University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Forgiveness: elucidating the underlying psychological processes that foster brand forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness

(USC Thesis Other)

Forgiveness: elucidating the underlying psychological processes that foster brand forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

FORGIVENESS:
ELUCIDATING THE UNDERLYING PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES THAT
FOSTER BRAND FORGIVENESS AND INTERPERSONAL FORGIVENESS

by
Leigh Anne Novak Donovan

________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Leigh Anne Novak Donovan
ii

Table of Contents
List of Tables v
List of Figures vii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: The Importance of Forgiveness 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Brand Transgressions 5
1.3 Relationship Closeness 6
1.4 Forgiveness 9
1.5 Relationship to Forgiveness to Behavior Model 11
1.6 Study One: iPod 12
1.6.1 Method 13
1.6.2 Independent Variables 14
1.6.3 Dependent Variables 16
1.6.4 Results 17
1.6.5 Discussion 20
1.7 Study Two: iPhone 21
1.7.1 Method 22
1.7.2 Independent Variables 22
1.7.3 Dependent Variables 23
1.7.4 Results 23
1.7.5 Discussion 24
1.8 Study Three: Starbucks 24
1.8.1 Method 25
1.8.2 Scenario 26
1.8.3 Dependent Variables 26
1.8.4 Results 27
1.8.5 Discussion 28
1.9 Study Four: Autobiographical Recall of Brand Failure 28
1.9.1 Autobiographical Recall 29
1.9.2 Method 30
1.9.3 Dependent Variables 30
1.9.4 Results 33
1.9.5 Discussion 36
1.10 General Discussion 37
iii

Chapter 2: The When, Why, and How of Brand Forgiveness:
Elucidating the Underlying Psychological Processes
that Foster Brand Forgiveness – The Forgiveness
Process Model 39
2.1 Abstract 39
2.2 Introduction 40
2.3 Relationships 42
2.4 Forgiveness Processes 44
2.4.1 Commitment 45
2.4.2 Desire to Maintain 45
2.4.3 Motivated Reasoning 47
2.5 Forgiveness Process Model 52
2.6 Empirical Approach 56
2.7 Study 1 58
2.7.1 Method 58
2.7.2 Independent Variables 59
2.7.3 Dependent Variables 60
2.7.4 Results 64
2.8 Discussion 74
2.9 Study 2 74
2.9.1 Method 75
2.9.2 Independent Variables 76
2.9.3 Dependent Variables 76
2.9.4 Results 78
2.10 Discussion 84
2.11 Study 3 84
2.11.1 Methods 86
2.11.2 Results 87
2.11.3 Discussion 89
2.12 General Discussion 89
2.13 The Buffering Effects 96
2.14 Conclusion 98

Chapter 3: Elucidating the Underlying Psychological Processes
that Foster Interpersonal Forgiveness 99
3.1 Introduction 99
3.2 Literature Review 100
iv

3.2.1 Commitment 102
3.2.2 Desire to Maintain the Relationship 103
3.2.3 Motivated Reasoning 106
3.3 Study 1 110
3.3.1 Results 115
3.3.2 Discussion 122
3.3.3 Limitations 122
3.3.4 Conclusion and Future Research 123
3.4 Overall Conclusion 124

References 126

v

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Means for Study 4: Autobiographical Recall of
Brand Failure 33

Table 2.1: Relationship Closeness Items and Correlations 62

Table 2.2: Process Measures and Correlations 63

Table 2.3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of
Composite Variables 63

Table 2.4: Examples of Brand Transgressions Reported 64

Table 2.5: Forgiveness Model IOS 68
Table 2.6: Forgiveness Model BSC 69
Table 2.7: Forgiveness Model Attachment 70
Table 2.8: Reversed Forgiveness Model IOS 71
Table 2.9: Reversed Forgiveness Model BSC 72
Table 2.10: Reversed Forgiveness Model Attachment 73
Table 2.11: Relationship Closeness Items and Correlations 76
Table 2.12: Process Measures and Correlations 77
Table 2.13: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of
Composite Variables 77

Table 2.14: Forgiveness Model BSC 80

Table 2.15: Forgiveness Model Attachment 81
Table 2.16: Reversed Forgiveness Model BSC 82
Table 2.17: Reversed Forgiveness Model Attachment 83
Table 3.1: Relationship Closeness Items and Correlations 113
Table 3.2: Process Measures and Correlations 114
vi

Table 3.3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
of Composite Variables 115

Table 3.4: Forgiveness Model IOS 118

Table 3.5: Forgiveness Model SC 119
Table 3.6: Reversed Forgiveness Model IOS 120
Table 3.7: Reversed Forgiveness Model SC 121

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale 7

Figure 1.2: Relationship to Forgiveness to Behavior Model 12

Figure 1.3: Future Behavioral Intentions by Relationship
Closeness and Outcome: Brand Attachment 19

Figure 1.4: Future Behavioral Intentions by Relationship
Closeness and Outcome: Brand Self Connection 20

Figure 1.5: Mediation of Brand Relationship Closeness
and Future Behavioral Intentions 35

Figure 1.6: Mediation of Brand Relationship Closeness
and Actual Purchase Following Failure 36

Figure 2.1: Proposed Model 67

Figure 2.2: Forgiveness Model IOS 68

Figure 2.3: Forgiveness Model BSC 69

Figure 2.4: Forgiveness Model Attachment 70

Figure 2.5: Reversed Forgiveness Model IOS 71

Figure 2.6: Reversed Forgiveness Model BSC 72

Figure 2.7: Reversed Forgiveness Model Attachment 73

Figure 2.8: Forgiveness Model BSC 80

Figure 2.9: Forgiveness Model Attachment 81

Figure 2.10: Reversed Forgiveness Model BSC 82

viii

Figure 2.11: Reversed Forgiveness Model Attachment 83

Figure 3.1: Proposed Model 101

Figure 3.2: Forgiveness Model IOS 118

Figure 3.3: Forgiveness Model SC 119

Figure 3.4: Reversed Forgiveness Model IOS 120

Figure 3.5: Reversed Forgiveness Model SC 121

ix

Abstract

Even in the best relationships things can, and often do, go wrong. Whether an individual
experiences a brand failure or their friend betrays their trust, an individual experiences a
transgression when they feel that they have been let down. Transgressions, or critical
incidents, have the ability to change the trajectory of a relationship from continuing
smoothly to, at the most extreme, retaliation. Thus, it is important to know and
understand how individuals can overcome transgressions.

Recently, in psychology, forgiveness has received significant attention for its ability to
repair transgressions and restore relationships. In interpersonal relationships, forgiveness
has been shown to have the ability to increase conciliatory behaviors in relationships
following a transgression (McCullough, Worthington, and Rachal 1997) and repair the
relationship from the damage caused by the transgression (Fincham 2000). Forgiveness
has yet to be explored in consumption situations and, even in psychology, the process of
forgiveness has yet to be clearly specified. I contend that forgiveness is a critical step in
understanding how individuals overcome transgressions. In this dissertation, I examine
forgiveness in consumption relationships and interpersonal relationships and delineate the
process of forgiveness.
x

In the first chapter of this dissertation, I examine why forgiveness is important in
understanding brand transgressions. I investigate the role of brand relationship closeness
and forgiveness as key constructs in understanding the differences in behaviors following
brand failures. I demonstrate that brand forgiveness plays a key role, in effect, being the
link between brand relationship closeness and future brand behaviors following a brand
transgression.

Thus, through chapter 1, I demonstrate the importance of forgiveness in consumer brand
relationships following transgressions. However, the question of how relationship
closeness leads to forgiveness remains unanswered. In chapters 2 and 3, I propose and
test a sequential mediation model designed to elucidate the process of forgiveness. I
draw upon a partial proposed model in interpersonal relationships to create my four step
model of forgiveness. I hypothesize that forgiveness, which stems from a close
relationship, occurs because of a desire to restore this relationship, and that is driven by
motivated reasoning. In chapter 2, I test this model following consumer brand
transgressions in three studies. In Study 1, I test this model following a recalled brand
transgression and find initial support for the model. In Study 2, I test this model using a
hypothetical scenario to find out how participants would react towards a brand failure,
again, finding support for the model. In Study 3, I show that differences in the model
arise, as hypothesized, when cognitive load is introduced, providing support for the use of
xi

two mediators in the sequential mediation model. Finally, in chapter 3, I test this model
in interpersonal relationships and confirm that the model delineates the process of
forgiveness in these relationships as well.

1

Chapter 1: The Importance of Brand Forgiveness

1.1 Introduction

The early 1970’s were a wonderful time for the up-start shoe company Nike. Nike had
introduced a radical design (the waffle tread) that was clearly visible and widely
perceived to be superior to the competition’s designs. This radical innovation even came
with a founding narrative that included one of America’s most recognized running
coaches using his wife’s waffle iron to fashion the very first version. Nike had adopted a
distinctive brand logo (the swoosh), and perhaps most importantly, had recruited top
international medium and long distance runners to wear Nike shoes in the Olympics and
widely followed (by runners, at any rate) marathons and other long distance races. With
these steps, Nike had begun to make great inroads against the entrenched market share
leader – Adidas. What could possibly go wrong?

2

In the spring of 1974, Nike introduced a new running shoe, the Nike LD-1000, based
upon its famous waffle shoe, but with the additional innovation of a wider heel. The
concept behind this change was that the wider heel would provide greater cushion
support and stability. What looked good in design, however, did not translate to the actual
shoe. The shoe was manufactured such that the heel was significantly wider than
intended. This overly wide heel did deliver greater cushion and stability. However, it also
reduced the amount that the foot could naturally move through each stride. The result: A
shoe that was referred to internally at Nike as the knee breaker (Strasser & Becklund,
1991).

In retrospect, it is surprising that Nike was able to overcome this product failure. The
most fervent Nike customers were undoubtedly the ones who purchased this faulty shoe.
Given Nike’s brief existence, and many readily available substitutes, why is it that
customers returned to Nike, thereby fostering its growth to one day become the World’s
athletic shoe?

Our research is designed to help us to better understand whether certain factors reduce the
negative impact of product failures on consumers negative brand reactions. Our work
specifically investigates behaviors following transgressions. We explore the role of brand

3

relationship closeness and its subsequent impact on brand forgiveness as essential factors
affecting the relationship between brand failure and negative brand outcomes, such as
reduced purchase intentions, desires to avoid the brand, and desires to seek revenge
against the brand. From this research, we hope to better understand factors that moderate
customers’ reactions following brand failures.

One can generalize beyond the Nike LD-1000 example, and even further to beyond
brands: Relationships, all too often, let us down. And brands, all too often, disappoint.
However, we often maintain these relationships and continue to purchase these brands.
What accounts for such behavior? Commitment to maintaining interpersonal
relationships has been shown to increase forgiveness. Finkel et al. (2002) have found that
relationship closeness is positively associated with behavioral intentions and forgiveness.
In interpersonal relationships, forgiveness has been shown to have the ability to increase
conciliatory behaviors in relationships (McCullough, Worthington, and Rachal 1997) and
repair the relationship from the damage caused by the transgression (Fincham 2000).
However, forgiveness in consumer brand relationships has yet to be examined. What
might cause some individuals to continue using, and others to abandon use of, a brand
after a brand failure? We investigate the role of brand relationship closeness and
forgiveness as key constructs in understanding the differences in behaviors following
brand failures. Do close brand relationships lead to brand forgiveness? From the research
on interpersonal relationships, we know that relationship commitment matters. Those

4

with close, committed relationships are more likely to forgive than those with distant,
uncommitted relationships (e.g. Finkel et al. 2002). As such, we explore whether brand
relationship closeness similarly influences brand forgiveness. Thus, our research seeks to
understand whether individuals engage in brand forgiveness, if the forgiveness is indeed
the result of relationship closeness, and whether such forgiveness fosters consumers’
continued brand behavior.

