
research, which showed that similar to the findings related to
the aversive tasks, people with unlimited time windows or long
deadlines were more likely to procrastinate engaging in pleasant
tasks such as visiting a landmark. In this research, we extend
these previous findings and test whether the same effect for
time limit holds for the purchase context and shopping tasks.
In-line with both lines of research on positive and negative
tasks, we expect later purchase deadlines to increase the
likelihood of procrastination on shopping tasks:
H2. In purchase situations with longer time limits,
consumers are more likely to procrastinate rather than
buying an available product at regular price.
Role of consumer characteristics
To capture the role of sensitivity to delay factor in TMT, we
focus on those who presumably are more sensitive vs less
sensitive to delay (i.e. purchase deadlines). To capture these
two tendencies, we focus on price consciousness and prestige
seeking. We expect that price conscious individuals are more
sensitive to purchase deadlines and prestige seekers are less
sensitive to purchase deadlines, as we explain below.
Price consciousness: Some consumers are more concerned
about paying low prices than others. Price consciousness has
been defined as “the degree to which consumer focuses
exclusively on paying low prices” and it is positively associated
with low price search outside the store and sale response
behavior (Lichtenstein et al., 1993). Hence, definitionally, we
expect price conscious consumers to be more likely to delay
purchases in hope of better prices when their purchase
deadlines are longer:
H3a. In purchase situations with longer time limits,
consumers who are more price conscious are more
likely to procrastinate rather than buying an available
product at regular price.
Prestige seeking is consumers’ tendency to respond more
positively to products’ quality, high price and uniqueness as
indicators of the purchasers’ social status and conspicuousness
(Vigneron and Johnson, 1999). Based on this definition, in
longer time limits, we expect prestige seekers to make their
purchase decisions based on drivers such as sociability and self-
expression rather than delaying purchases in hope of lower
prices. Therefore, we expect prestige seekers to be less sensitive
to longer time limits in making their purchase decisions:
H3b. In purchase situations with longer time limits,
consumers who are more prestige seeking are less likely
to procrastinate rather than buying an available product
at regular price.
797
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2020 · 795–805
Consequences of consumer procrastination
Research has found that people anticipate more regret for
negative actions rather than negative inactions (Kahneman and
Tversky, 1982). This tendency is named omission bias (Baron
and Ritov, 1994). Baron and Ritov (1994) expanded this idea
to the conditions in which both actions and inactions entail
some positive and some negative outcomes. In these “tradeoff”
situations, the authors found subjects prefer inaction
(omission) rather than action. The authors consequently
predicted an interaction between action vs omission and better
vs worse outcomes and the greater effects for the actions was
named “amplification effect.”
In our context, purchase is the relevant action, while
procrastination represents inaction. We compare consumers’
emotions in two conditions:
1 one does not make a purchase when a product is on sale
and then learns that there is no future sale (forgone gain);
and
2 one makes a purchase in a sale and then learns that the
future sale is larger (perceived loss).
This interaction can be illustrated in terms of the value function
in prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Based on
prospect theory, the value function is S-shaped and losses loom
larger than gains. This study examines whether the value
function looms larger for perceived loss (resulted from
purchase) compared to forgone gain (resulted from
procrastination/not purchase) as suggested by Baron and
Ritov’s (1994) amplification effect. That is, we predict that the
negative emotional and behavioral outcomes associated with
perceived loss are stronger than the ones associated with
forgone gain. We discuss this position along with our
hypotheses in the following sections.
Cognitive appraisal and emotional outcomes
Past research shows that people attribute the causes of their
success or failure to a variety of sources. The explanations that
individuals provide for the causes of their success or failure can
be categorized under three dimensions: causality, stability and
controllability (Russell, 1982). The causality dimension is
related to the perception of responsibility which indicates
whether one perceives self or others responsible for the failure
or success. The stability dimension is the perception that the
cause is permanent or temporary, and controllability is related
to perceiving the cause as being controllable by one-self or
others. The distinction between causal attributions is important
as it helps researchers understand the sources of emotions and
behaviors and make more accurate predictions regarding those
responses.
Smith and Ellsworth (1985) posit that similarly valenced
emotions such as anger and regret can be differentiated based
on their underlying cognitive appraisal dimensions. Individuals
experience anger when they blame others or the situation and
perceive high other-control over negative outcomes (Averill,
1983). This experience often involves the perception that the
outcome was not fair (Smith and Ellsworth, 1985). In contrast,
regret is an emotional response to comparing one’s outcome
with a better forgone alternative (Bell, 1985). According to
Loomes and Sugden (1982), regret theory serves as an
explanation for decision under uncertainty and it is believed to
 Consumers procrastinate
Shabnam Azimi, George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller
