See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361440708

Brand Boycott: Understanding Negative Psychology of Consumers in the Era of

Digital Marketing

Research · January 2019

CITATIONS READS

5 502

2 authors:

Ram Komal Prasad Sanjeev Verma

Institute of Cooperative and Corporate Management Research and Training (ICCMRT… IIM Mumbai
31 PUBLICATIONS 165 CITATIONS 79 PUBLICATIONS 1,750 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ram Komal Prasad on 21 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

AN INVESTIGATION ON BRAND BOYCOTT:

UNDERSTANDING NEGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY OF
CONSUMERS IN THE ERA OF DIGITAL MARKETING
Ram Komal Prasad, National Institute of Industrial Engineering
Sanjeev Verma, National Institute of Industrial Engineering
ABSTRACT

Purpose: In the present conceptual paper, we explore the emergent anti-consumption

attitude against brands and make out marketing policies and strategies concerning at the
pursuance for consumer commitment issues. We discuss how anti-consumption and anti-brand
actions between marketers and consumer are challenged even for accepted branding truths and
paradigms. We discuss how marketing seems more like public relations; where the brand
building gives way to brand fortification We demonstrate that a different negative emotion has
different behavioural value related to brands (brand change, brand rejections, brand criticizeing
etc.) and fills the gap in negative emotion research related to brands and provides conceptual
evidence about the influence of these negative emotions on consumers’ behavioural psychology
and relevant outcomes for marketing.
Design/methodology/approach: Innovation oriented objectives are searched out by using
phenomenological methods (interview to the respondent) over more structured approaches to an
inquiry on the subject. Consumers' lived experiences with brands, the technique was also better
suited to the task of establishing consumer the validity of the brand relationship proper
information was chosen to maximize chances of uncovering insight on brand-related phenomena.
Variations in age, academics, gender, income cadre, profession etc. allowed attention to socio-
cultural factors and psychology driving relationship behaviours in both interpersonal and
consumer behaviour domains.
Findings: The final step in preliminary specification of the consumer-brand negativity concerns
to the development of an indicator of overall relationship quality, depth, and strength. Judging
from research in the interpersonal field, an informed relationship quality construct is identified
that can serve as a meaningful starting point for the comprehensive brand negativity framework.
Brand negativity plans to study variable in the human psychological relationships in literature. It
has been shown to predict a range of important dyadic consequences including relationship
stability and satisfaction.
Practical Implication: Marketers can understand the consumers’ negative psychology and
design their marketing strategies shooting to consumers’ psychology for a positive response.
Marketers would analyse the negativity paradigms and devise their marketing efforts in the
digital environment where psychology changes rapidly regarding purchase and consumption.
Originality/Value: Conceptual investigation of the brand on consumers’ negative-psychology
that pave the way to boycott and rejection. Brand related psychology always induced in the
mindset of consumers in digitally empowered customers.

Keywords: Brand Boycott, Customers Negativity, Consumers’ Psychology, Consumer

Behaviour.

1 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

INTRODUCTION

In marketing management, consumer behavior principally manages positive utilization of

products with various pattern and demeanor. The marketer fulfills purchasers' needs and wants
through products and services contributions by distinguishing proof of these necessities and
needs, and gives product contributions more adequately and productively than contenders.
Comprehensive and fastidious information of buyers and their utilization conduct is basic for a
firm to endure, contend, and develop in a focused business condition.
Brands are contained products’ name logo, image, or motto. Marketing additionally has
an impalpable nature that fills in as a lot of vows to shoppers with respect to trust, consistency,
desires, and carrying out (Kotler, 1999) product or services. In shopper conduct, brands are
considered as the most significant resource of the organization behind its customers (Ambler,
2000; Doyle, 2001; Jones, 2005). A brand's quality has been seen as impact by purchaser
discernments and comprehension about what they have realized, watched, comprehended, and
trapped wind of the brand (Keller, 2003).
Brands are profoundly significant resources for firms. Marketers plan to make solid
brands with a rich and clear learning structure in buyer memory. It is related with product or
service's characteristics and capacities; its imagery has a focal job in contemporary utilization
culture in the population (Elliott, 1997). Brands are fit for creating compelling enthusiastic
responses, regardless of whether these are sure or negative. A wide scope of positive and
negative reactions to brands have just been inspected by numerous analysts for example brand
love (Wang et al., 2004; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006), brand attachment (Thomson et al., 2005;
Thomson et al., 2006), brand enthusiasm (Fournier, 1998), brand fulfillment (Oliver, 2000;
Fournier & Mick, 1999; Giese & Cote, 2000) and brand delight (Oliver et al., 1997; Durgee,
1999; Swan & Trawick, 1999; Kumar et al., 2001), relating seriously to brands (Fournier &
Alvarez, 2013), brand hate (Hegner et al., 2017; Zarantonello et al., 2016), brand repugnance
(Park et al., 2017), negative feelings towards brands (Romani et al. 2012). We have understood
that there is expanding interest in negative frames of mind of purchasers towards products and
brands, for example, resistance and avoidance against utilization (Lee et al., 2009) because of
various reasons in economic situations.
Anti-branding practices happen in a great deal of structures; purchaser noncompliance,
buyer resistance, boycotting, counter-social developments and non-utilization (Cherrier, 2009).
The other explanation may incorporate negative sensation toward brands, negative feelings,
strictness, ethnicity, social intrusion, bunch blacklist, aversion and abhorrence, buyer deceit,
negative words to mouth, and so on. The normal for every one of these structures is to oppose the
quality and effects of brand pictures that structure solid quality trust among shoppers.
These unpleasant brand battles stir individual’s attention to unconscious utilization and
reshape their obtaining choice. We have seen purchaser negative sensation if there is an
occurrence of the swadeshi development (boycott of foreign goods, 1991 by M. Fridman),
refreshment including sodas for unreasonable utilization of caffeine, phosphoric corrosive,
ethylene glycol, the high name of a pesticide including DDT and Lindane (Coca-Cola, Pepsi
2006 by McKelvey), food outlets (KFC, McDonald by Goyal & Singh, 2007), Chinese products
(stop buying/using, 2014 ), slavery and loot of foreign companies, unpatriotic, causes
unemployment and has destructive upon countries’ economy (Patanjali auyurveda and consumer
products, Agarwal & Agrawalla, 2017) etc. Conversely, there is dearth of conceptual research
available on consumers’ negative response to brands, consumers’ anti-consumption and anti-

2 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

brand action as well as brand dissatisfaction. Earlier contributors have contributed on an

exploration of other specific brand negative emotions.