We explore these questions in four studies, each using different methods, measures, and
approaches. Study One manipulates a brand failure and examines the moderating role of
brand relationship closeness on the relationship between brand failure and future
purchase intentions. Study Two, which uses a real world brand failure, examines whether
brand relationship closeness (as assessed by two divergent measures) influences
forgiveness. Study Three explores the role of forgiveness on a diverse set of post-
transgression behaviors. Specifically, we examine whether forgiveness, impacts not just
purchase intentions, but desires to avoid the brand, desires to seek revenge against the
brand, and willingness to defend the brand. Study Four explores the mediating role of
forgiveness on the influence of brand relationship closeness on purchase intentions and
actual repurchase following a failure. In Study Four we use a different brand failure
methodology, one which is common to research on interpersonal relationships,
autobiographical recall. Specifically participants are asked to recall a specific brand
transgression instance, and respond to questions concerning this autobiographic incident.

5

Across all of these studies, our intent is to understand whether consumers’ negative
reactions to brand failure are impacted by brand relationship closeness through its impact
on brand forgiveness.

1.2 Brand Transgressions

The consequences of brand transgressions are costly to firms and consumers. Brand
transgressions can lead to attenuated purchase intentions (Tax, Brown, and
Chandrashekaran 1998; Smith and Bolton 1998), increased brand avoidance (Grégoire,
Tripp and Legoux 2009), reduced willingness to defend the brand (Park et al. 2009), and
often public outrage (Ariely 2007; Grégoire, Tripp and Legoux 2009). That is, brand
transgressions can undermine the customer value that is so difficult to build. In addition
to costs to the firm, brand transgressions can be costly to the customers as well. Brand
transgressions threaten the benefits offered by brands: Customers may not be less willing
to rely upon prior brand purchase as the basis of continued purchase, and may instead
need to expend the mental and time cost of engaging anew in brand search. Given the
costs of brand transgressions, it is clear that they are of theoretical and practical
importance. Interestingly, consumers often react quite differently following
transgressions: some consumers defect and try to find an alternative brand that will better
meet their needs, whereas, other consumers remain loyal to the brand. As Oliver (1999)

6

stated, satisfaction is not enough to completely understand loyal behavior. We investigate
whether understanding the role of brand relationship closeness and forgiveness following
brand transgressions can better provide an understanding of and better predict consumer
reactions and future behavior.

1.3 Relationship Closeness

A useful perspective to understanding the nature of relationships is offered by research on
interpersonal relationships. Specifically, within this field investigators have introduced
the concept of relationship closeness (Clark and Lemay 2010). In the traditional context
of interpersonal relationships, closeness is conceptualized as the extent to which an
“other” individual is included in one’s self concept. This perspective was advanced by
Aron and Aron (1986) with the Self-Expansion Model. The proposed model suggests that
we can incorporate others into our self-concepts. That is, we perceive close others to be
part of ourselves. Integrating others into oneself enhances an individual’s ability to
accomplish goals, such that the other and the other’s resources become part of the self
(Aron, Aron, and Norman 2003; Aron, Norman, and Aron 1998; Aron et al. 2000).
Recently, this relationship was hypothesized to extend also to consumer brand
relationships (Reimann and Aron 2009). Conceptually, the other person is replaced with
the brand, and the construct captures the extent the brand is considered part of oneself.

7

Such interpersonal, and brand, closeness is assessed with the Inclusion of the Other in the
Self Scale. The IOS scale (Aron, Aron and Smollen, 1992) consists of seven circle pairs.
One circle represents the self and the other represents that other person (or brand). Each
of the seven pairs represents a different depiction of closeness, overlapping to differing
degrees from least overlapping (least inclusive) to most overlapping (most inclusive).
Participants are asked to pick the pair of circles that best describes their relationship with
the other (brand).

Figure 1.1: Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale

Evidence that suggests that a close relationship can help individuals overcome
transgressions. In the interpersonal relationship literature in psychology, close
relationships have been shown to positively influence the likelihood of forgiveness
following transgressions, (Fincham 2000; McCullough et al. 1998; Finkel et. al 2002;
Hoyt et al. 2005; and McCullough et al. 1997). In the field of consumer behavior,

8

researchers have found results consistent with the notion brand relationships may be able
to buffer brands from the negative effects of service failures. Tax, Brown, and
Chandrashekaran (1998) demonstrated that positive prior service with a provider buffered
the negative effects of deficient complaint handling. And Hess et al. (2003) demonstrated
that the higher the number of past, quality, experiences with a provider, leads to lower
recovery expectations which results in more favorable evaluations following the failure.
If the past positive prior service and greater number of past, quality experiences result in
closer brand relationships, then both of these results can be understood within the
framework of the present work.

We extend this construct of relationship closeness from interpersonal to brand
relationships. Conceptually, brand relationship closeness can be thought of as the extent
to which an individual considers a brand to be part of oneself (e.g., Reimann and Aron
2009, Escalas & Bettman 2003; Park et al. 2010). There are multiple ways with which to
assess brand relationship closeness. As outlined above, one can assess the extent to which
a brand is included with the self using Aron’s IOS. Alternatively, one can assess the
closeness of a relationship through more traditional measures. Notably, Escalas and
Bettman (2003) have developed the brand self connection measure, in which participants
respond to a set of questions designed to assess the extent to which a brand is considered
to be connected to the self. Yet a third approach is offered by Park et al.’s brand
attachment perspective. The research provides a conceptualization and methodology

9

specifically for defining and exploring brand attachment. From this perspective, brand
attachment can be understood as being comprised of a) brand-self connection (the extent
to which a brand is perceived to be part of oneself) and b) brand prominence (the extent
to which one thinks about the brand without prompting).
1
This feeling of attachment to a
brand influences a wide variety of behaviors towards the brand (Park et al., 2010). In the
current research, our interest is in the extent to which one feels close to a brand. In order
to provide convergent support for our findings, we utilize all three approaches to brand
relationship closeness across the four studies.

1.4 Forgiveness

One challenge of the present research has to do with the very definition of forgiveness. A
review of the literature on forgiveness reveals a frequent tendency to conflate the
definition of forgiveness with the behavior flowing from such forgiveness.
2
For example,

1
Park et al. (2010) developed a four-item measure that bears on brand relationship closeness. Brand
relationship closeness may be revealed by the extent to which a consumer believes a brand is part of the
self. Several studies have examined Brand Self-Connection (Escalas and Bettman; Park et al. 2010). Park et
al. (2010) examine brand relationship closeness as a component of a construct called brand attachment,
which indicates not only brand self connection but also the extent to which the brand is prominent in
consumers’ minds. This measure is composed of two parts: a brand-self connection component and a
brand prominence component. Brand self connection captures the extent to which one feels the brand is
a part of themselves and their personal connection with the brand. Brand prominence measures the
extent to which thoughts about the brand come naturally to mind and the extent to which individuals
automatically think about the brand.
2
There also exists the tendency to conflate the definition of forgiveness with the psychological process
believed to underlie forgiveness. This second conflation issue stands outside of the current discussion, but
is of importance to Donovan, Priester, MacInnnis, and Park (2011).

10

a commonly used definition of forgiveness is provided by McCullough, Worthington, and
Rachal (1997), who define interpersonal forgiveness as, “the set of motivational changes
whereby one becomes (a) decreasingly motivated to retaliate against an offending
relationship partner, (b) decreasingly motivated to maintain estrangement (or avoidance)
from the offender, and (c) increasingly motivated by conciliation and goodwill for the
offender, despite the offender’s hurtful actions.” In other words, forgiveness, from such a
definition, is measured by the behavioral intentions of decreased retaliation and
estrangement, and increased goodwill. Such a definition is problematic for our research
question, because at the most basic, we are interested in examining if and when brand
forgiveness does lead to such behavioral and emotional resumption. Upon reflection, it
seems possible that forgiveness and future behavior need not be related. For example, one
can imagine instances in which an individual might forgive a brand, yet decide to adopt a
different brand in the future. Or, one might not forgive a brand, and yet continue to
purchase this unforgiven brand due to factors such as habit or inertia. Additionally, past
research has shown that forgiveness and reconciliation are two distinct constructs (e.g.
Worthington 1998). Thus, forgiveness does not necessarily entail future behavioral
intentions.

To disentangle forgiveness from subsequent behavioral intention, we use a simple,
idiosyncratic approach to the definition and measurement of forgiveness. We define

11

forgiveness as the neutralization of a transgression toward the offending brand or
company. We conceptualize forgiveness as an emotional and/or cognitive decision which
results in the neutralization of such a transgression. That is, what is necessary is the
conscious decision to forgive. What this decision means to any one individual, however,
may differ. What is invariant across any idiosyncratic personal beliefs of what
forgiveness means, however, is that to forgive is to decide to forgive. As such, we
measure forgiveness simply as a) whether an individual has forgiven and/or b) to what
extent an individual has forgiven. This simple approach to forgiveness allows us to
understand forgiveness, alone, and disentangles forgiveness from any possible future
brand behavior. Specifically, by separating the decision to forgive from future behavior
and behavioral intentions, we are able to empirically assess the extent to which
forgiveness does foster future brand behavior.

1.5 Relationship to Forgiveness to Behavior Model

Our goal is to advance and explore the influence of brand relationship closeness on brand
forgiveness, and the influence of brand forgiveness on brand behaviors following a brand
transgression. We present four studies that examine this hypothesized model.
Specifically, we propose and empirically test the Relationship to Forgiveness to Behavior
Model. A priori, we expect that a) those with close brand relationships will be more

12

likely to forgive a brand following a transgression than those with distant relationships, b)
forgiveness will positively influence future behavioral intentions and actual post-failure
behaviors, and c) that forgiveness will mediate the influence of close brand relationships
on future brand intentions. (See Figure 1.2)

Figure 1.2: Relationship to Forgiveness to Behavior Model

1.6 Study One: iPod

We conducted Study One to address the question of whether brand relationship closeness
moderates behavioral intentions following a brand success or failure. Of course, brand
RELATIONSHIP TO FORGIVENESS TO BEHAVIOR MODEL

Forgiveness

Brand
Relationship
Closeness

Future
Behavioral
Intentions

13

failure should lead to less positive brand behavioral intentions than brand success. In this
study, we examine the extent to which brand relationship closeness affects the magnitude
of these future behavioral intentions. Specifically, we examine whether brand
relationship closeness moderates the relationship between brand failure and negative
brand outcomes. Brand success/failure is manipulated using a hypothetical scenario.
Brand relationship closeness and future purchase intentions are both measured.

1.6.1 Method

We explore the influence of brand relationship closeness using a scenario-based approach
in which brand performance is manipulated to be either successful or unsuccessful.
Individuals’ brand relationship closeness was assessed through use of brand self
connection and brand attachment. Brand relationship closeness was measured at the
beginning of the study. Participants then read a scenario in which the outcome was either
a positive or negative. Following, the scenario, participants provided their future
behavioral intentions towards the brand.

Sixty-nine University of Southern California undergraduate students participated in a 2
(brand success vs. brand failure) x 3 brand relationship closeness design study in partial

14

fulfillment for course credit.
3
Each participant first completed a two part booklet that (a)
assessed their current relationship closeness with the iPod, (b) asked them to imagine a
positive or negative experience with the iPod, and (c) assessed their repurchase intentions
following the scenario. We chose the iPod as the focal product given college students’
brand familiarity as well as the expected heterogeneity of brand relationship closeness for
this brand.

1.6.2 Independent Variables

Brand relationship closeness was assessed by 1) Park et al.’s (2010) brand attachment
scale and 2) by brand self connection by using on the brand self component of the brand
attachment scale. Specifically, two 11-point items assessed the brand-self connection
component of the scale: “To what extent do you feel that you are personally connected to
the iPod?” and “To what extent is iPod a part of you and who you are?” Two additional
items assessed the brand prominence component of the scale: “To what extent are your
thoughts and feelings towards iPod often automatic, coming to mind seemingly on their

3
Girard and Mullet (1997) demonstrated that older participants were more forgiving than young adults. Using relatively young
undergraduate students as participants may thus provide a strong test of our hypothesis.