be a simpler alternative to Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979)
prospect theory. Regret theory posits that people experience
regret when they realize they could make a better decision;
therefore, in their decisions, individuals try to anticipate and
account for this possible future regret (Loomes and Sugden,
1982). To avoid future regret, individuals may decide not to
take an action or delay it further. According to Bonifıeld and
Cole (2007), regret is different from anger as it occurs as a
result of higher perception of self-control over negative
outcome and blaming oneself. Based on the above discussion, it
is expected that in situations with negative outcomes (i.e.
perceived loss or foregone gain), consumers who decided to
purchase rather than procrastinate will perceive greater other-
responsibility and those who decided to procrastinate will
perceive greater self-responsibility. In addition, regret is driven
by self-responsibility so those with higher self-responsibility
should have higher regret:
H4. Consumers in the forgone gain condition perceive
greater self-responsibility than consumers in the
perceived loss condition.
H5. Consumers who perceive greater self-responsibility will
experience greater regret but not greater anger.
Based on H4 and H5, those in forgone gain situation perceive
greater self-responsibility and those with greater self-
responsibility experience greater regret. Therefore, we would
expect those in forgone gain condition to experience greater
regret while those in perceived loss condition will experience
greater anger:
H6. Consumers in the foregone gain condition perceive
greater regret than consumers in the perceived loss
condition.
H7. Consumers in the perceived loss condition perceive
greater anger than consumers in the forgone gain
condition.
Behavioral responses
Research in service failure domain indicates consumers’
appraisals of their experience predict their emotions which in
turn affect their behavioral responses. The result of a study on
passengers’ reactions to delayed flights showed that greater
perception of controllability of the problem results in greater
anger and greater complaint intention. Anger was the partial
mediator in this effect (Folkes et al., 1987). Similarly, Bonifıeld
and Cole (2007) found anger as a strong predictor of
consumers’ retaliatory behavior such as aggressive complaining
and negative word-of-mouth. Their result, however, showed
that the feeling of regret also affects conciliatory behavior such
as positive WOM and willingness to return to the service
provider. Unlike anger, when examining the effect of regret on
complaint intention, Tsiros and Mittal (2000) did not find a
significant effect. In the same context of service dissatisfaction,
however, Zeelenberg and Pieters (1999) examined the
differential effects of regret vs disappointment and found that
regret can result in more switching behavior, but
disappointment can lead to more WOM.
798
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2020 · 795–805
Previous literature manifested complaint intention in terms
of voice, exit (Hirschman, 1970) or negative WOM (Singh,
1990). Exit is consumers’ decision to end the exchange
relationship; voice is consumers’ attempt to reflect their
complaint to someone from the company that listens; and
negative WOM is when consumers complain to friends and
relatives. Consistent with the past research explained above, we
expect those consumers who experience greater anger to be
more prone to indicate greater complaint intention in terms of
voice, exit and negative WOM:
H8. Consumer who experience greater anger will show
greater complaint intention in terms of exit, voice and
negative WOM.
Based on H7 and H8, those in perceived loss condition perceive
greater anger than consumers in the forgone gain condition and
greater anger can result in greater complaint intention.
Therefore, a natural extension of the above hypotheses is to
expect those individuals in perceived loss condition to show
greater complaint intention compared to the ones in forgone
gain condition:
H9. Consumers in the perceived loss condition show greater
complaint intention in terms of exit, voice and negative
WOM than consumers in the forgone gain condition.
Study 1
Experimental design and procedure
A total of 411 (57.4% male) students at a large state university
in the US participated in the survey. Participants were
randomly assigned to the experimental conditions in a 2 (price
uncertainty: low vs high)  2 (purchase time limit: 2 weeks vs
2 months) between-subject factorial design. Uncertainty and
time limit were manipulated through scenario-based method.
Scenarios were adapted from work by Simonson (1992).
Participants were presented with a purchase decision situation
(see Appendix 1 for the scenarios) and asked to rate how likely
it is that they wait for a better sale on a six-point Likert scale as a
measure of consumer procrastination.
After the question related to procrastination tendency,
participants completed a filler task followed by manipulation
checks and measures of price consciousness and prestige
seeking. As intended, 92.9% of the people in the short time
limit condition (2 weeks) and 93% of the people in long
time limit condition (2 months) correctly recalled the time of
the wedding (X2= 302.57, df = 1, p < 0.001). Similarly, people
in the conditions with low price uncertainty (M = 3.48) were
significantly more certain [F (1, 409) = 85.54, p < 0.001] about
the price change than the people in conditions with high price
uncertainty (M = 2.69) when they were asked to rate their
certainty levels (1 = very uncertain and 5 = very certain). Thus,
our manipulations were successful.
Price consciousness (a = 0.717) and prestige seeking (a =
0.847) were measured based on the scales validated by
Lichtenstein et al. (1993). See Appendix 2 for a complete list of
scales.
 Consumers procrastinate Journal of Consumer Marketing
Shabnam Azimi, George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2020 · 795–805