Evaluation of the Digital Era

The era of the digital environment and digital convergence has opened up new
opportunities for marketers. The era of individualization, networking, and digitalization along
with virtual domain is posing new challenges for managers dealing with marketing management.
The present era is quite imperative to revisit marketing strategies and practicing them
significantly to contribute to the marketing value chain. The upcoming e-marketing discipline is
offering new opportunities for innovations, profitability, and affordability in regime of
empowered customers. Digital marketing environment is now exploring new tools as internet
availability, access to social media, investigating the mind set and perception of customers
scrutinize the various component of customers traits and creating a new group of consuming,
media has been used as a vehicle of circulation powerful information to users, developing strong
customers relations and managing them properly, collecting the feedback from online customers
experience etc.
The changing scenario of marketing resulting in a combination of market, company
policies with the help of information technologies and formulation of clear strategic platform that
can enable organizational development or benchmark process. The era has identified important
indicators that result in the designing and development of the right message to consumers and to
motivate them towards need creation. Digital enabled marketing can benefit through better
consumer segmentation, demand forecasting and consumer analytics. This era is enabling the
practicing managers to understand the consumers’ demographics; media uses pattern, better
campaign management, customer engagement, and consumer interaction. The digital era is
providing a platform to organizations to reduce psychological losses and mitigating the impact of
any negative consumer remarks or negative information about the product by engaging
consumers into some meaningful analysis and conversations.
The web grown-up as a platform for broadcasting information, the reliability, security,
and privacy of the customer related information. Now the Web-2.0 concept which attempts to
understand the rules for success on a new platform supported by the creation of information user
network by facilitating the flow of ideas and knowledge by allowing the efficient generation,
dissemination, sharing and refining the information content. As we discuss a powerful branding
and successful brand image are very important for any organization that thrives on positioning
and consumer-brand relationships.

Digital era and Consumer Negativity

The computerized period is set apart by web based life on brand management. Web-based
social networking influence brand management since shoppers have turned out to be urgent to
the creators of brand success. There are a plenty of correspondence channels (both conventional
and web based life channels) in a dynamic and developing procedure of marketing and consumer
behaviour. The qualities of buyer produced brand stories can add to a company's sought after
brand meaning yet they can likewise add new importance to a brand that challenges the brand's
yearned personality. While firm-created brand stories commonly, steady and reasonable after
some time. Shopper produced brand stories are bound to change after some time. Firms are not
confined to simply tuning in to buyer created brand stories by observing what is said about the

3 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

brand after some time. Firms can likewise attempt to effectively impact purchaser produced
brand stories and their effect on brand execution, which is spoken to by the bolt among brands
and customers. They can animate and advance shopper created brand stories that advantage the
brand, just as respond to negative purchaser produced brand stories that damage the brand. They
may further utilize buyer produced brand stories to supplement their very own accounts.
Accordingly, firms may profit by organizing shopper created brand stories with their very own
accounts to guarantee a brand's accomplishment in the commercial centre.
Meanwhile, buyer created brand stories that are spread through web-based social
networking may likewise influence purchasers' informal organizations. New associations
between shoppers could emerge on the grounds that customers trade their image stories and get,
refine, and further scatter the brand stories told by different purchasers. Similarly, buyers
collaborate with brands by recounting to mark stories, and purchaser brand systems are built up
that can be seen by different shoppers and the firm.
Furthermore, systems of brands may happen in light of the fact that shoppers recount
anecdotes about different brands or when brands supporter with one another or threaten each
other in recounting to their accounts. At long last, the effect of online life on customer created
brand stories and brand execution may rely upon marketing qualities, firm/brand attributes and
buyer brand relationship qualities. These attributes may impact how solid brands are influenced
by online life and how viably they can explore the internet based life state of the consumers. For
instance, high perceive-ability of utilization should make marks progressively powerless to
online networking as a result of the open idea of the utilization procedure and, therefore,
shoppers' high buy choice association. Then again, for brands that are for the most part
connected with private utilization, online life ought to be less significant.

Negative Sensation toward Brands and Consumers behavioural Concerns

Most of conduct speculations on purchasers have some component of comprehension

about them, in that they propose that customers use recollections about brands here and there,
shape or structure to choose brands from the huge determination of choices. The buyer decision
procedure can be considered to comprise of two phases before buy. The main aim is recognizing
reasonable choices of favoured brands, which comprise the thought set (thought); the second is
to pick a choice from the thought set (choice) (Howard & Sheth, 1969; Nedungadi, 1990). A few
scholars have suggested that negative convictions may add to every one of these phases in an
alternate manner, with compensatory and non-compensatory models normally used to clarify
these two procedures (Lussier & Olshavsky, 1979; Louis Isadore Kahn & Baron, 1995; Reed,
1996). For instance, non-compensatory models would recommend that shoppers take out brands
during the thought procedure dependent on negative convictions about brands, or by surveying
brands and barring them dependent on the way that they don't meet determination criteria (Kahn
& Baron, 1995; Kalamas et al., 2008). Compensatory models, then again, would propose that
negative data is used related to positive data to assess a brand (Kahn & Baron, 1995; Kalamas et
al., 2008). The two sorts of models lead to various ramifications about how negative convictions
will fit into the procedure. While non-compensatory and compensatory models clarify how
negative discernments may impact brand thought and choice, there is likewise proof that
negative recognitions are a consequence of past utilization of a brand. Such input could impact
either the idea or decisions organize inside what's to come.
Most of conduct speculations on customers have some component of discernment about
them, in that they propose that buyers use recollections about brands here and there, shape or