15

own?” and “To what extent do your thoughts and feelings towards iPod come to you
naturally and easily?” (0 = not at all; 10 = completely).
4

Brand experience was manipulated by a scenario that described a successful or
unsuccessful brand experience. All participants first read:

“I would like you to imagine that up to this point that your iPod has delivered the
performance that you expected when you purchased it. It has confirmed your
expectations. Now, I would like you to imagine that you decided to compile a new
playlist for your trip while you are on a one week vacation. You compile this
playlist from your existing music files. In order to compile this playlist you spend
an hour and a half to complete the entire process. You are very excited to hear
your new playlist on vacation.”

4
The alpha coefficient for the items assessing brand self-connection was .84 and the items for brand prominence was .58. The overall
alpha for the four items was .66. Note that though these alphas appear low, the alphas in subsequent studies are higher. Low alphas
should make it more difficult (and thus a stronger test) to detect any proposed impact of brand relationship closeness.

16

In the successful outcome conditions, participants additionally read that:

“When you begin your Spring Break trip you first search for your new playlist.
After finding your new playlist you listen to it on your trip and you are able to
enjoy your iPod while on vacation.”

In the unsuccessful outcome conditions, participants read that,

“However, when you arrive at your vacation destination your iPod screen is black
and will not turn on. Your iPod will not play your new playlist or any of your
songs on it. You contact Apple and they say that this has been a common problem
and that if you send in your iPod they will fix it and mail it back to you. However,
now you will not be able to listen to your iPod on your vacation.”

1.6.3 Dependent Variables

Two items indicated repurchase intentions: “In the future, do you think you would be
willing to purchase an iPod again?” and “I would buy an iPod again next time.” Both

17

items were assessed by 11-point scales anchored with 0 (not at all) and 10 (completely).
A composite future behavioral intention measure was created by averaging these two
items.
5

1.6.4 Results

A regression analysis examined the main effects of brand outcome (successful vs.
unsuccessful), brand relationship closeness, and their interaction on repurchase
intentions. Not surprisingly, we observed main effects of both brand outcome (M
success
=
8.78 and M
failure
= 6.74; F(1,67) = 16.9, p < .0001) and brand relationship closeness on
future behavioral intentions, (b
brand attachment
= .73, F(1, 67) = 25.04, p < .0001; b
brand self
connection
= .44, F(1, 67) = 17.73, p < .0001). People are more likely to intend to purchase
following a brand success than failure, and if they feel close versus distant. Of greater
theoretical interest, there emerged the predicted significant interactions between brand
relationship closeness and the brand outcome on repurchase intentions, F(2, 66) = 10.72,
p = .0017 for brand attachment; F(2, 66) = 4.88, p = .03 for brand self connection . For
ease of explication we decompose this interaction using the brand attachment measure –
note however that the decomposition holds for brand self connection as well. Brand
relationship closeness had no effect on repurchase intentions when the brand outcome
was successful, (F(1, 35) = 2.13, p = .15). In contrast, brand relationship closeness (F(1,

5
The alpha for this measure is.98

18

32) = 15.07, p = .0005) did impact repurchase intentions following a brand transgression.
In order to deconstruct this interaction, we created a tertiary split on brand relationship
closeness, resulting in three brand relationship closeness categories: distant, moderate,
and close. Those who reported close relationships had higher future behavioral intentions
following the brand transgression (M
close
= 9.06) than individuals reporting moderate
(M
moderate
= 6.67or distant brand relationships (M
distant
= 5.38). The difference between
close and moderately close brand relationships was significant (F(1, 46) = 5.16, p =
.027), while the difference between moderate and distant brand relationships approached
significance (F(1, 45) = 3.34, p = .0745).

An alternative examination of the interaction reveals that the brand outcome (successful
or unsuccessful) was a significant predictor of future behavioral intentions for those with
a distant brand relationship (M
distant
= 5.38; F(1, 21) = 8.84, p = .0075) and those with a
moderate brand relationship (M
moderate
= 6.67; F(1, 23) = 8.07, p = .0095). However, the
future behavioral intentions of those with a close brand relationship were not affected by
the brand outcome manipulation (M
clsoe
= 9.06; F(1, 22) = .01, p = .91).
6

6
A conceptually similar analysis yields identical results. Specifically, we performed slope analyses. The slope for the positive
condition was .19 (t = 1.46, p = .15) whereas the slope for the negative condition was 1.1 (t = 4.42, p < .0001).

19

Figure 1.3: Future Behavioral Intentions by Relationship Closeness and Outcome: Brand
Attachment

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CLOSE MODERATE DISTANT
FUTURE BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS
BRAND ATTACHMENT
iPOD SUCCESS
iPOD FAILURE

20

Figure 1.4: Future Behavioral Intentions by Relationship Closeness and Outcome: Brand
Self Connection

1.6.5 Discussion

Study One provides support for the moderating effects of brand relationship closeness on
the relationship between brand failures and resulting consumer brand purchase intentions.
Participants who had a close brand relationship were unaffected by the brand failure,
whereas those with moderate and distant brand relationships showed attenuated future
behavioral intentions as a result of brand failure.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CLOSE MODERATE DISTANT
FUTURE BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS
BRAND SELF CONNECTION
iPOD SUCCESS
iPOD FAILURE

21

While Study One provides initial evidence for the buffering effects of brand relationship
closeness several questions remain. First, does brand relationship closeness influence
forgiveness? Second, is brand relationship closeness influential for actual brand
transgressions occurring in the real world? Third, are the results of Study One applicable
to brand relationship closeness or are they due to the two approaches (brand attachment
and brand self connection) used to operationalize brand relationship closeness? To
examine these issues, we conducted Study Two. Specifically, we focus on an instance of
a real world brand transgression and we assessed brand relationship closeness by using
brand attachment, brand self connection and IOS. In addition, we measure the key
concept – forgiveness.

1.7 STUDY TWO: iPhone

We conducted Study Two following the release of the original Apple iPhone in April
2007. Recall that within several months of the phone’s initial release Apple significantly
reduced the brand’s price. Such an immediate price reduction was viewed as a
transgression to those who had already bought the brand. We examined how brand
relationship closeness, as assessed by the IOS, brand self connection and brand
attachment influenced forgiveness.

22

1.7.1 Method

Two hundred twelve students enrolled in an introductory marketing course at the
University of Southern California completed this study for partial fulfillment of course
credit. All participants were given the brand failure information as follows:

“As you may know, Apple recently reduced the price of its iPhone from $599 to
$399. We would like to ask you questions about your thoughts and feelings
towards the iPhone.”

1.7.2 Independent Measures

Recall that there are at least three different, approaches to measuring brand relationship
closeness. The brand attachment (Park et al., 2010) and the brand self connection scales
used in Study One used traditional self report measures to focus on brand self-connection
and brand-prominence. A third approach, the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale,
advanced by Aron, Aron and Smollen (1992), focuses on to what extent the brand is

23

perceived to be included in the self. To provide convergent validity that our results are
not due to any idiosyncratic tendencies of the brand self connection and brand attachment
scale, Study Two uses all three measures of brand relationship closeness.

1.7.3 Dependent measures

Participants stated how forgiving they felt towards the brand transgression with a single-
item on an 11-point scale anchored with 0 (not at all) and 10 (extremely). Single item
measures of forgiveness are commonly used in psychology (e.g. Finkel, Burnette &
Scissors, 2007) and this measure is simple with high face validity. Additionally, this
measure does not conflate forgiveness and the outcomes of forgiveness.

1.7.4 Results

To examine the key hypothesis, brand forgiveness was regressed on all three measures of
brand relationship closeness in separate regression analyses. As predicted, there emerged
main effects of brand attachment (b = .31, F(1, 210) = 15.12, p = .0001), brand self
connection (b = .26, F(1, 210) = 11.48, p = .0008) and IOS, (b = .40, F( 1, 210) = 10.43,
p = .0014).

24

1.7.5 Discussion

Recall that Study Two was conducted in order to examine whether brand relationship
closeness influences forgiveness, and if such an effect would emerge in a real-world
context. The results of Study Two are clear. Regardless of measure used, brand
relationship closeness leads to forgiveness. Such a finding affords the opportunity to
explore the consequences of brand forgiveness.

1.8 Study Three: Starbucks

Study Three is designed to examine the influence of forgiveness on repurchase intentions
as well as a variety of other negative outcomes of brand failure—i.e., brand avoidance,
revenge against the brand, and reduced willingness to defend the brand. Most
importantly, Study Three is designed to determine whether forgiveness impacts how
negatively consumers react to brand failure. The key question driving this study is
whether brand forgiveness influences subsequent brand behavioral intentions. To
elaborate, the possibility exists that people may forgive without continuing positive brand

25

behavior, and that people may not forgive and continue positive brand behavior:
forgiveness does not necessitate reconciliation (e.g. Worthington 1998).

In psychology, forgiveness is thought to engender the reduction of desire to avoid an
offender and a reduction in desire to take revenge on an offender (McCullough,
Worthington, and Rachal 1997). We use this perspective to formulate our approach.
Specifically, does brand forgiveness have similar effects? To address such a question, we
measured behavioral intentions traditionally associated with forgiveness in psychology
literature, extended to a consumer-brand relationship context. Operationally, we assessed
the extent to which individuals sought revenge on the brand, were willing to defend the
brand, and planned to maintain the current level of brand behavior.

1.8.1 Method

One hundred seventy participants at the University of Southern California completed this
study in partial fulfillment for course credit. All participants read a scenario in which the
brand failed, and then reported their forgiveness, repurchase intentions, desires for
revenge against the brand, willingness to defend the brand and desire to avoid the brand
in the future.

26

1.8.2 Scenario

All participants were presented with the following brand failure scenario, “I would like
you to imagine that up to this point that Starbucks has delivered the performance that you
expected when you have purchased a beverage. Starbucks has confirmed your
expectations. Now, I would like you to imagine that you have decided to go to Starbucks
to order a hot beverage. You are looking forward to enjoying this hot beverage. You
order your beverage, pick it up at the counter, and leave Starbucks. However, when you
begin to drink your beverage, you realize that it is not the beverage you ordered. You
were given the wrong drink and it is also cold. You are not able to enjoy your Starbucks
beverage.”

1.8.3 Dependent Variables

Repurchase intentions were measured with two items, “In the future, do you think you
would be willing to purchase a Starbucks beverage again,” on an 11-point scale anchored
with 0 (not at all) and 10 = (completely) and “In the future, do you think you would be
willing to drink Starbucks,” on an 11-point scale anchored with 0 (not at all) and 10 (very

27

likely.)
7
Desire to seek revenge was measured by, “I want to take revenge on Starbucks,”
on an 11-point scale anchored with 0 (not at all) and 10 (completely.) Willingness to
defend the brand in the future was assessed with, “In the future, do you think you would
be willing to defend Starbucks to others who speak negatively of it,” anchored with 0 (not
at all) and 10 (very likely.) Brand forgiveness was measured with a single item, “I have
forgiven Starbucks,” on an 11-point scale anchored with 0 (not at all) and 10
(completely.)

1.8.4 Results

The key question driving this study is whether brand forgiveness influences subsequent
brand behavioral intentions. The analyses reveal that forgiveness influences a wide
variety of post transgression intentions. The more consumers forgive a brand for brand
failure the more willing they are to repurchase the brand (b = .65, F(1, 169) = 164.1, p<
.0001), consume the product in the future (b = .47, F(1, 169) = 44.05, p < .0001) and
defend the against those who are disenchanted with it (b = .53, F(1, 169) = 53.11, p <
.0001). The more consumers forgive a brand the less likely they are to seek revenge
against the brand (b = -.2, F(1, 169) = 9.53, p = .0024).