Results Our results showed no significant interaction between time limit

General linear model (GLM) examined the effects of
independent variables (time limit, price uncertainty, price
consciousness and prestige seeking) and interactions with time
limit on consumer procrastination likelihood. Continuous
predictor variables were mean centered before calculating the
interaction terms to reduce multicollinearity. The GLM was
significant [F (7, 403) = 20.04, p < 0.0001] with adjusted R2 of
0.24 (see Figure 1 for means and Table 1 for the GLM results).
Consistent with H1 and H2, people in conditions with higher
uncertainty level (M = 3.39) reported greater likelihood of
procrastination (F = 13.08, p < 0.001) than those in low
uncertain conditions (M = 2.89); and subjects with a longer
time limit (M = 3.59) reported greater likelihood of
procrastination (F = 47.93, p < 0.001) than the ones who had a
shorter time limit (M = 2.68). As Figure 1 shows, the
interaction between time limit and price uncertainty was
significant (F = 5.38, p < 0.05). Price uncertainty influenced
procrastination when the time limit was short [Mlow uncertainty =
2.28; Mhigh uncertainty = 3.08, F (1, 222) = 21.25, p < 0.001],
but not when the time limit was long [Mlow-uncertainty = 3.49;
Mhigh-uncertainty = 3.70, F (1, 185) = 1.06, p > 0.10]. In
contrast, the difference in procrastination means were
significant in both low [M2-weeks = 2.28; M2-months = 3.49, F (1,
198) = 41.09, p < 0.001] and high [M2-weeks = 3.08;
M2-months = 3.70, F (1, 209) = 10.53, p < 0.001] uncertainty
levels.
and price consciousness (F = 1.70, p > 0.10) but a significant
interaction between time limit and prestige seeking (F = 3.91, p <
0.05) (Figure 2) The significantly positive effect of price
consciousness on procrastination was no different in the long
time limit (b = 0.81, p < 0.0001) compared to the short one
(b = 0.60, p < 0.0001). However, the effect of prestige-seeking
tendencies on procrastination was only positive and significant in
the short time limit condition (b = 0.32, p < 0.01) and was non-
significant in the long time limit condition (b = 0.07, p > 0.10).
These results are contrary to what we expected in H3a and H3b.
Discussion
Study 1 indicated that longer time limits increase consumers’
procrastination likelihood regardless of whether price
uncertainty is high or not. However, the impact of price
uncertainty is contingent upon time limit. In short time slots,
consumers make much faster decisions if the uncertainty is low
compared to high. In long time slots, however, low uncertainty
(i.e. greater certainty) does not accelerate consumers’ decision-
making. Our findings did not provide any evidence for higher
sensitivity to deadlines for price conscious consumers. Results
related to prestige seekers provided a complex picture
indicating that in longer time limits, consumers who score
higher or lower on prestige seeking may equally procrastinate
on purchasing an item on a regular price. However, for
purchase tasks with shorter deadlines, those consumers who
score lower on prestige seeking chose to procrastinate less and

Figure 1 Interaction between time limit and price uncertainty on

Figure 2 Interaction between time limit and consumer characteristics
procrastination likelihood (Study 1)
on procrastination likelihood (Study 1)

Table 1 Antecedents of consumer procrastination (Study 1)

Independent variables F (df = 1) B SE
Uncertainty 13.085 0.750 0.17
Time limit 47.930 1.165 0.18
Price consciousness 19.321 0.562 0.13
Prestige-seeking 7.934 0.334 0.12
Time limit 3 Uncertainty 5.385 0.586 0.25
Time limit 3 Price consciousness 1.700 0.245 0.19
Time limit 3 Prestige-seeking 3.914 0.349 0.18
Adjusted R2 = 0.245