4 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

structure to choose brands from the wide scope of choices. The shopper decision procedure can
be considered to comprise of two phases before buy. The main is recognizing appropriate
choices of favoured brands, which establish the thought set (thought); the second is to pick a
choice from the thought set (determination) (Howard & Sheth, 1969; Nedungadi, 1990). A few
scholars have suggested that negative convictions may add to every one of these phases in an
alternate manner, with compensatory and non-compensatory models ordinarily used to clarify
these two procedures (Lussier & Olshavsky, 1979; Kahn & Baron, 1995; Reed, 1996). For
instance, non-compensatory models would propose that buyers dispense with brands during the
thought procedure dependent on negative convictions about brands, or by evaluating brands and
barring them dependent on the way that they don't meet determination criteria (Kahn & Baron,
1995; Kalamas et al., 2008). Compensatory models, then again, would recommend that negative
data is used related to positive data to assess a brand (Kahn & Baron, 1995; Kalamas et al.,
2008). The two kinds of models lead to various ramifications about how negative convictions
will fit into the procedure. While non-compensatory and compensatory models clarify how
negative observations may impact brand thought and choice, there is likewise proof that negative
recognitions are an after effect of past use of a brand. Such input may impact either the thought
or choice stage later on.

Anti-Consumption within Symbolic Consumption

Our new structure would maps congruency connections between conceivable selves,
product symbolism and the three situations in connection to (against) - utilization, showing how
social and individual conditions are vital to the creation and flow of brand implications in the
commercial centre. It would be corresponding nature of the connections among utilization and
against utilization, indicating how the connection between dislikes (Bourdieu, 1984) and the
undesired self (Ogilvie, 1987) gives the navigational signs and co-ordinates for the genuine
(Ogilvie, 1987) or conceivable selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986). The new system additionally
tries to show just because, the reflexive and intelligent nature of the between connection among
utilization and hostile to utilization inside representative utilization, which has not been
conceptualized before inside the more extensive ecological settings.
The new system likewise catches the dynamic connection between large scale (for
example condition) and smaller scale (for example singular) level highlights buyer worries, for
example, about the moral sourcing of products, the earth and the effect of globalization outline
the strains created by the logic between the full scale and the small scale negativity. These talks
regularly identify with different parts of hostile to utilization, for example, customer
strengthening (Shaw & Brailsford, 2006), downshifting and intentional effortlessness (Schor,
1998). Be that as it may, there is digressive arrangement of the self in connection to the more
extensive natural and worldwide settings. Individual purposes behind specific kinds of utilization
can have more extensive social ramifications, which can bring about potential clashes between
specific parts of self.

Anti Brand Belief

Shoppers express their characters through the brands they use; they believe in general
maintaining a strategic distance from positively products and brands in light of the confusion
between the brand and their self-ideas. Aaaker, (1999) and Krishnamurty & Küçük (2009)
characterize these particular concerns less than three essential classifications which are

5 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

experiential evasion come about because of neglected desires, personality shirking drove by
emblematic incongruence and good shirking by ideological inconsistency. At the point when a
specific brand or product doesn't fulfil purchaser's desires, it redirects buyer inclination to
different options after this negative involvement. Certain products or brands show the picture of
undesired self in shopper's discernment; a buyer may oppose obtaining these products. The
results of specific organizations disregarding corporate obligation and certain nations saw as
supporting force disparity may be the explanation behind opposing against specific brands. Iyer
& Muncy (2008) express that shoppers' adversary of devotion towards specific brands or product
passes on a person's promise to the evasion of purchasing a brand in light of pessimistic
experience identified with it and saw inadequacy related with product, accordingly close to home
and social elements assume pivotal jobs in framing buyer's buying choice and decide customer's
disposition towards specific products and brands.

Ethnocentricity

Ethnocentric individuals are against foreign brands as they accept that buying these
brands will hurt the household economy, cause loss of employments and increment the intensity
of industrialist organizations and reliance of more unfortunate economies to them. The disparity
and constrained reliance that worldwide organizations cause may build the negative frames of
mind of buyers against these organizations' products since they boost the act of purchasing from
the socially dependable manufacturer (Huneke, 2005). Ethnocentric customers have thought
buying foreign brands/products is wrong to be sure shameless (Shimp & Sharma, 1987).
Furthermore, their mistreatment upon the economy, they may likewise overlook ecological
calamities they cause while battling for less expensive creation and using common assets as
though they were interminable. These frames of mind of worldwide organizations could stir the
attention to customers and these shoppers may abstain from purchasing the results of the
worldwide brands. In this manner, it could be attested that ethnocentric purchasers are
progressively sensitive towards outside brands' activities and their products' unsafe impacts on
shoppers and this affectability empower their opposition against remote brands. Purchaser's
frames of mind impactlessly affect their acquiring conduct and ethnocentric individuals have a
partiality against imported products/marks as they are faithful to their very own nation
(Shankarmahesh, 2006). There are significant focuses that trigger ethnocentric shoppers to
maintain a strategic distance from foreign brands. As a matter of first importance, their affection
for their nation and their anxieties for their nation's financial conditions and workforce impede
them from purchasing imported brands.

Religiosity

The purchasing conduct isn't just limited by social, political and monetary chances yet
additionally affected by social systems of buyers' surroundings (Willer, 2006). Stolz (2009)
characterizes strictness as individual inclinations, emotions, convictions, and activities speaking
to a current (or independent) religion and in this unique situation. 'Religion' might be
characterized as the entire of social image frameworks dealing with the issues of importance and
possibility through an extraordinary reality impacting people's regular day to day existence,
values, mentalities, practices, and inclinations. Thinking about its pertinence to the business
world, the exploratory job of strictness in clarifying shopper conduct is profoundly valuable in