7
The alpha for future behavioral intentions was .76.

28

1.8.5 Discussion

Study Three establishes that brand forgiveness matters. Whether and to what extent
individuals forgive a brand fosters a variety of theoretically informative and predictive
behaviors. Thus, we have established that brand relationship closeness influences future
brand behavioral intentions (Study One), that brand relationship closeness influences
brand forgiveness (Study Two) and that brand forgiveness influences repurchase
intentions as well as a set of other brand behaviors (Study Three). These three studies
lead to the most important question of this research: Does forgiveness mediate the
influence of brand relationship closeness on future behaviors? Study Four examines this
issue.

1.9 Study Four: Autobiographical Recall of Brand Failure

Study Four examines brand failure, and determines whether the relationship between
brand relationship closeness and future brand behavior is mediated by forgiveness. By
examining the mediating role of forgiveness, we hope to demonstrate how close brand

29

relationships positively impact future behavioral intentions following brand
transgressions.

1.9.1 Autobiographical Recall

Study Four uses a different methodology to describe brand failure- autobiographical
recall. Interpersonal relationship studies often ask participants to recall a specific past
relationship failure (Enright and Coyle 1998; McCullough, Bono, and Root 2007). Doing
so ensures that incidents are personally meaningful to respondents. This approach, in
conjunction with the hypothetical scenario and real-world scenario, provides divergent
methods to understanding forgiveness. The extent to which such multiple methods yield
consistent results provides evidence for the robust nature of the model.

To utilize this autobiographical approach, all participants were asked to recall a time that
a brand had failed them. They were then asked to describe the failure and provide
assessments of their reactions towards the failure. Participants also indicated the extent to
which they had forgiven the brand, and their behaviors and behavioral intentions
following the failure. This approach mirrors approaches used in interpersonal relationship
research (e.g. Zechmeister and Romero 2002).

30

1.9.2 Method

One hundred twenty three undergraduate business students at the University of Southern
California participated in exchange for partial course credit. All participants read: “Please
recall a specific incident when a brand failed you. For example, it didn’t meet your
expectations or it let you down. For example, perhaps Starbucks gave you a supposedly
hot coffee that was cold or your iPhone stopped working. Please tell us what happened in
one to two sentences:” Brand relationship closeness was assessed with the brand
attachment measure (Park et al, 2010) described in Studies One and Two.
8

1.9.3 Dependent Variables

Participants indicated their reactions following the transgression. All items were
measured on 11-point scales anchored by 0 (not at all) and 10 (completely), unless
otherwise noted. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they had forgiven
the brand following brand failure. Participants also indicated the perceived severity of the
failure in order to examine whether brand relationship closeness influences perceived

8
The alpha for brand self-connections was .88 and the alpha for brand prominence was .90 with an overall alpha of .81.

31

severity. To examine the consequences of brand forgiveness, participants were asked to
indicate the extent to which they would be willing to purchase the brand again and
whether they had purchased the brand since the failure (yes, no). Similar to Study Three,
participants also indicated their desire to avoid the brand and their desire to take revenge
on the brand. Forgiveness in interpersonal relationships is often measured with the TRIM
inventory (transgression-related interpersonal motivations), which is an inventory
composed of multiple items examining the desire for revenge and avoidance behavior
(McCullough et al. 1998). Reductions in the desire to avoid and/or seek revenge on a
transgressor are often used to explore forgiveness (McCullough, Bono and Root 2007,
McCullough, Fincham and Tsang 2003, McCullough et al. 1998, McCullough,
Worthington and Rachal 1997). Thus, we formed a composite measure, by averaging the
two measures and we expect to find that forgiveness of a brand does predict a reduction
in the desire of avoidance and revenge behaviors towards the brand.
9

Participants, not surprisingly, reported a wide variety of brand failures. Examples of these
include:
“My iPhone stopped working. I was walking in the rain and my phone fell out of
pocket. It was only in the rain for 3 seconds, but it completely stopped working
and I had to get a new one.”

9
The alpha for this composite measure is .71.

32

“McDonalds messed up one of my orders at the drive through window.”

“My BenQ laptop stopped working. The computer became slower and slower but
then one day when I opened it, nothing turned on. There was no response and this
was only a year to a year and half after I bought it.”

1.9.4 Results

Univariate analyses of the brand failures described by the participants are provided in
table below.
10

10
Please note all analyses are performed with the continuous variable of BSC, split means are provided for ease of understanding.

33

Table 1.1: Means for Study 4: Autobiographical Recall of Brand Failure

Table of Means Brand Relationship
Closeness
N = 49 n = 25 n = 24

Mean
Brand Relationship
Closeness (DV)

Distant

Close
Forgiveness 4.9 p = .004 3.9 5.9
Perceived Severity 6.4 p = .41 6.4 6.25
Brand Relationship
Closeness

3.8

1.89

5.85

Variables were measured on 0-10 scales

To rule out the alternative explanation that those with a close brand relationship simply
report less severe failures and are thus more easily able to forgive, we examined whether
there was a main effect of brand relationship closeness on perceived severity of the
failure. No effect was observed (b = .02, F(1, 121) = .04, p = .85).
11
Additionally, in line
with forgiveness in interpersonal relationships, we explored whether forgiveness
influences the desires to avoid the brand and take revenge on the brand. As expected,
there emerged a main effect of forgiveness on the desire to avoid and seek revenge on the
brand (b = -.23, F(1, 121) 4.39, p = .038).

11
Severity of the failure did negatively influence brand forgiveness (F(1, 122) = 14.51, p = .0002). We conducted the analyses
reported below using severity of transgression as both a moderator and a covariate. Severity did not moderate any of the findings. And
all of the reported effects remained significant when severity was used as a covariate. As such, severity is not examined further.

34

In order to explore whether forgiveness mediates the influence of brand relationship
closeness on future behavioral intentions, we conducted meditation analyses (Baron and
Kenny 1986).
12
First, we regressed willingness to purchase the brand again upon brand
relationship closeness. Replicating Study One, we find a main effect of brand relationship
closeness on willingness to repurchase the product (b = .45, F(1, 121) = 12.68, p =
.0005). Second, we regressed forgiveness on brand relationship closeness. Replicating
Study Two, we find a main effect of brand relationship closeness on brand forgiveness (b
= .41, F(1, 121) = 11.25, p = .0011). Third, we explore whether or not forgiveness has an
influence upon future behavioral intentions. Replicating Study Three, a main effect of
forgiveness on willingness to purchase the brand was observed (b = .77, F(1, 121) =
147.17, p < .0001).

Of key importance and interest is the question of whether brand forgiveness mediates the
influence of brand relationship closeness on future (and subsequent) brand related
intentions. Evidence of such mediation is gleaned from the analysis in which brand
behaviors are regressed simultaneously on both brand relationship closeness and brand
forgiveness. And as hypothesized, the influence of forgiveness remains significant, (b =
.74, F(1, 121) = 125.75, p < 0001), whereas the influence of brand relationship closeness
is attenuated to non-significance, (b = .15, F(1, 121) = 2.51, p = .116).
13

12
Note these analyses use brand attachment, however analyses using brand self connection yield similar results, with the exception
that mediation in partial rather than full.
13
The Sobel Test for mediation is significant, stat = 3.21, p < .01. See figure below.

35

Figure 1.5: Mediation of Brand Relationship Closeness and Future Behavioral Intentions

Recall that participants were asked to report brand transgressions from the past. As such,
it is possible to explore their post brand failure actual purchase behavior. To do so, we
analyzed whether the same brand had been purchased since the time of the failure.
Regression analyses identical in nature to those described above revealed that the
influence of brand relationship closeness on actual brand purchase is completely
mediated by brand forgiveness (see figure below).

36

Figure 1.6: Mediation of Brand Relationship Closeness and Actual Purchase Following
Failure

1.9.5 Discussion

Study Four replicates and extends Studies One, Two, and Three. More importantly, it
highlights the meditational role played by brand forgiveness. Brand forgiveness underlies
the influence of brand relationship closeness on both future brand behavioral intentions
and on the report of past, post-brand failure, behaviors.

37

1.10 GENERAL DISCUSSION

So, how was it that Nike was able to survive its horrific brand failure? The results of this
research provide a plausible explanation. It is most likely that those who purchased the
new shoe were those who felt closest to Nike (see Park et al., 2010). When these Nike
customers experienced the brand failure (which to some of them, at least, may have
resulted in injury!), the very reason that led them to purchase the shoes (their feelings of
closeness with Nike), is the self-same reason that led them to be most likely to forgive
Nike’s failure. In a way, Nike owes its existence to its ability to make its customers feel
as if Nike were part of themselves. Thus brand relationship closeness not only caused
customers to a) seek out and buy the new Nike shoes, but b) forgive Nike when those
shoes injured, and c) led those customers to buy Nike again.

It is worth nothing that, there have been mixed results as to whether close brand
relationships lead to increased negative reactions or decreased negative reactions. For
example, there is evidence that consumers with strong brand relationships can react even
more negatively following a brand failure. Grégoire, Tripp, and Legoux (2009)
demonstrated the love becomes hate effect: following a double deviation (a failure
followed by a failed recovery effort) consumers with a strong brand relationship hold a

38

grudge the longest. This is especially interesting in relation to this research, because
holding a grudge is the opposite of forgiveness (e.g., Witvliet, Ludwig and Laan 2001).
Additionally, individuals with high quality relationships have been shown to react even
more negatively following service failures leading to an even greater decrease in
repurchase intentions (Holloway, Wang, and Beatty 2009). In future research, we will
explore when close brand relationships lead to more positive reactions versus more
negative reactions and what role forgiveness plays in these opposing reactions.

In conclusion, at the most basic, this research advances the idea that brand forgiveness
plays a key role, in effect, being the link between brand relationship closeness and future
brand behaviors following a brand transgression. Understanding the role and importance
of forgiveness has practical (e.g., Nike) and theoretical importance. And with this
research, new questions arise. Perhaps of greatest interest is the question of how brand
relationship closeness leads to brand forgiveness. Such future research will lead to greater
insight into the psychological processes by which consumers maintain relationships, and
occasionally, divorce themselves from, brands.

39

Chapter 2: The When, Why, and How of Brand Forgiveness: Elucidating the
Underlying Psychological Processes that Foster Brand Forgiveness – The
Forgiveness Process Model

2.1 Abstract

When, why, and how does forgiveness occur? We advance a sequential mediator model
advanced to understand the psychological processes underlying brand forgiveness.
Drawing upon the interpersonal forgiveness literature, we identify two mediating
constructs – the desire to maintain a relationship and motivated reasoning. Though both
constructs have been examined independently in the interpersonal literature, ours is the
first model to establish both simultaneously in a unified model. Specifically, we advance
the model that following a transgression, relationship closeness leads to a desire to
maintain a relationship, this desire leads to motivated reasoning, and this reasoning leads
to forgiveness. In this chapter we test and find support for the model in three studies, the
first of which uses participants’ recall of an actual brand transgression, the second of
which uses a hypothetical brand failure scenario. A third experimental study reveals that
cognitive load reduces motivated reasoning, but not desire to maintain a relationship. We
discuss our model in light of recent brand transgression research.

40

2.2 Introduction

Forgiveness is accepted as the key construct that restores interpersonal relationships
following relationship transgressions. Surprisingly, virtually no research has been
conducted on brand forgiveness following brand failures. Given the recent research that
focuses on brand relationships, natural questions arise: When, why, and how does such
brand forgiveness unfold? Clearly, knowing the answers to these questions will help
deepen our knowledge of brand relationships, brand transgressions, and future brand
behavior. The present research seeks to answer these questions. To do so, we draw upon
and provide new theoretical insight into the literature on interpersonal forgiveness.