Notes: p < 0.001;  p < 0.01;  p < 0.05

799
 Consumers procrastinate
Shabnam Azimi, George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller
those who scored higher on prestige seeking chose to
procrastinate more. These finding suggest higher sensitivity to
“shorter deadlines” for prestige seeker consumers. Findings of
Study 1, all together provided a greater understanding about
market and individual variables leading to consumer
procrastination. Our hypotheses related to the cognitive,
emotional and behavioral variables resulting from consumer
procrastination will be tested and discussed in Study 2.
Study 2
Experimental design and procedure
The same group of subjects who completed Study 1 were
prompted to participate in Study 2. We placed a distractor task
between the two studies to minimize any potential carry-over
effects. Study 2 was a 2 (decision: purchase vs not purchase
when the item is on sale)  2 (future price: larger future sale vs
no future sale) between-subjects factorial design. Hypothetical
scenarios (see Appendix 1) were used to manipulate the
independent variables. Participants were presented with a pre-
purchase decision situation following by a post-decision
situation. To control for potential effects of price and type of
product, a hedonic low-price product (i.e. a shirt) and a
utilitarian high-price product (i.e. a laptop) were used as an
additional between-subjects factor. The type of product did not
have any significant impact on the outcome variables of interest
and consequently we combined the results across the two
product classes. After reading the scenarios, participants
completed ratings of their emotions and complaint intentions
along with manipulation check measures and demographic
questions.
The interaction between the two experimental conditions of
purchase decision (purchased, not purchased) and future price
(better future sale, no future sale) created situations
representing foregone gain (not purchased, no future sale) and
perceived loss (purchased, larger future sale), as well as two
additional conditions: foregone loss (no purchase, larger future
sale) and perceived gain (purchased, no future sale). Because of
the nature of the dependent variables of interest, our analysis
will focus on differences between foregone gain and perceived
loss to capture the possible differences between negative
outcome conditions (Table 2).
Self-responsibility (a = 0.747) was measured using locus of
causality subsection of Russell’s (1982) consumer appraisal
of the experience scale. We also used a modified version of
Bonifıeld and Cole’s (2007) regret (a = 0.934) and anger (a =
0.922) scales and Singh’s (1988) complaint intention scale to
measure behavioral intentions. The behavioral intention scale
Table 2 Interaction between purchase decision and future price/outcome
knowledge (Study 2)
Future price
Purchase decision 70% future sale No future sale
Purchased at 30% off Perceived loss Perceived gain
Delayed purchase at 40% off Forgone loss Forgone gain
Notes:  Because of our focus on the negative-outcome conditions, only
the two highlighted conditions will be used in this study. In both
conditions, there was a net loss of 40%
800
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2020 · 795–805
included a single item for exit, two items for WOM (r = 0.439;
p < 0.001) and five items underlying voice (a = 0.869)
dimension.
Manipulation checks for purchase decision and outcome
knowledge were successful. Of the respondents, 92.6% of those
in the “purchased” condition and 88.2% of those in the “not
purchased” condition, correctly recalled whether the scenario
indicated they had purchased the item on their first trip or not
(X2 = 269.57, df = 1, p < 0.001). Similarly, 74.1% of those in
the “no future sale” condition and 85.0% of those in the “60%
off future sale” condition correctly identified whether the item
was priced higher or lower on their first trip vs now (X2 =
145.28, df = 1, p < 0.001).
Results
The means related to the cognitive, emotional and behavioral
outcomes in the two negative outcome conditions are shown in
Table 2. Note that consistent with the originally adopted scales,
self-responsibility was measured using a nine-point semantic
differential scale, while the other measures used five-point
Likert scales. In-line with H4, self-responsibility means were
significantly different [F (1, 219) = 26.09, p < 0.001] between
the forgone gain (M = 5.11) and perceived loss conditions
(M = 3.85). Similarly, regret was significantly different [F (1,
219) = 9.72, p < 0.01] between the forgone gain (M = 3.88)
and perceived loss conditions (M = 3.51), supporting H6. The
differences in means for anger [F (1, 219) = 0.859, p > 0.10]
were non-significant between the forgone gain and perceived
loss conditions. Thus, H7 was not supported. The results
further indicate that the means for two out of three behavioral
intentions (i.e. WOM and voice) are significantly greater for
perceived loss than forgone gain, providing partial support for
H9. When a negative outcome is experienced (perceived loss or
foregone gain), respondents in action condition (perceived
loss) indicated greater intention for voice [Mperceived-loss = 2.04,
Mforgone-gain = 1.76; F (1, 219) = 7.04, p < 0.01] and spread of
negative WOM [Mperceived-loss = 2.71, Mforgone-gain = 2.41; F (1,
219) = 10.96, p < 0.001]. However, the difference between the
perceived loss and foregone gain conditions were not significant
in terms of exit [M perceived-loss = 2.41, M forgone-gain = 2.16; F
(1, 219) = 3.68, p > 0.05] (Table 3).
The above analysis suggests differences between
consequences of action vs inaction; however, it does not
provide a clear picture regarding the processes through which
procrastination or purchase may lead to cognitive, emotional
and behavioral outcomes. Path analysis was used to examine
these processes and the results are shown in Table 4. Overall
model fit was good with comparative fit index (CFI) of 1.00
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of
0.000. Relationships of interest are shaded in the table. The
parameter estimates indicate that consistent with H5, self-
responsibility positively impacted regret ( b = 0.051, p < 0.05)
but had no effect on anger ( b = 0.039, p > 0.10). Regret, in
turn, had a marginally positive effect on WOM ( b = 0.080, p =
0.06) and no significant effect on exit ( b = 0.084, p > 0.10) or
voice ( b = 0.031, p > 0.10). Lastly, consistent with the
prediction in H8, effect of anger was positive and significant on
all three behavioral intentions ( b = 0.461, p < 0.001 on exit;
b = 0.183, p < 0.001 on WOM; and b = 0.376, p < 0.001on
voice). Figure 3 illustrates these effects.
 Consumers procrastinate Journal of Consumer Marketing
Shabnam Azimi, George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2020 · 795–805