6 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

the present focused worldwide markets (Moschis & Ong, 2011). Responsibility to strict qualities
influences shopper obtaining conduct (Francis & Kaldor, 2002; Mokhlis, 2009).
Shopper steadfastness may block purchasers from purchasing brands that are not good
with their strict convictions. Online people group boycotting Israel's brands state that customers'
purchasing these brands backs up the war bringing about the passing of numerous Palestine
unfortunate casualties and these brands are dangers for their strict qualities. Dynamic dialog
sheets and useful news about their negative results as far as strictness reinforce the effect and
extent of such aggregate characters. While analyzing the importance of strictness to against
marking, strict purchaser's basic point may likewise be characterized as improving prosperity
regarding confidence, life fulfillment and wellbeing (Moschis & Ong, 2011). Rearranging the
material life and expanding otherworldliness are underscored both by certain shoppers favoring
hostile to marking and strictness. Strictness bolsters commitment to profound life and separation
from common materialistic concerns (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008). Schwartz & Huismans (1995)
look at the ideas of strictness and universalism in their investigation and suggest that solidarity
with nature; ecological concerns and broadmindedness are more connected with universalism as
opposed to strictness.
Marketing strategists endeavor to establish brands to join remarkable characters (Levy,
1999; Aaker, 1997), to give mental self-view congruency between the brand and the customer
and to make passionate associations with shoppers through brands (Smith et al., 2007; Belk &
Tumbat, 2005). Purchasers don't generally acknowledge these marketer driven methodologies.
They make protection from socially established brand implications take after a continuum of
reactions, going from detached to dynamic purchasing practices. Inactive obstruction
incorporates types of thriftiness (Connolly & Prothero, 2003; Lastovicka et al., 1999), brand
evasion (Banister & Hogg, 2004; Lee et al., 2009), deliberate rearrangements (Leonard-Barton,
1981; Zavestoski, 2002), and willful dispossession (Cherrier & Murray, 2007). Dynamic
obstruction incorporate communicating disappointment (Ward & Ostrom, 2006), culture-sticking
(Klein & Ettensoe, 1999), boycotting (Sen et al., 2001), partnership centered counter (Barclay et
al., 2005), social presentation (Maxwell, 2003), genuineness festivities (Kozinets, 2002),
transformative celebrations (Kates, 2003), and hostile to mark activism (Kozinets & Handelman
2004). Hostile to mark activists look for radical monetary, political, and social changes in
connection to brands. Monetary changes may incorporate modernizing the practices and
strategies of companies (e.g., deficient worker benefits, false marketing/advertising practices).

Environmental Concerns

Recently, worldwide awareness towards environmental condition and biological

equalization has risen deferentially because of certain worldwide ecological targets, for example,
handling environmental change, protecting the world's common assets or fighting destitution
(Campbell, 1990). Schlegelmilch et al. (1996) depict ecological cognizance as a thought process
raising people's attention to the contrary natural results related with mankind reckless practices
just as organizations, products or marks and reshaping their frames of mind and practices so as to
diminish the risks of these operators' tasks upon nature. Ecological awareness may energize
hostile to marking. Cherrier (2009) accentuates attention to ecological effects of lavishness and
inefficient utilization cause purchasers to respond against customer culture and the brands
forcing this culture. Therefore, a naturally cognizant shopper is bound to help the general
opponent of utilization of these brands to build their own life fulfilment via thinking about
nature. Through the instruction framework, globalization and different media means individuals’

7 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

awareness toward natural issues has expanded essentially and their obtaining choices are
likewise shaped by thinking about environmental and social supportability (Vermeir & Verbeke,
2008). In this way, earth cognizant shoppers are bound to oppose brands forcing purchaser
culture because of their colossal perils upon environmental supportability.

Brand Detachment

Passionate detachment is a procedure by which the psychotic framework settle inside

clash by keeping up enthusiastic separation towards others (Horney, 1993), and it more often
than not goes before the last disintegration of relational connections. In marketing management
the executives, connections among purchasers and brands look somewhat like relational
connections (Fournier, 1998) separation can be viewed as a mental state going before the end of
the association with a given brand. It is showed by the lessening in utilization, confounding and
opposing frame of mind towards the buy and uses viz. dismissal and detachment. Brand
separation is characterized as
"The psychological state of distance with regards to brand resulting from the weakening or the dissolution
of the affective bond existing between the consumer and the brand ".

This mental is successful and intellectual, just as conduct.

Negative Brand Belief

Most consumer behaviour theories incorporate the idea that conduct hypotheses fuse the
possibility that purchasers assess brands as per their positive and negative angles (Lussier &
Olshavsky, 1979; Fishbein et al., 1980; Biehal & Chakravarti, 1986; Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990;
Kahn & Baron, 1995; Moorthy et al., 1997). In marketing examines where respondents are
incited with a brand and asked what convictions they hold (Krishnan, 1996), both positive and
negative convictions are inspired. Essentially, when given negative convictions and asked which
brands are connected to those, customers can evoke brands, even in a free-reaction setting (Bird
& Ehrenberg, 1970; Woodside & Trappey, 1992; Winchester & Romaniuk, 2003). While it is
apparent that shoppers do hold negative convictions about brands, it isn't clear what the
relationship is between buy conduct and such convictions. Along these lines, understanding the
commitment these settle on to the purchaser decision procedure is a significant region of
research. The disregard of negative brand convictions might be because of the supposition that
negative reactions pursue perfect inverse examples to non-negative characteristics.
Consequently, if brand customers are bound to give positive convictions about a brand (Barwise
& Ehrenberg, 1985), at that point they will be more averse to give negative convictions about
brands. Be that as it may, investigations of the negative side of develop in different zones of
marketing examination recommend that this suspicion might be unwarranted. For instance,
disappointment is currently viewed as a different build from low fulfilment (LaBarbera &
Mazursky, 1983) and marketer aggravation is viewed as particular from amiability (Greyser,
1973; Aaker & Bruzzone, 1985). This recommends the negative conviction side ought to be the
subject of a particular investigation to test the job and commitment that negative convictions play
in the purchaser decision process.