A basic question from which to start is “what is forgiveness?” While this may be a basic
question, there is not a single agreed upon definition of forgiveness in the social sciences
(Worthington 1998). At its most basic, forgiveness occurs within the context of a
relationship following a transgression (e.g., Hannon et al. 2010). Expanding upon this
foundation, the conceptual definitions that guide much of the interpersonal forgiveness
literature typically rest upon one (or more) of the following three approaches. One
influential approach is offered by McCullough and colleagues (e.g., McCullough et al.,
1998) in which forgiveness is conceptualized as a reduction in negative post-
transgression motivations. Specifically, the authors advance the use of the transgression-

41

related interpersonal motivation inventory (TRIM). The trim assesses the offended
person’s motivation to seek revenge and avoid the transgressor as evidence for
forgiveness (and in later models includes increased motivations for benevolent behavior
towards the transgressor (McCullough, Root, & Cohen, 2006)). A second approach
examines positive and negative behavioral tendencies following a transgression. In this
approach, forgiveness is conceptualized as the restoration of positive and the reduction of
negative behavioral tendencies (e.g., Finkel et al. 2002). A third approach is to simply
assess forgiveness as its own entity and is typically assessed by simply asking whether
the transgressor has been forgiven (e.g., Reed and Aquino 2003).

Worthy of note is that proponents of the first two approaches typically justify the validity
of their preferred approach by demonstrating its correlation with the third approach of
directly assessing forgiveness. The third approach is attractive, in part, because of its
high degree of face validity. There is additional evidence to support its use. Recent
research reveals that the definition of forgiveness used by academics differs from lay
definitions (e.g., Kearns and Fincham 2004). What is agreed upon across all three
approaches, and between academic and lay persons, is that forgiveness is the result of a
choice (Fincham, Hall, and Beach 2006, Worthington and Wade 1999, Reed and Aquino
2003), though the specific meaning of forgiveness may vary idiosyncratically. We adopt
the conceptual definition of forgiveness as the decision to forgive, and adopt the
commonly used, single measure of forgiveness (e.g. Exline et al. 2004; Girard and Mullet

42

19997; Green, Burnette, and Davis 2008; Hannon et al. 2010; Karremans, Van Lange,
and Holland 2005; Kearns and Fincham 2005; Fincham and Beach 2002; McCullough
and Hoyt 2002).

2.3 Relationships

One significant finding in the interpersonal forgiveness literature is that the quality of the
relationship influences forgiveness. The more satisfied (e.g., Allemand et al. 2007),
committed (e.g.,Finkel et al. 2002), trusting (e.g.,Rempel et al., 2001), and close
(e.g.,McCullough et al. 1998) a relationship, the more likely that one is to forgive a
transgression by that partner. Additionally it has been shown that the level of
commitment of the individual towards the target affects how individuals respond to
negative information (Ahluwalia 2000; Wood el al. 1996). Recent research has
established that individuals can and do form relationships with brands (e.g., Fournier
1998; Escalas and Bettman 2003; Park et al. 2010). Commitment to a brand has been
shown to affect the processing strategies consumers use when they encounter information
about competitive products (Raju, Unnava and Montgomery 2009). Since commitment
plays such a key role in understanding reactions towards negative information,
forgiveness should be studied in the relational context.

43

The consumer behavior perspective on brand relationships has used two approaches. One
approach is to understand and measure an individual’s attachment to a brand, either
through the emotional attachment (e.g, Fedorikhin, Park, and Thomson 2008; Thomsom
2006; Thomson and Johnson 2006; Thomson et al. 2005) or through brand-self
connection and brand prominence (Park et al. 2010). The second approach is to focus on
brand-self connection (Escalas and Bettman 2003; Ferraro et al. 2011). At the basis of
both of these approaches, is that the brand relationship is conceptualized as the extent to
which the self is implicated with one’s thoughts and feelings about a brand. This
conceptualization is consistent with a third approach advanced by Reimann and Aron
(2009). This approach, as mentioned in Chapter 1, extends the Inclusion of the Other in
the Self Scale (IOS) to consumer brand relationships.

We suggest that while these are three distinct approaches to assessing brand relationships,
they all assess the closeness of the relationship (Clark and LeMay 2010). Relationship
closeness is defined as the extent to which relationship partners provide each other with a
sense 1) of security that the welfare of each will be met and enhanced by the
responsiveness of the other partner and 2) that each will be responsive to the needs of the
other. Within this context, it is clear that forgiveness play a crucial role in maintaining the
interdependent sense of responsiveness (e.g., Finkel et al. 2002; Rusbult et al. 1991; Van
Lange et al. 1997; Wieselquist et al. 1999). With forgiveness, a relationship can
continue, and one can expect to continue to receive responsiveness and support from the

44

partner: To let the relationship end because of a transgression is to lose the other as a
resource.

When considered from the perspective of brands, two questions arise. First, to what
extent do individuals develop such close relationships? Do individuals come to expect
brands to be responsive to their needs? If so, close brand relationships are expected to
foster forgiveness. If not, brand relationships may not be associated with forgiveness.
Second, what of recent research that suggests that brand relationships can backfire, such
that those closest to a brand feel the most disappointed by a brand failure? The first
question is addressed within the research presented. The second question is addressed in
the Discussion.

2.4 Forgiveness Processes

A review of the interpersonal forgiveness literature reveals that two constructs are most
often hypothesized and explored in understanding forgiveness. In defining relationship
closeness, Clark and LeMay (2010) differentiate close relationships from other
constructs. Of greatest importance, they suggest that relationship closeness is related to,
but different from, relationship commitment. Whereas relationship closeness focuses on
mutual responsiveness, commitment speaks to the motivation (desire) to remain in a

45

relationship. As Clark and LeMay (2010, p. 900) state, “…commitment keeps one in a
relationship, allowing one to keep being responsive even in the face of a partner’s poor
behavior… and facilitates the difficult behaviors of forgiveness”.

2.4.1 Commitment

Rusbult and colleagues have conducted a long line of research that explores how
commitment influences relationship behavior, such as accommodation (Rusbult et al.
1991), sacrifice (Van Lange et al. 1997), and behavioral tendencies combined with
forgiveness (Finkel et al. 2002). Commitment is defined in terms of three components; 1)
intent to persist, 2) long-term orientation, and 3) psychological attachment. Commitment
is consistently found to predict a wide variety of relationship maintenance behaviors (see
also, Hodgins, Liebeskind, and Schwartz 1996; Tran and Simpson 2009).

2.4.2 Desire to Maintain

Of primary concern for the present research are the components of intent to persist and
psychological attachment. Intent to persist is measured with items such as “I am
committed to maintaining my relationship with my partner.” Psychological attachment is

46

measured with items such as “I feel very attached to our relationship – very strongly
linked to my partner” (Rusbult et al. 1998, 391). Of note is that the psychological
attachment component maps onto the relationship closeness construct. In exploring the
influence of commitment on forgiveness, Rusbult and colleagues conducted an
exploratory study (Study 3, Finkel et al. 2002) to examine which of these three
commitment components accounts for the influence of commitment on forgiveness. First,
each item of commitment (psychological attachment, long term orientation, and intent to
persist) predicted forgiveness when each was individually regressed on forgiveness.
However, when hierarchical analyses were performed in which the items were pitted
against each other to examine all possible pairs as predictors of behavioral tendencies,
only intent to persist significantly predicted forgiveness. We interpret this research as
suggesting that it is actually relationship closeness which influences forgiveness by
means of intent to persist. Specifically, we find their last simultaneous regression
analysis to be indicative of mediation. Thus, we predict that following a transgression,
commitment as measured by psychological attachment, will predict intent to persist in the
relationship and this intent to persist in the relationship will in act as a mediator from
psychological attachment to forgiveness. We feel that intent to persist in the relationship
is especially important following a transgression. Transgressions are a source of
relational disruption (Metts 1994) which can be viewed as turning points in a relationship
(Smith and Bolton 2002). Thus, transgressions offer an opportunity to the person who
was hurt, to evaluate their relationship with the offender and consider which path they
want to take considering their relationship: the path to end the relationship or the path to

47

restore the relationship. Henceforth, we refer to the intent to persist as the desire to
maintain (DTM) the relationship and consider this distinct from relationship
commitment.

2.4.3 Motivated Reasoning

A second construct that has been examined in conjunction with forgiveness broadly falls
under the umbrella construct of motivated reasoning (Kunda 1990). Motivated reasoning
can be defined as using biased processing to reach a desired (or directional) conclusion.
There is extensive evidence that individuals are able to engage in such biased processing.
Motivated reasoning is frequently found in relationships: Close relationships influence
how a partner’s behavior is interpreted, and such interpretation influences an individual’s
reaction to such behavior (e.g., Rusbult and Buunk 1993). A comprehensive literature
review by Bradbury and Fincham (1990) found that the nature of a relationship
influenced the attributions made to understand a partner’s transgression: Satisfied
partners are more likely form positive attributions and explanations than less satisfied
partners. This finding is robust and found across many different studies (Boon and
Sulsky 1997; Fincham 2000; McCullough et al. 1997, 1998).

48

Instances of motivated reasoning other than attributions have also been uncovered. The
better the relationship, the more likely that one develops stories that serve to quell
feelings of doubt. Such motivated construal allows individuals to transform the meaning
of negative events and behaviors into positive narratives. Not only does such a process
allow individuals to see virtues in a partner’s faults, but it comes to make the
representation of the partner even more positive. “Individuals were able to weave even
the most seemingly compelling evidence of negativity into stories supporting their
desired, positive conclusions” (Murray and Holmes 1993). Indeed, subsequent research
has shown that the cognitive structures used to represent a partner are colored by positive
illusions – minimizing and connecting specific weaknesses in a partner to more positive,
and presumably, more important aspects of the relationship (Murray and Holmes 1999).
That is, the closer a relationship, the more likely one is to construe negative behavior and
to represent faults in ways that support the relationship.

There is also evidence that consumers engage in many types of motivated reasoning.
Consumers (and individuals) can face different goals when making a decision such as
minimizing negative emotions or maximizing the ease of justifying a decision (Bettman,
Luce and Payne 1998). We propose that the decision to forgive a brand can aid
consumers in the ability to avoid the negative emotions in losing this brand and by
engaging in motivated reasoning consumers can make the decision to forgive the brand
easily justifiable. Thus, individuals with close brand relationships may have the desire to

49

maintain the relationship, in order to avoid negative emotions, this may motivate them to
engage in motivated reasoning following a transgression and make forgiveness an easily
justifiable outcome following the transgression.

As Mishra, Shiv and Nayakankuppam (2008) demonstrate, there are two different goals
which often influence consumer decision making and prediction about future outcomes,
accuracy goals and directional goals. These authors looked at consumers’ desire for
using directional goals in increasing the attractiveness of a picked option. As Mishra,
Shiv and Nayakankuppam (2008) demonstrated, consumers can interpret vague
information in directional ways to reach their desire conclusions about products.

As many researchers have proposed, individuals can engage in either denial of fact
(example: your friend tells you they bought defective Nike shoes and you choose not to
believe them) versus denial of implication (example: acknowledging the failure, but
denying the negative implications or minimizing the transgressions impact) (e.g.,
Ahluwalia 2000, Lazarus 1983). For example, Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava (2000)
showed that committed consumers were more likely to counterargue and reduce the
diagnosticity of negative publicity. And Ahluwalia (2000) empirically demonstrated
these two separate mechanisms, when negative information is easy to dispute, committed

50

individuals will use this bias first. However, if the information is difficult to dispute
individuals will then reduce the importance of the negative information.

As Chernev (2011) demonstrated, motivation can lead to more biased judgments. Those
that are more concerned with controlling their weight had more biased estimations of
calories, determining that the combination of food had fewer calories than those who
were not concerned with controlling their weight. Individuals can be motivated to reduce
discrepancies between their beliefs and actions (Spangenberg and Greenwald 1999).
Consumers also engage in confirmatory hypothesis testing (Sen and Block 2009).
Addionally, motivation has been shown to affect information processing (Güren-Canli
and Maheswaran 2000). Bolton, Cohen and Bloom (2006) and Bolton et al., (2008) find
that consumers use motivated reasoning to interpret drugs used to remedy unhealthy
behaviors to be seen as ‘get out of jail free’ cards and actually encourage these risky
behavior when used by consumers with the problem. Zhang, Huang and Broniarczyk
(2010) demonstrated consumers engage in counteractive construal when trying to avoid a
temptation that would decrease their attainment of their long-term goals. Specifically,
these consumers would exaggerate the negative consequences of the temptation to help
them avoid it. Whereas in our work, we believe that consumers will bolster the focal
brand to help them forgive the brand and enable them to approach the brand.