Table 3 Means of consequences of consumer procrastination in the two negative outcome conditions (Study 2)
Forgone gain Perceived loss
(Not purchased at 40% off, future price: original price) (Purchased at 30% off, future price: 70% off) df = 1, 219
Means F
Self-responsibility (1–9) 5.11 3.85 26.089
Regret (1–5) 3.88 3.51 9.721
Anger (1–5) 2.90 3.01 0.859
WOM (1–5) 2.41 2.71 10.963
Exit (1–5) 2.16 2.41 3.678
Voice (1–5) 1.76 2.04 7.043

Notes: p < 0.001;  p < 0.01

Table 4 Results of path analysis (Study 2)

Direct effects Coefficient SE

Outcome knowledge fi Self-responsibility 1.118 0.24
Purchase decision fi Self-responsibility 0.888 0.23
Outcome 3 Purchase fi Self-responsibility 0.749 0.33
Outcome knowledge fi Anger 0.807 0.13
Purchase decision fi Anger 1.107 0.13
Outcome 3 Purchase fi Anger 2.080 0.18
Self-responsibility fi Anger 0.039 0.03
Outcome knowledge fi Regret 1.791 0.12
Purchase decision fi Regret 2.106 0.12
Outcome 3 Purchase fi Regret 3.595 0.17
Self-responsibility fi Regret 0.051 0.02
Outcome knowledge fi Exit 0.552 0.14
Purchase decision fi Exit 0.365 0.14
Outcome 3 Purchase fi Exit 0.697 0.22
Anger fi Exit 0.461 0.05
Regret fi Exit 0.084 0.05
Outcome knowledge fi WOM 0.590 0.11
Purchase decision fi WOM 0.362 0.12
Outcome 3 Purchase fi WOM 0.651 0.18
Anger fi WOM 0.183 0.04
Regret fi WOM 0.080^ 0.04
Outcome knowledge fi Voice 0.579 0.12
Purchase decision fi Voice 0.391 0.12
Outcome 3 Purchase fi Voice 0.728 0.19
Anger fi Voice 0.376 0.04
Regret fi Voice 0.031 0.05
Model fit: CFI = 1.00, SRMR = 0.008, RMSEA = 0.000, chi-square = 1.664 and df = 3
Notes:  p < 0.001;  p < 0.01;  p < 0.05; and ^ p < 0.10. Purchase decision: no = 0, yes = 1; outcome knowledge: no future sale = 0; future sale = 1;
SRMR = standardized root mean square residual

Effects of anger vs regret
These results indicate that anger and regret lead to different
behavioral outcomes. Anger may lead to exit, voice and
negative WOM, while regret may lead to negative WOM. But
does anger equally result in all three types of complaint
intentions or are the strength of these effects different?
Similarly, do anger and regret equally lead to negative WOM or
is the effect of one of these emotional states on negative WOM
stronger? To answer these questions, we used the Wald chi-
square test, a test of chi-square difference, and results are
shown in Table 5.
First, the path from anger to WOM and exit were constrained
to be equal. The chi-square difference between this nested
model and unconstrained model was significant (X2 = 24.13,
p < 0.001) and therefore the null hypothesis related to the
equality of the two paths was rejected. This result showed the
path from anger to exit is statistically stronger than the path
from anger to WOM. Second, we constrained the path from
anger to exit to be equal to the path from anger to voice and
found the path from anger to exit was stronger than the path
from anger to voice (X2 = 3.46, p < 0.05). Third, we tested the
equality of the paths from anger to WOM and anger to voice.

801
 Consumers procrastinate Journal of Consumer Marketing
Shabnam Azimi, George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2020 · 795–805

Figure 3 Process by which procrastination leads to behavioral outcomes (Study 2)