8 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

Negative Information and Consumer Decision Making

Most buyer conduct speculations have some component of comprehension about them, in
that they recommend that buyers use recollections about brands here and there, shape or structure
to choose brands from a wide scope of choices. Extensively, the purchaser decision procedure
can be considered to comprise of two phases before buy. The main is distinguishing reasonable
alternatives for favoured brands, which establish the thought set (thought); the second is to pick a
choice from the thought set (Howard & Sheth, 1969; Nedungadi, 1990). A few scholars have
suggested that negative convictions may add to every one of these phases in an alternate manner,
with compensatory and non-compensatory models ordinarily used to clarify these two
procedures (Lussier & Olshavsky, 1979; Kahn & Baron, 1995; Moorthy et al., 1997). For
instance, non-compensatory models would recommend that buyers wipe out brands during the
thought procedure dependent on negative convictions about brands, or by evaluating brands and
barring them dependent on the way that they don't meet choice criteria (Kahn & Baron, 1995).
Compensatory models, then again, would propose that negative data is used related to
positive data to assess a brand (Kahn & Baron, 1995). The two sorts of models lead to various
ramifications about how negative convictions will fit into the procedure. While non-
compensatory and compensatory models clarify how negative observations may impact brand
thought and determination, there is likewise proof that negative discernments are an after effect
of past utilization of a brand. Such input may impact either the thought or choice stage later on.
Bird & Ehrenberg (1970) point out that there are three kinds of client bunches for any
brand in the market. The first is 'current customers'; these are customers who at present have the
brand in their collection. The second is 'past customers'; these are customers who have
encountered the brand previously, yet never again have the brand as a component of their
collection of favoured brands. The third is the individuals who have not had any real client
involvement with the brand; Bird & Ehrenberg (1970) allude to them as the ‘never attempted’.
Negative convictions, used along these lines, would expel unsuitable brands from the decisions
accessible, leaving the purchaser with fewer brands in their thought set (Moorthy et al., 1997).
This has suggestions for which customers would be relied upon to have more significant levels
of negative convictions. On the off chance that negative convictions are used to reject brands
before thought, the customer will never get the chance to encounter the brand. This would imply
that purchasers who have never utilized a brand are the destined to hold negative convictions
about that brand (Keller, 1993).

Brand Hate

Marketing scholars/ researchers have generally accentuated the positive parts of

utilization, and professionals have been particularly most keen on handy ramifications of the
positive types of learning as opposed to the negative ones; for instance, getting whether and to
what degree buyers are eager to purchase or utilize an organization's product has been a higher
priority than understanding why they are not slanted to do as such (Dalli & Romani, 2006).
Research on positive feelings toward brands is, in this manner, immense and settled (Bagozzi,
2000; Laros & Steenkamp, 2005; Richins, 1997). Recently, researchers have concentrated on
brand love, which, maybe, is the most serious positive feeling that customers feel toward brands
(Batra et al., 2012; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). Shoppers who love a brand are basic focuses for
organizations, as they are increasingly faithful, progressively slanted to speak well about the
brand and increasingly impervious to negative data (Batra et al., 2012). On the other hand, the

9 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

exploration on negative feelings toward brands is rare (Dalli & Romani, 2006; Fournier &
Alvarez, 2013; Romani et al., 2012; Leventhal et al., 2014). However the idea of brand hate,
which is, may be, the most serious and significant negative feeling that purchasers may feel
toward brands, has to a great extent been dismissed as an object of research. As of late, the
importance of brand abhor has been called attention to by a few promoting researchers. In any
event three distinctive research streams have called for more investigation into the job of solid,
negative sentiments that customers experience toward brands.
To begin with, the brand relationship writing has as of late called for more investigations
into negative buyer brand connections (Fournier & Alvarez, 2013; Park et al., 2013). Second, the
writing on hostile to mark networks has indicated that purchasers accumulate in "hate groups" to
express their negative sentiments toward brands, share negative encounters with different
shoppers and (now and again) plan and make a move against the objectives of their detest
(Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2010; Krishnamurthy & Kucuk, 2009). This marvel appears to concern
particularly marks that is especially adored by purchasers, as they are frequently the ones
detested the most, as indicated by the alleged “negative twofold peril” (Kucuk, 2008). Third, the
services marketing writings has demonstrated how shoppers create detest emotions when they
experience scenes of services disappointment (Grégoire et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2013). These
sentiments bring about negative ramifications for the organization and the brand, with customers
abstaining from belittling the brand or speaking seriously about it. Notwithstanding scholastic
writings, the marvel of brand abhor has demonstrated to be significant in managerial settings
also. For instance, in 2007 and 2012, Apple was associated with work embarrassments with its
production network, Foxconn Technology Group in China, on account of poor working
conditions. Local minimal effort aircrafts, for example, Spirit Airlines, Ryan-air and Easy-jet
have been broadly censured for low quality assistance, deficient security conditions and general
terrible treatment of explorers. In the design business, Abercrombie and Fitch has frequently
been sentenced for the organization's ability to enlist just gorgeous, model-like individuals as
shop partners in their stores and for needing their image to be worn by non-stout individuals. All
through every one of these models, organizations face continuous shopper negative emotions
toward their brands. These emotions, which can't be precisely portrayed as the nonattendance of
brand love or purchaser disappointment, regularly ordinarily bring about customer support
decrease or discontinuance, whining or in any event, boycotting activities. Understanding buyers'
solid negative emotions toward brands can assist organizations with reacting viably to brand
despise and potentially anticipate it. Intellectual marketing research writing perspectives abhor
for the most part as an intricate feeling, comprising of a few essential as well as auxiliary
feelings. Be that as it may, there is less clearness on the particular sorts of feelings establishing
despise.
In addition, clinicians concur that ethical infringement speak to the most widely
recognized predecessor of despise, despite the fact that they recognize the presence of other
potential causes, for example, the apparent loner (as far as character) between one individual and
the objective of hate. As for the potential results of abhor, intellectual research writing shows
that distinctive social inclinations are related with detest. To adapt to felt hate, individuals may
assault their objective of abhor (assault systems), separation themselves from the object of their
detest (evasion methodologies) or face the objective (approach procedures).
Johnson et al. (2013) offer a second conceptualization of brand hate. These researchers
see "disdain" as shoppers' solid restriction to the brand; basically spoke to by the idea of
retribution, which can emerge from experienced basic episodes (product or services related). In