51

Negative attributions, such as the inference of negative intent, selfishness, and
blameworthiness for a transgression, have been shown to undermine the ease of
forgiveness (Fincham, Jackson, and Beach 2005). Thus, positive attributions appear to
make forgiving easier. Additionally, Kearns and Fincham (2005) found that relationship
quality influenced forgiveness through positive interpretations of a transgression. Thus,
relationships may lead to positive motivated reasoning which leads to forgiveness.
Similarly, commitment has been found to lead to benign interpretations of an event such
that partners are more willing to accommodate a partner following a transgression
(Menzies-Toman and Lydon 2005).

In line with Kunda’s (1990) conceptualization of motivated reasoning, research suggests
that such reasoning is more likely to occur when cognitive resources are available.
Wilkowski, Robinson, and Troop-Gordon (2010) explored the relationships among
transgressions, cognitive control, and forgiveness. Their research found support for the
hypothesis that cognitive control is needed in order to forgive. In a conceptually similar
paper, Yovetich and Rusbult (1994) hypothesized that the process of forgiveness requires
cognitive effort and time. To examine this question, participants were exposed to 20
hypothetical scenarios in which a partner enacted either constructive or destructive
relationship behavior. Participants responded to each scenario with either a constructive
(voice concern or show loyalty) or destructive (exit or neglect relationship) reaction.
Cognitive resources were manipulated by having participants respond as quickly as

52

possible (low cognitive resources) or to take as much time as they wished (high cognitive
resources). An interaction between cognitive resources and scenario was observed.
Reactions to constructive partner behaviors were uniformly constructive regardless of
cognitive resources, whereas reactions to destructive partner behaviors were more
constructive when individuals had cognitive resources available. That is, cognitive
resources are necessary in order to interpret negative events in a manner that fosters
forgiveness. In short, motivated reasoning requires cognitive resources.

2.5 Forgiveness Process Model

In spite of the extensive research exploring desire to maintain a relationship and
motivated reasoning, there exists in the forgiveness literature a need for better
understanding of the psychological processes underlying forgiveness. For example,
Strelan and Covic (2006) write that “despite substantial advances in other areas of
forgiveness research, empirical evaluation of a fundamental aspect of forgiveness, the
process itself, has been virtually nonexistent” (Strelan and Covic 2006, 1059). And other
researchers have also identified a need to understand the processes leading to forgiveness,
“Although [the relationship between relationship satisfaction and forgiveness is] robust,
the mechanism underlying [relationship] satisfaction and forgiveness remains unclear,”
(Fincham, Hall, and Beach 2006, 418). With an understanding of the relationship

53

between desire to maintain a relationship and motivated reasoning, as well as their
associations with relationship closeness and forgiveness, we advance a model of
forgiveness that attempts to articulate the processes underlying forgiveness.

Specifically, we hypothesize that relationship closeness influences desire to maintain a
relationship (DTM), that desire to maintain a relationship influences motivated reasoning
(MR), and such motivated reasoning in turn leads to forgiveness. Such a model addresses
when, why, and how forgiveness emerges. And such a model is consistent with a recent
study that comes close to finding such a pattern between commitment and behavioral
tendencies (one item of the combined behavioral tendencies composite measure is
forgiveness).

Finkel et al. (Study 2, 2002) is partially supportive of our model. This research finds that
the influence of commitment on forgiveness is partially mediated by benign interpretation
of a transgression. Recall that within the commitment construct, relationship closeness
(attachment) leads to desire to maintain a relationship (intent to persist). With the added
finding of partial mediation of the desire to maintain a relationship on forgiveness by
benign interpretation (aka, motivated reasoning), a possible interpretation of this data
fully supports our advanced model. That is, forgiveness comes about because of benign
interpretation of an event, which follows from desire to maintain a relationship, which

54

follows from psychological attachment. Untested is the mediational influence of desire
to maintain a relationship on the psychological attachment to benign interpretation link.
Additionally, it is likely that the partial mediation of benign interpretation on the
influence of commitment on forgiveness arises from a too-focused operationalization of
motivated reasoning. Though benign interpretation of an event is clearly one example of
motivated reasoning, it is reasonable to imagine that there are other aspects of motivated
reasoning that could underlie the influence. Such an overly focused instantiation of
motivated reasoning would be consistent with partial rather than full mediation.

We develop a model to help understand the psychological processes underlying
forgiveness. As mentioned above, we believe that close brand relationships will play a
significant role in understanding when consumers will be willing to forgive a brand.
Thus, our model begins with close brand relationships. We hypothesize that those with
close brand relationships will have a desire to maintain their relationship with the brand
following the transgression. Thus, this desire to maintain the relationship, following a
transgression, turns forgiveness into an approach (or directional goal) for consumers with
close brand relationships.

As reviewed above, when individuals possess directional goals they are often motivated
to engage in biased processing (e.g., Kunda 1990). Goals can shape how we behave (e.g.

55

Lee and Ariely 2006). Thus, if we have a goal to maintain or restore a relationship with a
brand, it is possible that consumers will engage in motivated reasoning, or biased
processing, to accomplish this goal. We propose that one way in which consumers are
able to maintain their relationship with a brand is if they are able to forgive the brand.
However, directional goals operate under certain constraints, such as being able to
generate justifiable reasons for their directional conclusions (see Kunda 1990). Thus, we
propose that is why individuals engage in motivated reasoning to reach the desired
conclusion of forgiveness, this decision has to be justified. While researchers have
addressed many responses to negative information, they tend to examine each type of
bias individually. However, we believe that forgiveness is a complex phenomenon that
can result from a combination of strategic biases enacted by consumers. Thus, our
measure of motivated reasoning will simultaneously examine multiple cognitive biases in
order to understand the complete process of motivated reasoning. Examining these
multiple methods of motivated reasoning will yield a broader understanding of the biased
processes consumers use following transgressions. We predict that consumers with close
brand relationships will have a desire to maintain their relationship, which will encourage
them to engage in motivated reasoning to arrive at the justifiable conclusion of brand
forgiveness.

56

2.6 Empirical Approach

We test our proposed model using two approaches often employed to study both brand
and interpersonal transgressions. In study 1, we used autobiographical recall. This
method is frequently used when studying interpersonal forgiveness (e.g. Bono,
McCullough, and Root 2008; Exline et al. 2004; Fincham, Beach, and Davila 2004;
Kearns and Fincham 2005; Karremans, Van Lange, and Holland 2005; McCullough et al.
1998; McCullough et al. 2001), and has been used in consumer behavior as well (e.g.
Aaker, Drolet and Griffin 2008; Bickart and Schwarz 2001; Gardial et al., 1994; Grégorie
and Fisher 2008; Johnson, Matear and Thomson 2010; Wallendorf and Brucks 1993). We
asked participants to recall a previous brand failure and how they reacted to this
transgression. The advantage to using this method is that we are able to explore real
world events in participants’ lives. Thus, we are able to study actual responses to failures
and not just how participants think they would respond. One disadvantage to this
approach is that it relies on memory. It is possible that memory of the events by
participants is not completely accurate. A second disadvantage is that we were only able
to assess the closeness of the brand relationship following the failure.

In study 2, we use a different approach and asked participants to respond to a
hypothetical scenario (e.g., see Berry et al. 2001 for an example use of this approach) and

57

this approach is also commonly used in consumer behavior research (e.g., Bolton et al.,
2008; Chernev 2006; Hess, Ganesan and Klein 2003; Puto 1987; Rook and Fisher 1995).
The advantages to this approach are that we are able to (a) assess immediate reactions,
hence not relying on memory, (b) equate the scenario across participants, and (c) measure
brand relationship closeness before participants are exposed to the failure. The
disadvantage is that clearly the event did not actually happen to the participant.

When these two methods are used together they provide an elegant solution in that the
strengths of one approach are the other approaches weaknesses and vice-versa. In fact,
researchers often use both approaches together to better test their hypotheses (e.g., Finkel
et al. 2002; Folkes 1984; Johnson, Matear, and Thomson 2010). Together these two
methods provide convergent validity. We use both approaches in explaining our model.

In the first two studies we test our proposed four step process model of forgiveness using
a correlational path analysis, emphasizing the estimation and inference of the effects of
brand closeness following a transgression on forgiveness both direct and indirect through
a desire to maintain the relationship and motivated reasoning, as predicted by our
Forgiveness Process Model. In a third study we explore the relationship between desire to
maintain a relationship and motivated reasoning. We do so by experimentally

58

manipulating cognitive load while participants read and respond to a hypothetical
scenario.

Recall that three measures of brand relationship closeness have been advanced; brand
attachment, brand-self connection, and the modified IOS. In order to provide convergent
evidence for relationship closeness, we use a combination of these approaches. In study
1 we use all three measures of relationship closeness: brand self connection, brand
attachment and the modified IOS. In study 2 we use two measures of relationship
closeness: brand self connection and brand attachment.

2.7 Study One

2.7.1 Method

Forty nine undergraduate business students participated in exchange for partial
fulfillment of course credit. Participants were asked to describe a brand failure.
Following this recall of a brand failure, participants provided measures of relationship
closeness (as indicated by brand self connection, brand attachment, and the modified
IOS), desire to maintain a relationship, motivated reasoning, and forgiveness.

59

2.7.2 Independent Variables

Brand relationship closeness was assessed by 1) Park et al.’s (2010) brand attachment
scale and 2) by brand self connection by using on the brand self component of the brand
attachment scale. Specifically, two 11-point items assessed the brand-self connection
component of the scale: “To what extent do you feel that you are personally connected to
this brand?” and “To what extent is this brand a part of you and who you are?” Two
additional items assessed the brand prominence component of the scale: “To what extent
are your thoughts and feelings towards this brand often automatic, coming to mind
seemingly on their own?” and “To what extent do your thoughts and feelings towards this
brand come to you naturally and easily?” (0 = not at all; 10 = completely).

Finally, our third measure of brand relationship closeness is the modified IOS scale. In
the traditional context of interpersonal relationships, closeness is conceptualized as the
extent to which an “other” individual is included in one’s self concept. This perspective
was advanced by Aron and Aron (1986) with the Self-Expansion Model. The proposed
model suggests that we can incorporate others into our self-concepts. That is, we perceive
close others to be part of ourselves. Integrating others into oneself enhances an
individual’s ability to accomplish goals, such that the other and the other’s resources

60

become part of the self (Aron, Aron, and Norman 2003; Aron, Norman, and Aron 1998;
Aron et al. 2000). Recently, this relationship was hypothesized to extend also to
consumer brand relationships. Conceptually, the other person is replaced with the brand,
and the construct captures the extent the brand is considered part of oneself (Reimann and
Aron 2009). Such interpersonal, and brand, closeness is assessed with the Inclusion of the
Other in the Self Scale (IOS). The IOS scale (Aron, Aron and Smollen, 1992) consists of
seven pairs of circle pairs. One circle represents the self and the other represents that
other person (or brand). Each of the seven pairs represents a different depiction of
closeness, overlapping to differing degrees from least overlapping (least inclusive) to
most overlapping (most inclusive). Participants are asked to pick the pair of circles that
best describes their relationship with the other (brand).

2.7.3 Dependent Variables

Our measure of desire to maintain the relationship consists of three items. These items
were adapted from the relationship measure used by Arriaga and Agnew (2001). These
authors assessed commitment with a scale comprised of three components (each with
four items): intent to persist, long-term orientation, and psychological attachment. They
measured intent to persist with “I intend to stay in this relationship,” “I want to maintain
our relationship,” “I feel inclined to keep our relationship going,” and “My gut feeling is

61

to continue in this relationship.” We converted these into three items designed to assess
desire to maintain the consumer brand relationship following a transgression.
Specifically, we measured desire to maintain the relationship with three items: “How
motivated are you to restore your relationship with the brand,” “I would be really sad if I
stopped using this brand,” and “I intend to continue using the brand.”