Table 5 Behavioral outcomes of regret vs anger (Study 2) voice, and lastly on negative WOM. The feeling of regret leads
2 to complaint intention in the form of negative WOM.
Null hypothesis X df p-value
Nevertheless, WOM can equally result from anger or regret.
A=B 24.132 1 0.000
B=C 3.456 1 0.063 General discussion and implications
A=C 19.237 1 0.000
A=D 1.908 1 0.167 Every day, consumers deal with a variety of choices
involving uncertainties and continuously consider trade-offs
B (SE) B (SE) to decide to purchase or delay a purchase (procrastinate).
A: Anger fiWOM 0.183 (0.04) D: Regret ! WOM 0.080^ (0.05) This paper examined the factors leading to and resulting
B: Anger fi Exit 0.461 (0.05) E: Regret ! Exit 0.084 (0.05) from consumer procrastination under high price
C: Anger fi Voice 0.376 (0.04) F: Regret ! Voice 0.031 (0.05) uncertainty. The results of this research have several
Conclusion implications for theory and practice.
Anger fi Exit > Anger fi Voice > Anger fi WOM TMT (Steel and König, 2006) as an established theory of
Anger fi WOM = Regret fi WOM motivation has been previously tested for explaining
 procrastination as a self-regulatory failure (Steel, 2007). Our
Notes: p < 0.001;  p < 0.01;  p < 0.05; ^p < 0.10
research extends the domain of applicability of TMT to the
consumer behavior context to explain consumers’ intentional
The result of the test showed the path from anger to voice is purchase delay. We applied the key elements of TMT to
stronger than the path from anger to WOM (X2 = 19.24, p < integrate established (e.g. time limit) and new (e.g. price
0.05). Lastly, as both anger and regret impacted WOM, we consciousness, prestige seeking and interactions with price
examined whether anger and regret have different impacts on uncertainty) antecedents of procrastination into a cohesive
WOM. Our results showed that WOM can equally result from framework which was tested in an experimental setting. Our
anger or regret (X2 = 1.91, p > 0.10). analysis of main and interaction effects indicated several
interesting and inter-twined paths through which situational
Discussion and personality-related factors impact consumer
Findings in Study 2 indicated that respondents who decided to procrastination. These findings have multiple novel managerial
wait for a better sale and did not get one (forgone gain) implications for planning effective procrastination termination
experience greater self-responsibility and regret but have lower strategies for different types of consumers.
intention for exit, voice or WOM compared to the people who First, our findings suggest that shortening the purchase time
had purchased the product missing out on a better future sale limit is the most powerful tool for decreasing consumers’
(perceived loss). There was no significant difference in anger procrastination as it works under different levels of price
between those in the foregone gain and perceived loss uncertainty for different types of consumers (i.e. price
conditions. Individuals who attribute the cause of the conscious or not price conscious) and products (high or low
unpleasant outcome to themselves rather than others priced). Although marketers may have no control over
experience greater regret but no greater anger. Further, anger’s consumers’ deadlines in completion of certain purchase tasks
positive effect on complaint intention is strongest on exit, then, (e.g. an upcoming birthday), they can still shorten purchase