10 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

their exact investigations, Johnson et al. (2013) show that brand hate is likewise clarified by the
feeling of disgrace. They found, truth be told, that felt disgrace goes about as a significant middle
person in the process that carries individuals to carry on scornfully. Alba & Lutz (2013)
characterize "brand hatred" as “genuine brand disgust”. Brand hatred is utilized to portray a
circumstance where the buyer is “held hostage” by the organization, for instance, as a result of
high exchanging costs, a nearby syndication or some different appearances of leave obstructions.
The consequences of this contempt are articulations of purchaser's dissatisfaction by means of
online networking, postings on detest destinations on the web and conveying negative impacts in
day by day associations with different shoppers. The fourth conceptualization of brand detest
originates from the investigation by Romani et al. (2012). These authors treat the sentiment of
detest as a feeling descriptor in their build of negative feelings toward brands and view the
sentiment of hate as an outrageous type of abhorrence of the brand. At long last, Bryson et al.
(2013) characterize brand detest in conventional terms as "an extraordinary negative passionate
effect toward the brand", which can begin from four potential predecessors: country of origin of
brand, customer disappointment with the product, negative generalizations of customers of the
brand and corporate social execution. Brand hate brand or even to carry on practices that exhibit
this dismissal, with run of the refine practices including negative verbal, boycott, and damage
coordinated at the objective of one's image.

Brand Rejection

Brand rejection occurs as a component of the end and improvement of the buyer decision
process (Tversky 1972; Abougomaah et al., 1987). In the literature, the shopper decision
procedure has been proposed as far as various stages (Lussier & Olshavsky 1979; Abougomaah
et al., 1987; Moorthy et al., 1997). By and large, buyers restricted down accessible alternatives in
their mindfulness set into a thought set and afterward buyers assess choices in their thought set to
settle on a last buy choice. Besides, there is a disposal stage in which buyers need to surrender
alternatives and pick their last decision (Narayana & Markin, 1975; Nedungadi, 1990; Hulland,
1992; Desai & Hoyer, 2000). Be that as it may, regardless of this broad hypothetical
incorporation of the possibility of disposal of brands, the central enthusiasm of numerous
investigations is the procedure of brand incorporation in customer thought set (Lee et al., 2009)
rather how brands get rejected in shoppers' decision choices. To address this disregard, the rising
brand the dismissal examine zone has some ongoing improvements with respect to why
customers reject brands.

METHODOLOGY: INTERVIEW AND OBSERVATIONS

We present the opinions of the respondents who were identified and called for a formals
interviews/ enquire on brands negativity in the city of Lucknow (India) across three types of
beliefs viz. Hinduism, Islam (Shia & Sunni sects) and Jainism. The religious and cultural
practices of the participants were recorded by perusing them in purchase decision process in
stores for consumers’ products. Brand negativity were apparently found across the religious
norms as they were asked to express opinions on brand consumptions across the age, educational
qualification, profession, income slab etc. The participants were requested politely to express
their ideologies to be used for academic purpose only and thus they express openly without being
hesitant on the brand purchase and use issues, discussion were invited on choice of consumers
goods, lifestyle goods etc. We found absolute negative attitude that led to boycott of brands of

11 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

some promoters and organizations and we analyse the practices through content analysis
focusing their attitude as well as inclination to purchase and consume the identified specific
products.

Consumer Boycotts

A buyer boycott is

“An endeavour by at least one gathering to accomplish certain goals by asking singular buyers to avoid
making chosen buys in the commercial centre” (Friedman 1985).

Boycott are of two essential sorts: financial or promoting arrangement boycott expect to
change the boycott target’s advertising rehearses, for example, bringing down cost, though the
later political or social/moral control (Smith, 1990) boycott endeavour to constrain their
objectives toward explicit moral or socially dependable activities, running from mindful business
and assembling practices to the help of explicit causes.
Remarkably, boycott are subjectively not quite the same as a person's close to home
choice to retain utilization of a decent in that they comprise a composed, aggregate, yet non-
compulsory (no conventional assents can be forced on non-compliers) refusal to devour a decent.
In this sense, the fundamental a person’s choice to take an interest in a blacklist are like those
basic individuals' support in labour developments, for example, strikes (Gallagher & Gramm,
1997), which are sorted out and aggregate yet can’t order singular investment. Earlier research
(Garrett, 1987) joins the individual choice to boycott to a scope of different elements, for
example, boycott awareness, individual qualities (social obligation), social weight, the
believability of the boycott leaders, boycotting costs, and the harmoniousness between boycott
objectives and member demeanours. Be that as it may, both the nonappearance of a reasonable
hypothetical system and the scarcity of observational help undermine the hugeness of these
finding. Next, we draw on social problem hypothesis and reference bunch hypothesis to build up
a theoretical model of the individual blacklist choice.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Negative feelings to brands as customer negative enthusiastic responses evoked by

brands are mind boggling substances (extending from principle wellsprings of emblematic
implications to accomplices, till focal components in informal organizations and utilization
networks). Brand pessimism administers the brains of concerned customers because of different
negative psychology research projects as acrimony, hate, ethnicity, detachment, feelings ruled by
negative musings, end and improvement of the shopper decision process, negative data is used
related to positive data to assess the utility of a brand, appropriate choices and buyer insight and
so forth.
Contingent on explicit negative feelings, various results emerge that influence customer
and brand connections, brand animosity, substitute accessibility, value war, and objectivity.
Blacklist mindfulness, individual qualities, social weight, believability of the boycott leaders,
boycotting costs, harmoniousness between boycott objectives and member dispositions and so
forth are the key components in advanced marketing time. Buyers are delicate in handling
environmental change, protecting the characteristic assets, battling destitution, biological
maintainability, and social supportability also in present computerized stage. Singular

12 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

inclinations, strict emotions, convictions and qualities, portrayal of existing religion, strict order,
frames of mind, practices, and inclinations assume significant job in boycotting marvels. The
disjointedness between the brand and their self-ideas, representative incongruence, unsatisfied
buyer’s desires, moral shirking, ideological contradiction prompts brand boycott in the carefully
enabled time. Negative frame of mind towards brands, which structure persevering and
purposive shirking and potential responses towards brands, would be compelling and tireless.

REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A., & Bruzzone, D.E. (1985). Causes of irritation in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 47-57.
Aaker, J.L. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing
Research, 36(1), 45-57.
Abougomaah, N.H., Schlacter, J.L., & Gaidis, W. (1987). Elimination and choice phases in evoked set
formation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4(4), 67-72.
Agarwal, V., & Agrawalla, S. (2017). Patanjali’s marketing mix: the monk’s new Ferrari. Emerald Emerging
Markets Case Studies, 7(4), 1-30.
Alba, J.W., & Lutz, R.J. (2013). Broadening (and narrowing) the scope of brand relationships. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 23(2), 265-268.
Ambler, T. (2000). Marketing metrics. Business Strategy Review, 11(2), 59-66.
Bagozzi, R.P. (2000). On the concept of intentional social action in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27(3), 388-396.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 127-140.
Banister, E.N., & Hogg, M.K. (2004). Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive for self-esteem: The
case of the fashion industry. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 850-868.
Barclay, L.J., Skarlicki, D.P., & Pugh, S.D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and
retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 629.
Barwise, T.P., & Ehrenberg, A.S. (1985). Consumer beliefs and brand usage. Journal of the Market Research
Society.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 1-16.
Belk, R., & Tumbat, G. (2005). The cult of Macintosh. Consumption Markets & Culture, 8(3), 205-217.
Biehal, G., & Chakravarti, D. (1986). Consumers' use of memory and external information in choice: Macro and
micro perspectives. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 382-405.
Bird, M., & Ehrenberg, A.S. (1970). Consumer attitudes and brand usage. Journal of the Market Research
Society, 12(4), 233-247.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). A social critique of the judgement of taste. Traducido del francés por R. Nice. Londres,
Routledge.
Brailsford, I., & Shaw, D. (2006). You Don’T Have to Be Paranoid to Shop Here But Being Sceptical Helps:
Empowered New Zealand Consumers, Past and Present?. ACR Asia-Pacific Advances.
Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology.
Carroll, B.A., & Ahuvia, A.C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79-
89.
Cherrier, H. (2009). Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities. Journal of Business
Research, 62(2), 181-190.
Cherrier, H., & Murray, J.B. (2007). Reflexive dispossession and the self: constructing a processual theory of
identity. Consumption Markets & Culture, 10(1), 1-29.
Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2003). Sustainable consumption: consumption, consumers and the commodity
discourse. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 6(4), 275-291.
Dalli, D., & Romani, S. (2006). Consumption experiences and products meanings, éds.
Desai, K.K., & Hoyer, W.D. (2000). Descriptive characteristics of memory-based consideration sets: influence of
usage occasion frequency and usage location familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 309-323.
Doyle, P. (2001). Shareholder-value-based brand strategies. Journal of Brand Management, 9(1), 20-30.
Durgee, J. (1999). Deep, soulful satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, 12.
Elliott, R. (1997). Existential consumption and irrational desire. European Journal of Marketing, 31(3/4), 285-296.

13 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

Fishbein, M., Jaccard, J., Davidson, A.R., Ajzen, I., & Loken, B. (1980). Predicting and understanding family
planning behaviors. In Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373.
Fournier, S. (1998). Special session summary consumer resistance: societal motivations, consumer manifestations,
and implications in the marketing domain. ACR North American Advances.
Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2013). Relating badly to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 253-264.
Fournier, S., & Mick, D.G. (1999). Rediscovering satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 5-23.
Francis, L.J., & Kaldor, P. (2002). The relationship between psychological well‐being and Christian faith and
practice in an Australian population sample. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(1), 179-184.
Friedman, M. (1985). Consumer boycotts in the United States, 1970-1980: Contemporary events in historical
perspective. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19(1), 96-117.
Gallagher, D.G., & Gramm, C.L. (1997). Collective bargaining and strike activity.
Garrett, D.E. (1987). The effectiveness of marketing policy boycotts: Environmental opposition to
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 46-57.
Giese, J.L., & Cote, J.A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1-22.
Goyal, A., & Singh, N.P. (2007). Consumer perception about fast food in India: an exploratory study. British Food
Journal, 109(2), 182-195.
Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T.M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate: The effects of
relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 18-32.
Greyser, S.A. (1973). Irritation in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 13(1), 3-10.
Hegner, S.M., Fenko, A., & Teravest, A. (2017). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand brand
love. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(1), 26-41.
Hollenbeck, C.R., & Zinkhan, G.M. (2010). Anti‐brand communities, negotiation of brand meaning, and the
learning process: The case of Wal‐Mart. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 13(3), 325-345.
Horney, M.A. (1993). Case studies of navigational patterns in constructive hypertext. Computers &
Education, 20(3), 257-270.
Howard, J.A., & Sheth, J.N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York, 63.
Hulland, J.S. (1992). An empirical investigation of consideration set formation. ACR North American Advances.
Huneke, M.E. (2005). The face of the un‐consumer: An empirical examination of the practice of voluntary
simplicity in the United States. Psychology & Marketing, 22(7), 527-550.
Iyer, R., & Muncy, J.A. (2008). Service recovery in marketing education: It's what we do that counts. Journal of
Marketing Education, 30(1), 21-32.
Johnson, Z., Massiah, C., & Allan, J. (2013). Community identification increases consumer-to-consumer helping,
but not always. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(2), 121-129.
Jones, R. (2005). Finding sources of brand value: Developing a stakeholder model of brand equity. Journal of Brand
Management, 13(1), 10-32.
Kahn, B.E., & Baron, J. (1995). An exploratory study of choice rules favored for high-stakes decisions. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 305-328.
Kalamas, M., Laroche, M., & Makdessian, L. (2008). Reaching the boiling point: Consumers' negative affective
reactions to firm-attributed service failures. Journal of Business Research, 61(8), 813-824.
Kates, S.M. (2003). The collective consumer-brand relationship. ACR North American Advances.
Keller, K.L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer
Research, 29(4), 595-600.
Klein, J.G., & Ettensoe, R. (1999). Consumer animosity and consumer ethnocentrism: An analysis of unique
antecedents. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11(4), 5-24.
Kotler, P. (1999). Political Marketing-Generating Effective Candidates, Campaigns, and Causes. In Handbook of
Political Marketing (3-18). Sage Publications.
Kozinets, R.V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online
communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61-72.
Kozinets, R.V., & Handelman, J.M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and
ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691-704.
Krishna, D. (1996). The Problematic and Conceptual Structure of Classical Indian Thought: About Man, Society and
Polity.
Krishnamurthy, S., & Kucuk, S.U. (2009). Anti-branding on the internet. Journal of Business Research, 62(11),
1119-1126.