Our measure of motivated reasoning contains six items designed to assess the extent
individuals engaged in biased processing following the brand transgression. Note that we
use a broad set of questions to indicate motivated reasoning. This set of measures is
consistent with the types of motivated reasoning individuals use, (Kunda 1990), the way
biased processing has been assessed before (e.g. Bradbury and Fincham 1992; Finkel et
al. 2002), and provides a more complete measure of motivated reasoning beyond a focus
on just attributions, such as minimization of impact, and optimistic biases. Specifically,
we measured motivated reasoning with six items: “I would think twice about purchasing
this brand again,” (reversed), “I am positive this was a onetime mistake and won’t happen
again,” “How important would this scenario be in your overall judgment of the brand,”
(reversed), “Do you hope that you can just put this incident behind you,” “I believe that
next time the brand will live up to my expectations,” and “Do you think that an
experience like this would happen again in the future with this brand?”

62

Both composite measures of desire to maintain and motivated reasoning, were derived
from previous research. In addition, participants indicated their perception of how severe
the incident was. All measures used an 11-point scale anchored with zero = “not at all”
and ten = “maximum.” Refer to tables 2.1-2.3 for the alphas for each construct. For
examples of the brand transgressions provided by participants, refer to table 2.4.

Table 2.1 Relationship Closeness Items and Correlations

1 2 3 4 5
1
To what extent do you feel that you are personally connected to the
brand? (BSC1)
-

2 To what extent is the brand a part of you and who you are? (BSC2) .85 -

3
To what extent are your thoughts and feelings towards the brand often
automatic, coming to mind seemingly on their own? (PROM1)
.48 .44 -

4
To what extent do your thoughts and feelings towards the brand come to
you naturally and easily? (PROM3)
.48 .42 .89 -
5 Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale (IOS) .82 .74 .48 .46 -

63

Table 2.2 Process Measures and Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 How motivated are you to restore your relationship with the brand
(DTM1)
-
2 I would be really sad if I stopped using this brand (DTM2) .73 -
3 I intend to continue using the brand (DTM3) .73 .67 -
4 I would think twice about purchasing this brand again (reversed)
(MR1)
.62 .48 .70 -
5 I am positive this was a onetime mistake and won’t happen again
(MR2)
.60 .39 .45 .48 -
6 How important would this scenario be in your overall judgment of
the brand (reversed) (MR3)
.47 .44 .57 .87 .42 -
7 Do you hope that you can just put this incident behind you (MR4) .52 .43 .58 .43 .42 .31 -
8 I believe that next time the brand will live up to my expectations
(MR5)
.76 .59 .81 .57 .62 .55 .57 -
9 Do you think that an experience like this will happen again in the
future with this brand? (MR6)
.47 .25 .47 .44 .58 .48 .32 .60 -

Table 2.3 Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Composite Variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Brand Self Connection α = .92 2.55 2.80 -
2 Brand Attachment α = .85 3.83 2.43 .86 -
3 IOS 2.45 1.63 .82 .75 -
4 Desire to Maintain α = .88 3.73 2.87 .76 .63 .70 -
5 Motivated Reasoning α = .86 4.34 2.42 .56 .41 .61 .78 -
6 Forgiveness 4.86 3.02 .48 .41 .57 .62 .79 -

64

Table 2.4 Examples of Brand Transgressions Reported

2.7.4 Results

Recall that three measures of relationship closeness were used for this experiment. The
results presented below will be in the order of IOS, brand self connection (BSC), and
Examples of Brand Transgressions Participants Reported
“My iPhone stopped working. I was walking in the rain and my phone fell out of my
pocket. It was only in the rain for 3 seconds, but it completely stopped working and I
had to get a new one.”
“I bought Nike's new shoes for basketball. The shoe model was Lebron James, who
also wore the shoe so I figured they must be of high quality and comfortable. They
turned out to be very uncomfortable, and gave my feet blisters whenever I wore them to
play basketball. I was forced to buy a new pair of shoes.”
“I ordered a grilled chicken wrap [from Father Nature Lavash Wraps] to go because I
had a very limited amount of time to eat dinner and when I finally opened my much
anticipated meal at home I realized that they had packaged the wrong wrap.”
“[On my Blackberry] The ball in the center of the phone used to scroll is defective. It
also has happened to my friends who have the same phone.”
“[McDonalds] messed up one of my orders at the drive-through window”
“My BenQ desktop stopped working the desktop over time became slower and slower
but then one day when I opened it, nothing is turned on. There was no response and
this was only a year to a year and a half after I bought it.”
“My Macbook screen broke and I wanted to just fix the screen, but Apple's policy
was they wither replace everything on he computer for $1200 or nothing, and so
wouldn't just fix my screen. I decided not to fix it.”
“Bascially, I purchased a $220 vaporizer and it started falling apart shortly after my
purchase.”
“I bought some [Addidas] basketball shorts and they ripped during a basketball game in
the first week”

65

brand attachment. In order to test the independent influences of brand relationship
closeness on forgiveness and the two process variables, we first conducted three analyses
in which desire to maintain, motivated reasoning, and forgiveness were regressed on
brand relationship closeness. Desire to maintain the relationship was significantly
predicted by brand relationship closeness, IOS b = 1.45, F(1, 47) = 77.61, p < .0001, BSC
b = .82, F(1, 47) = 64.53, p < .0001, and attach b = .84, F(1, 47) = 40.21, p < .0001; as
was motivated reasoning, IOS b = .89, F(1, 47) = 27.16, p < .0001, BSC b = .48, F(1, 47)
= 21.47, p < .0001, and attach b = .41, F(1, 47) = 9.49, p = .0035; and forgiveness, IOS b
= 1.06, F(1, 47) = 23.18, p < .0001, BSC b = .52, F(1, 47) = 14.13, p = .0005, and attach
b = .51, F(1, 47) = 9.29, p = .0038.

Additionally, we explored the perceived severity of the failure. As expected, perceived
severity decreased willingness to forgive, b = -.40, F(1, 47) = 5.18, p = .027. However, it
is important to note that brand relationship closeness does not influence perceived
severity, IOS b = -.25, F(1, 47) = 1.34, p = .25, BSC b = -.11, F(1, 47) = .78, p = .38, and
attach b = -.12, F(1, 47) = .69, p = .41. Thus, ruling out the alternative explanation that
those who are closer to the brand just view failures as less severe than those who are
distant from the brand.

66

To test the proposed sequential mediation model, we employed bootstrap OLS regression
analyses, with brand relationship closeness as the independent variable, forgiveness as
the dependent variable, desire to maintain the relationship (DTM) as the first mediator
(M1), and motivated reasoning as the second mediator (M2). We also conducted these
analyses with the two mediators reversed. This procedure uses boot-strapping
(MacKinnon 2008; MacKinnon et al. 2002; Preacher and Hayes 2004, 2008; Shrout and
Bolger 2002; see also Zhao et al. 2010) to directly estimate and test the path coefficients
and indirect effect(s) of an independent variable (x) on a dependent variable (y) through
mediating variables (M). We used a recently advanced statistical tool to estimate the dual
mediation model (MEDTHREE; Hayes, Preacher, and Myers 2011). Specifically, we
estimated a combination of three possible indirect effects (presented in figure 1);
mediation by M1 (as indicated by paths a1 and b1), by M2 (as indicated by paths a2 and
b2), and by M1 and M2 in sequences (as indicated by a1, a3, and b2). This approach
allows us to isolate the indirect effect of both mediators, as well as the indirect effect
passing through M1 to M2. We also provide an analysis in which we reverse the order of
the two hypothesized mediators to provide additional support for the model.

67

Figure 2.1: Proposed Model
IV (X) DV (Y)
IV (X) DV (Y)
c
M1 M2
a1
a3
c ‘
a2 b1
b2
PROPOSED MODEL

The results of these analyses are presented in tables 2.5-2.7 and figures 2.2-2.4.
Inspection of these tables and figures reveals that the hypothesized model, in which the
influence of relationship closeness (all three measures) on forgiveness is mediated by
desire to maintain a relationship (DTM, M1) and motivated reasoning (MR, M2), is
supported by the data. Neither construct independently mediates the influence of brand
relationship closeness on forgiveness, nor do the reversed models (table 2.8-2.10 and
figures 2.5-2.7) show a similar pattern of mediation for all three measures of brand
relationship closeness. In combination, these analyses provide support for the proposed
Forgiveness Process Model.

68

Figure 2.2: Forgiveness Model IOS
Close Brand
Relationships
(IOS) (X)
Forgiveness
(Y)
Forgiveness
(Y)
c = 1.08, p < .0001
Desire to
Maintain (M1)
Motivated
Reasoning
(M2)
a1 = 1.24,
p < .0001
a3 = .60,
p < .0001
c ‘ = .35, p = .13
a2 = .18,
p = .35
b1 = -.13,
p = .45
b2 = .96,
p < .0001
FORGIVENESS MODEL IOS
Close Brand
Relationships
(IOS) (X)

Table 2.5 Forgiveness Model IOS

Path Coefficients
Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness
(F)
to Desire (D) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
Estimate Bootstrap 95%
CI
Significant
from IOS .35 (.23), p = .13 1.24 (.18), p
< .0001
.18 (.19), p = .35
from Desire -.13 (.17), p =
.45
.60 (.11), p <
.0001

from Motivated Reasoning .96 (.17), p <
.0001

Total .72 .22, 1.35 yes
Specific: IOS--> D --> F -.16 -.70, .43 no
Specific: IOS--> MR --> F .17 -.25, .53 no
Specific: IOS --> D --> MR --> F .71 .38, 1.21 yes

69

Figure 2.3: Forgiveness Model BSC
Close Brand
Relationships
(BSC) (X)
Forgiveness
(Y)
Forgiveness
(Y)
c = .53, p = .0003
Desire to
Maintain (M1)
Motivated
Reasoning
(M2)
a1 = .79,
p < .0001
a3 = .72,
p < .0001
c ‘ = .10, p = .50
a2 = - .07,
p = .55
b1 = -.09,
p = .63
b2 = 1.00,
p < .0001
FORGIVENESS MODEL
Close Brand
Relationships
(BSC) (X)

Table 2.6 Forgiveness Model BSC

Path Coefficients
Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Desire (D) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
Estimat
e
Bootstrap 95%
CI
Significa
nt
from BSC .10 (.15), p = .50 .79 (.10), p <
.0001
-.07 (.12), p =
.55

from Desire -.09 (.19), p = .63 .72 (.12), p <
.0001

from Motivated
Reasoning
1.00 (.18), p <
.0001

Total .43 .08, .90 yes
Specific: BSC--> D --> F -.07 -.50, .38 no
Specific: BSC--> MR -->
F
-.07 -.29, .17 no
Specific: BSC --> D --> MR --> F .57 .32, .88 yes

70

Figure 2.4: Forgiveness Model Attachment

Close Brand
Relationships
(Attach) (X)
Forgiveness
(Y)
Forgiveness
(Y)
c = .50, p = .0041
Desire to
Maintain (M1)
Motivated
Reasoning
(M2)
a1 = .74,
p < .0001
a3 = .74,
p < .0001
c ‘ = .18, p = .21
a2 = - .15,
p = .20
b1 = -.13,
p = .46
b2 = 1.03,
p < .0001
FORGIVENESS MODEL ATTACHMENT
Close Brand
Relationships
(Attach) (X)

Table 2.7 Study 1, Forgiveness Model Attachment

Path Coefficients
Indirect Effects
to
Forgiveness
(F)
to Desire (D) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
Estimate Bootstrap
95% CI
Significant
from Attach .18 (.14),
p = .21
.74 (.14),
p < .0001
-.14 (.11), p = .20
from Desire -.13 (.18),
p = .46
.74 (.10),
p < .0001

from Motivated Reasoning 1.03 (.18),
p < .0001

Total .31 -.04, .65 no
Specific: Attach--> D --> F -.10 -.51, .21 no
Specific: Attach--> MR --> F -.15 -.15, .07 no
Specific: Attach --> D --> MR --> F .57 .30, .96 yes

71

Figure 2.5: Reversed Forgiveness Model IOS

Close Brand
Relationships
(IOS)(X)
Forgiveness
(Y)
Forgiveness
(Y)
c = 1.11, p < .0001
Motivated
Reasoning
(M1)
Desire to
Maintain (M2)
a1 = .92,
p < .0001
a3 = .67,
p < .0001
c ‘ = .35, p = .13
a2 = .63,
p = .0010
b1 = .96,
p < .0001
b2 = -.13,
p = .45
REVERSED FORGIVENESS MODEL IOS
Close Brand
Relationships
(IOS) (X)

Table 2.8 Reversed Forgiveness Model IOS

Path Coefficients Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
to Desire (D) Estimate Bootstrap 95%
CI
Significant
from IOS .35 (.23), p =.13 .92 (.17),
p < .0001
0.63 (.18) ,
p = .0010

from Motivated
Reasoning
.96 (.17) ,
p < .0001
.67 (.12) ,
p < .0001

from Desire -.12 (.16), p = .45
Total .72 .22, 1.38 yes
Specific:
IOS--> MR --> F
.88 .52, 1.35 yes
Specific:
IOS--> D --> F
-.08 -.34, .24 no
Specific: IOS --> MR --> D --> F -.08 -.42, .22 no
*bold means different results than original model.