802
 Consumers procrastinate
Shabnam Azimi, George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller
time limits and reduce consumer procrastination by putting an
expiration date on a promotion or on the amount of time an
item is available. Second, we found that lowering price
uncertainty can be another effective tool in reducing consumer
procrastination but only when the time limit is shorter (no
effect in longer time limits). Marketers can reduce consumers’
perceived price uncertainty through more transparent
communication of their price changes, use of price alerts or
providing purchase advice (e.g. “75% Confidence Buy now”).
Examples of these techniques that are already in-use in the
market are Kayak’s price forecast in travel booking category or
buy/sell advice by Robinhood mobile application in stock
exchange. Third, our findings related to consumer
characteristics suggest that both price conscious and prestige-
seeker consumers have greater procrastination tendencies and
above strategies can be targeted more strongly toward them.
Our finding related to the sensitivity of prestige seekers to
deadlines suggests a more specific strategy. For luxury items
that are available for a limited amount of time, highlighting
product differentiation and providing assurance about prices
can be effective tactics in lowering prestige-seekers’ decision-
making time.
Study 2 magnifies the importance of procrastination
termination strategies in protecting the company from
consumer loss. Although past research has found that negative
outcomes resulting from actions are stronger than the
outcomes resulting from inactions (Kahneman and Tversky,
1982), our research found no significant difference in anger
between action and inaction conditions but found evidence for
greater regret in inaction condition. Our findings further
suggest that individuals who experience negative outcome
conditions resulting from procrastination may perceive greater
self-responsibility which in turn results in greater regret. Regret
itself is positively related to spread of negative WOM and its
impact on WOM is no different from the impact of anger
resulting from actions.
Impact of WOM resulting from procrastination and regret
can be more harmful than impact of voice resulting from
purchase and anger for two reasons. First, consumer voice is a
useful source of information that helps marketers identify the
reasons for dissatisfaction (Plymire, 1991), which mostly
happens in more private contexts compared to WOM. Second,
past research indicates that those consumers who have a chance
to complain to marketers will release negative emotions, will
ultimately be less dissatisfied and will be less likely to engage in
subsequent spread of negative WOM (Nyer, 2000). Previous
research shows that people experience regret when they feel
they could make a better decision and they take this experience
into account in their future choices (Loomes and Sugden,
1982). Consistent with this position, regret resulting from
consumer procrastination can be a source of future change in
behavior, and in the long run, can be self-correcting.
Nevertheless, we found that consumer procrastination can
directly lead to anger, bypassing the perception of self-
responsibility, which then may result in retaliatory behaviors
toward the company such as voice and exit. This unexpected
finding sheds light on the silent path from procrastination to
retaliation and highlights the importance of possible remedies
or interventions by the companies to mitigate consumer
emotions under procrastination conditions.
803
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2020 · 795–805
Limitations and future research
Consistent with past work (Simonson, 1992), we used a
scenario-based approach over field experiments to study
procrastination because it enabled us to have more control
over the conditions and measure the behavioral intention
more accurately. Despite these merits, future research is
needed to test and validate these models in natural field
settings using nonstudents. In addition, we acknowledge
the limitation of using a one-item scale to measure
consumer procrastination and suggest future research
focus on developing and validating multi-item scales to
measure this construct. Further, future research should
also seek to replicate our results regarding sensitivity to
delay using more direct measures, rather than indicators
such as price consciousness and prestige seeking,
particularly as some of our findings regarding these
constructs were unexpected.
Past research indicates that those individuals who have a
greater tendency to delay their decisions are more likely to
waste time online which in turn results in making greater
purchase decisions (Zanjani et al., 2016). Examining the
role of this decisional procrastination in explaining
procrastination behaviors using TMT, especially for the
online context, would be another area for future research.
Finally, even though it was not hypothesized, this paper
found a significant interaction between uncertainty and time
limit which does not fit the TMT model in its current form.
Scrutinizing this interaction under different boundary
conditions for the possibility of expanding TMT or
advancing a new procrastination model could be an
interesting avenue to pursue.
References
Akerlof, G. (1991), “Procrastination and obedience”, American
Economic Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Anderson, E. and Duncan, I.S. (2008), “Price stickiness and
customer antagonism”, Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 729-765.
Ariely, D. and Wertenbroch, K. (2002), “Procrastination,
deadline, and performance: self-control by
precommitment”, Psychological Science, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 219-224.
Averill, J.R. (1983), “Studies on anger and aggression:
implications for theories of emotion”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 38 No. 11, pp. 1145-1160.
Baron, J. and Ritov, I. (1994), “Reference points and omission
bias”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 475-498.
Bell, D.E. (1985), “Disappointment in decision making under
uncertainty”, Operations Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Bernstein, P. (1998), Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of
Risk, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bonifıeld, C. and Cole, C. (2007), “Affective responses to
service failure: anger, regret, and retaliatory versus
conciliatory responses”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2,
pp. 85-99. Nos
Choi, J.N. and Moran, S.V. (2009), “Why not procrastinate?
Development and validation of a new active procrastination
 Consumers procrastinate
Shabnam Azimi, George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller
scale”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 149 No. 2,
pp. 195-211.
Chu, A.H.C. and Choi, J.N. (2005), “Rethinking
procrastination: positive effects of active procrastination
behavior on attitudes and performance”, The Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 145 No. 3, pp. 245-264.
Ferrari, J.R. (1993), “Christmas and procrastination:
explaining lack of diligence at a ‘real-world’ task deadline”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 25-33.
Folkes, V.S., Koletsky, S. and Graham, J.L. (1987), “A field
study of causal inferences and consumer reaction: the view
from the airport”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 534-539.
Greenleaf, E.A. and Lehmann, D.R. (1995), “Reasons for
substantial delay in consumer decision making”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 186-199.
Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty; Responses to
Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an
analysis of decision under risk”, Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2,
pp. 263-292.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1982), “The psychology of
preferences”, Scientific American, Vol. 246 No. 1,
pp. 160-173.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Ridgway, N.M. and Netemeyer, R.G.
(1993), “Price perceptions and consumer shopping
behavior: a field study”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 234-245.
Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1982), “Regret theory: an
alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty”, The
Economic Journal, Vol. 92 No. 368, pp. 805-824.
Mehta, N., Rajiv, S. and Srinivasan, K. (2003), “Price
uncertainty and consumer search: a structural model of
consideration set formation”, Marketing Science, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 58-84.
Nakamura, E. and Steinsson, J. (2008), “Five facts about
prices: a reevaluation of menu cost models”, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 123 No. 4, pp. 1415-1464, doi:
10.1162/qjec.2008.123.4.1415.
Nyer, P. (2000), “An investigation into whether complaining
can cause increased consumer satisfaction”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9-19.
Plymire, J. (1991), “Complaints as opportunities”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 79-81.
Russell, D. (1982), “The causal dimension scale: a
measure of how individuals perceive causes”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 6,
pp. 1137-1145.
Shu, S.B. and Gneezy, A. (2010), “Procrastination of enjoyable
experiences”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 No. 5,
pp. 933-944.
Simonson, I. (1992), “The influence of anticipating regret and
responsibility on purchase decisions”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 105-518.
Singh, J. (1988), “Consumer complaint intentions and
behavior: definitional and taxonomical issues”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 93-107.
804
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2020 · 795–805
Singh, J. (1990), “Voice, exit, and negative word-of-mouth
behaviors: an investigation across three service categories”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 1-15.
Smith, C.A. and Ellsworth, P.C. (1985), “Patterns of cognitive
appraisal in emotion”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 813-838.
Steel, P. (2007), “The nature of procrastination: a meta-
analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-
regulatory failure”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 133 No. 1,
pp. 65-94.
Steel, P. and König, C.J. (2006), “Integrating theories of
motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 889-913.
Tsiros, M. and Mittal, V. (2000), “Regret: a model of its
antecedents and consequences in consumer decision
making”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 401-417.
Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L. (1999), “A review and a
conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer
behavior”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Zanjani, S.H.A., Milne, G.R. and Miller, E.G. (2016),
“Procrastinators’ online experience and purchase behavior”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 5,
pp. 568-585.
Zeelenberg, M. and Pieters, R. (1999), “Comparing service
delivery to what might have been: behavioral responses to
regret and disappointment”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 86-97.
Appendix 1
Study 1 scenarios
Imagine that it is your friend’s wedding in two weeks
(two months) and you need to buy a new outfit/suit for
yourself to wear. You particularly like Store B. There is a Store
B about 10 min drive from the place you live and you can
easily get there.
Imagine you have gone to the mall today to check out a
Store B that just opened there. Before going to the store, you
have made a plan of the type of outfit/suit you want to
purchase and you exactly know what you are looking for.
Arriving at the Store B, you find an outfit/a suit that is
appropriate for the wedding. The outfit/suit is on regular price
(is NOT on sale).
You wonder whether to make your purchase now or wait to
see if this item goes on sale. Remember that the wedding is in
two weeks (two months) and there is a branch of Store B about
10 min from the place you live such that you can easily get
there whenever you want.
The salesperson in the store tells you the outfit/suit you
liked will NOT go on sale in future. (The salesperson in the
store tells you she does not know whether the outfit/suit you
liked will go on sale in future.)
Study 2 scenarios
Imagine that two weeks ago you visited Store A and found a
shirt/laptop you liked on sale for 40% (30%) off the original
price. It was very close to what you planned to purchase.
 Consumers procrastinate
Shabnam Azimi, George R. Milne and Elizabeth G. Miller
However, you were not sure whether to purchase it or wait for
a better sale, especially as the store does not allow returns.
Ultimately, you made your decision and did NOT purchased
(purchased) the shirt/laptop.
Now two weeks later, you visit the same store and realize
that the same shirt/laptop is no longer on sale (the price of the
same shirt/laptop got further reduced as it is now 70% off the
original price).
Appendix 2
Measures
Price consciousness (Lichtenstein et al., 1993):
(1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)
 I am not willing to go to extra effort to find lower prices.
 I will grocery shop at more than one store to take
advantage of low prices.
 The money saved by finding low prices is usually not
worth the time and effort.
 I would never shop at more than one store to find low
prices.
 The time it takes to find low prices is usually not worth the
effort.
 toward the store.
Reverse coded
Prestige seeking (Lichtenstein et al., 1993):
(1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)
 People notice when you buy the most expensive brand of a
product.
 Buying a high-priced brand makes me feel good about
myself.
 Buying the most expensive brand of a product makes me
feel classy.
 I enjoy the prestige of buying a high-priced brand.
 It says something to people when you buy the high-priced
version of a product.
 Your friends will think you are cheap if you consistently
buy the lowest priced version of a product.
 I have purchased the most expensive brand of a product
just because I knew other people would notice.
 I think others make judgments about me by the kinds of
products and brands I buy.
 Even for a relatively inexpensive product, I think that
buying a costly brand is impressive.
Locus of causality (Russell, 1982):
 The cause reflects an aspect of situation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The cause reflects an aspect of myself
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
805
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2020 · 795–805
 The cause is outside of me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The cause is
inside of me
 The cause is something about others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The
cause is something about me
Regret (Bonifıeld and Cole, 2007):
(1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)
 I would regret (not) purchasing the product two weeks
before when it was 30% off.
 I would feel bad about (not) purchasing the product two
weeks before when it was 30% off.
 In retrospect, I would feel that I could (not) have found a
better deal. (This item was not used in the analysis)
 I would feel sorry for (not) purchasing the product two
weeks before when it was 30% off.
 I would feel that if I could do it all over, I would not
(would) purchase the product when it was 30% off.
Anger (Bonifıeld and Cole, 2007):
(1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree)
 I would feel angry about my experience at this store.
 I would feel very displeased with my experience at this
store.
 The more I think about it, the more hostile I would feel
Complaint intention (Singh, 1990):
(1 = very unlikely and 5 = very likely)
 I forget about the incident and do nothing?
 Definitely complain to the store manager on your next
trip? (Voice)
 Go back or call the Store A immediately and ask them to
take care of your problem? (Voice)
 Complain to a consumer agency and ask them to make the
Store A take care of your problem? (Voice)
 Report to the consumer agency so that they can warn
other consumers? (Voice)
 Take some legal action against the Store A. (Voice)
 Decide not to purchase from Store A again? (Exit)
 Speak to your friends and relatives about your experience?
(WOM)
 Convince your friends and relatives not to purchase from
Store A? (WOM)
 Write an online comment in social networking sites about
your experience? (WOM)
Corresponding author
Shabnam Azimi can be contacted at: sazimi@luc.edu