14 1528-2678-24-1-253
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

Krishnan, H.S. (1996). Characteristics of memory associations: A consumer-based brand equity

perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), 389-405.
Kucuk, S.U. (2008). Consumer Exit, Voice, and 'Power' on the Internet. Journal of Research for Consumers, 15.
Kumar, A., Olshavsky, R.W., & King, M.F. (2001). Exploring alternative antecedents of customer delight. Journal
of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 14, 14.
LaBarbera, P.A., & Mazursky, D. (1983). A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: the
dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(4), 393-404.
Laros, F.J., & Steenkamp, J.B.E. (2005). Emotions in consumer behavior: a hierarchical approach. Journal of
Business Research, 58(10), 1437-1445.
Lastovicka, J.L., Bettencourt, L.A., Hughner, R.S., & Kuntze, R.J. (1999). Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: Theory
and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 85-98.
Lee, M.S., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009). Anti-consumption and brand avoidance. Journal of Business
Research, 62(2), 169-180.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1981). Voluntary simplicity lifestyles and energy conservation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 8(3), 243-252.
Leventhal, R.C., Sarkar, A., & Sreejesh, S. (2014). Examination of the roles played by brand love and jealousy in
shaping customer engagement. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
Levy, S.J. (1999). Brands, consumers, symbols and research: Sidney J Levy on marketing. Sage.
Lussier, D.A., & Olshavsky, R.W. (1979). Task complexity and contingent processing in brand choice. Journal of
Consumer Research, 6(2), 154-165.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954.
Maxwell, L.E. (2003). Home and school density effects on elementary school children: The role of spatial
density. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 566-578.
McKelvey, S.M. (2006). Coca-Cola vs. PepsiCo-A" Super" Battleground for the Cola Wars?. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 15(2), 114.
Mokhlis, S. (2009). Relevancy and measurement of religiosity in consumer behavior research. International
Business Research, 2(3), 75-84.
Moorthy, R.S., Mermoud, A., Baerveldt, G., Minckler, D. S., Lee, P.P., & Rao, N.A. (1997). Glaucoma associated
with uveitis. Survey of Ophthalmology, 41(5), 361-394.
Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B.T., & Talukdar, D. (1997). Consumer information search revisited: Theory and empirical
analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 263-277.
Moschis, G.P., & Ong, F.S. (2011). Religiosity and consumer behavior of older adults: A study of subcultural
influences in Malaysia. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(1), 8-17.
Narayana, C.L., & Markin, R.J. (1975). Consumer behavior and product performance: An alternative
conceptualization. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 1-6.
Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing choice without altering brand
evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 263-276.
Ogilvie, D.M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(2), 379.
Oliver, R.L. (2000). Customer satisfaction with service. Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, 247-
254.
Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight: foundations, findings, and managerial
insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311-336.
Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B., & Park, J.W. (2013). Attachment–aversion (AA) model of customer–brand
relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 229-248.
Reed, E.S. (1996). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. Oxford University Press.
Richins, M.L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2),
127-146.
Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Dalli, D. (2012). Emotions that drive consumers away from brands: Measuring negative
emotions toward brands and their behavioral effects. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 29(1), 55-67.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Bohlen, G.M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1996). The link between green purchasing decisions and
measures of environmental consciousness. European Journal of Marketing, 30(5), 35-55.
Schor, J.B. (1998). The overspent American: Upscaling, downshifting, and the new consumer, 10. New York: Basic
Books.

15 1528-2678-24-1-253
 Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Volume 24, Issue 1, 2019

Schwartz, S.H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four Western religions. Social Psychology
Quarterly.
Sen, S., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding consumption: A social dilemma perspective on
consumer boycotts. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 399-417.
Shankarmahesh, M.N. (2006). Consumer ethnocentrism: an integrative review of its antecedents and
consequences. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 146-172.
Shimp, T.A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the
CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280-289.
Smith, S., Fisher, D., & Cole, S.J. (2007). The lived meanings of fanaticism: Understanding the complex role of
labels and categories in defining the self in consumer culture. Consumption Markets & Culture, 10(2), 77-
94.
Smith, T.W. (1990). Ethnic images (No. 19). National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.
Stolz, J. (2009). Explaining religiosity: towards a unified theoretical model 1. The British Journal of
Sociology, 60(2), 345-376.
Swan, J., & Trawick, I.F. (1999). Delight on the nile: an ethnography of experiences that produce delight. Journal of
Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 12.
Thomson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value of the doppelgänger
brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50-64.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J., & Park, C.W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’
emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77-91.
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of
planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 542-553.
Wang, C.L., Siu, N.Y., & Hui, A.S. (2004). Consumer decision-making styles on domestic and imported brand
clothing. European Journal of Marketing, 38(1/2), 239-252.
Ward, J.C., & Ostrom, A.L. (2006). Complaining to the masses: The role of protest framing in customer-created
complaint web sites. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 220-230.
Willer, B., & Leddy, J.J. (2006). Management of concussion and post-concussion syndrome. Current Treatment
Options in Neurology, 8(5), 415-426.
Winchester, M., & Romaniuk, J. (2003). Evaluative and descriptive response patterns to negative image attributes.
European Marketing Academy.
Woodside, A.G., & Trappey, R.J. (1992). Finding out why customers shop your store and buy your brand:
Automatic cognitive processing models of primary choice. Journal of Advertising Research.
Zarantonello, L., Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2016). Brand hate. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 25(1), 11-25.
Zavestoski, S. (2002). The social–psychological bases of anti-consumption attitudes. Psychology &
Marketing, 19(2), 149-165.

16 1528-2678-24-1-253

View publication stats