72

Figure 2.6: Reversed Forgiveness Model BSC

Close Brand
Relationships
(BSC)(X)
Forgiveness
(Y)
Forgiveness
(Y)
c = .53, p = .0003
Motivated
Reasoning
(M1)
Desire to
Maintain (M2)
a1 = .50,
p < .0001
a3 = .61,
p < .0001
c ‘ = .10, p = .50
a2 = .48,
p < .0001
b1 = 1.00,
p < .0001
b2 = -.09,
p = .50
REVERSED FORGIVENESS MODEL
Close Brand
Relationships
(BSC) (X)

Table 2.9 Reversed Forgiveness Model BSC

Path Coefficients Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
to Desire (D) Estimat
e
Bootstrap 95%
CI
Significa
nt
from BSC .10 (.15), p =.50 .50 (.10),
p < .0001
0.48 (.09) ,
p < .0001

from Motivated
Reasoning
1.00 (.18) ,
p < .0001
.61 (.10) ,
p < .0001

from Desire -.09 (.19), p = .63
Total .43 .07, .92 yes
Specific:
BSC--> MR --> F
.50 .24, .83 yes
Specific:
BSC--> D --> F
-.04 -.31, .28 no
Specific: BSC --> MR --> D --> F -.03 -.23, .14 no

73

Figure 2.7: Reversed Forgiveness Model Attachment

Close Brand
Relationships
(ATTACH)(X)
Forgiveness
(Y)
Forgiveness
(Y)
c = .50, p = .0041
Motivated
Reasoning
(M1)
Desire to
Maintain (M2)
a1 = .40,
p = .0045
a3 = .76,
p < .0001
c ‘ = .18, p = .21
a2 = .44,
p < .0001
b1 = 1.03,
p < .0001
b2 = -.13,
p = .46
REVERSED FORGIVENESS MODEL ATTACHMENT
Close Brand
Relationships
(ATTACH) (X)

Table 2.10 Reversed Forgiveness Model Attachment

Path Coefficients Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
to Desire (D) Estimate Bootstrap
95% CI
Significant
from Attach .18 (.14), p =.21 .40 (.14),
p = .0045
.44 (.10) ,
p < .0001

from Motivated
Reasoning
1.03 (.18) ,
p < .0001
.76 (.10) ,
p < .0001

from Desire -.13 (.18), p = .46
Total .32 -.04, .65 no
Specific:
Attach--> MR --> F
.41 .14, .76 yes
Specific:
Attach--> D --> F
-.06 -.33, .12 no
Specific: Attach --> MR --> D --> F -.04 -.24, .09 no

74

2.8 Discussion

The results of study 1 provide support for the Forgiveness Process Model. Mediation is
found through the hypothesized pattern of desire to maintain a relationship leading to
motivated reasoning. In contrast, the reversed model (in which motivated reasoning leads
to a desire to maintain a relationship) model does not work, nor do the single mediational
patterns. Recall that these data were collected by a procedure in which participants
recalled a brand transgression. Though such a protocol is frequently used in both
consumer behavior and psychology, there are weaknesses associated with such an
approach. From such weaknesses the question arises as to whether the results would
replicate with a different, also commonly used approach – hypothetical scenario.

2.9 Study Two

To address the concern following from study 1, we conducted a second study in which
participants read and responded to a hypothetical brand transgression by Chipotle, a
popular fast casual eatery. Replication of the results of study 1 using this alternative
procedure would provide convergent evidence of the validity of the Forgiveness Process
Model.

75

2.9.1 Method

Fifty eight undergraduate business students participated in exchange for partial
fulfillment of course credit. Each participant completed a two part booklet that assessed
their current relationship with Chipotle, described a failure scenario for a hypothetical
meal at Chipotle, and assessed their reactions. This negative meal scenario was pretested
and participants found this scenario to be negative. Two participants had to be eliminated
because they had never purchased anything from Chipotle, leaving 56 participants.

Specifically, the participants were given the following scenario:

“For dinner, you decide to go to Chipotle to get dinner to go. You place your normal
order that you enjoy. You arrive home and begin to eat. However, this time the food is
not as good as it normally is. The meat tastes too fatty, the rice is crunchy, and your
whole order is dry.”

76

2.9.2 Independent Variables

First, participants were asked to provide assessments of their brand relationship closeness
with Chipotle. Brand relationship closeness was assessed with brand self connection and
brand attachment. Alphas for these measures can be found in table 2.11.

Table 2.11 Relationship Closeness Items and Correlations

1 2 3 4
1
To what extent do you feel that you are personally connected Chipotle?
(BSC1)
-

2 To what extent is Chipotle a part of you and who you are? (BSC2) .74 -

3
To what extent are your thoughts and feelings towards Chipotle often
automatic, coming to mind seemingly on their own? (PROM1)
.71 .60 -

4
To what extent do your thoughts and feelings towards Chipotle come to
you naturally and easily? (PROM3)
.61 .53 .80 -

2.9.3 Dependent Variables

For Study 2 we used the same dependent measures used in Study 1 for desire to maintain
the relationship and motivated reasoning. Alphas for these measures can be found in
tables 2.12 and 2.13. We assessed severity of the failure by asking participants how upset
they would be following this brand failure.

77

Table 2.12 Process Measures and Study 2 Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 How motivated are you to restore your relationship with Chipotle
(DTM1)
-
2 I would be really sad if I stopped eating at Chipotle (DTM2) .62 -
3 I intend to continue eating Chipotle (DTM3) .71 .68 -
4 I would think twice about going to Chipotle again
(reversed) (MR1)
.51 .60 .65 -
5 I am positive this was a onetime mistake and won’t happen again
(MR2)
.64 .61 .66 .51 -
6 How important would this scenario be in your overall judgment of
Chipotle (reversed) (MR3)
.55 .70 .71 .67 .68 -
7 Do you hope that you can just put this incident behind you (MR4) .72 .65 .81 .61 .63 .68 -
8 I believe that next time Chipotle will live up to my expectations
(MR5)
.76 .73 .85 .61 .77 .74 .79 -
9 Do you think that an experience like this would happen again in the
future at Chipotle? (MR6)
.50 .62 .61 .46 .58 .70 .50 .67 -

Table 2.13 Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Composite
Variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Brand Self Connection α = .85 2.48 2.50 -
2 Brand Attachment α = .89 3.46 2.46 .91 -
3 Desire to Maintain α = .85 5.11 2.80 .72 .75 -
4 Motivated Reasoning α = .94 5.12 2.27 .67 .72 .89 - -
5 Forgiveness 6.21 2.22 .51 .55 .68 .79 -

78

2.9.4 Results

We report the analyses using brand self connection then brand attachment. In order to
test the independent influences of brand relationship closeness on forgiveness and the two
process variables, we conducted three analyses in which desire to maintain a relationship,
motivated reasoning, and forgiveness were regressed on brand relationship closeness.
Each of these regressions was significant. Desire to maintain a relationship was
significantly predicted by brand relationship closeness, BSC b = .85, F(1, 54) = 53.40, p
< .0001 and attach b = .83, F(1, 54) = 45.53, p < .0001; as was motivated reasoning, BSC
b = .60, F(1, 54) = 43.30, p < .0001 and attach b = .67, F(1, 54) = 59.36, p < .0001; and
forgiveness, BSC b = .45, F(1, 54) = 18.75, p < .0001 and attach b = .50, F(1, 54) =
24.01, p < .0001.

Additionally, we explored how upset participants would be following the failure. How
upset participants indicated they would be following this failure did not influence
forgiveness, b = -.15, F(1, 54) = 1.36, p = .25. However, it is important to note that brand
relationship closeness does not influence how upset participants would feel following this
failure, BSC b = .01, F(1, 54) = .00, p = .96, and attach b = -.05, F(1, 54) = .17, p = .68.
Thus, ruling out the alternative explanation that those who are closer to the brand would
be more (or less) upset at a failure than those who are distant from the brand.

79

As in study 1, we used a bootstrap OLS regression analysis to test the mediational pattern
for the hypothesized Forgiveness Process Model. Tables 2.14 and 2.15 and figures 2.8
and 2.9 present the results of these analyses for brand self connection and brand
attachment. Inspection of the tables and figures reveal support for the Forgiveness
Process Model: Relationship closeness influences desire to maintain the relationship
(M1), and this desire influences motivated reasoning (M2), and such reasoning leads to
forgiveness. In contrast, neither the model in which DTM and MR are reversed, nor the
single mediator models, hold. (tables 2.16 and 2.17 figures 2.10 and 2.11).

80

Figure 2.8: Forgiveness Model BSC

Close Brand
Relationships
(BSC) (X)
Forgiveness
(Y)
Forgiveness
(Y)
c = .45, p < .0001
Desire to
Maintain (M1)
Motivated
Reasoning
(M2)
a1 = .81,
p < .0001
a3 = .69,
p < .0001
c ‘ = -.01, p = .95
a2 = - .05,
p = .53
b1 = -.09,
p = .56
b2 = .88,
p < .0001
FORGIVENESS MODEL BSC
Close Brand
Relationships
(BSC) (X)

Table 2.14 Forgiveness Model BSC

Path Coefficients
Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Desire (D) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
Estimat
e
Bootstrap 95%
CI
Significa
nt
from BSC .01 (.11), p = .95 .81 (.11),
p < .0001
.05 (.08), p = .53
from Desire -.09 (.16), p = .56 .69 (.07),
p < .0001

from Motivated
Reasoning
.88 (.18),
p < .0001

Total .46 .26, .66 yes
Specific: BSC--> D --> F -.08 -.33, .16 no
Specific: BSC--> MR -->
F
.04 -.13, .19 no
Specific: BSC --> D --> MR --> F .49 .25, .78 yes

81

Figure 2.9: Forgiveness Model Attachment

Close Brand
Relationships
(Attach) (X)
Forgiveness
(Y)
Forgiveness
(Y)
c = .50, p < .0001
Desire to
Maintain (M1)
Motivated
Reasoning
(M2)
a1 = .86,
p < .0001
a3 = .64,
p < .0001
c ‘ = -.01, p = .96
a2 = .12,
p = .19
b1 = -.09,
p = .55
b2 = .88,
p < .0001
FORGIVENESS MODEL ATTACHMENT
Close Brand
Relationships
(Attach) (X)

Table 2.15 Study 2, Forgiveness Model Attachment

Path Coefficients
Indirect Effects
to
Forgiveness
(F)
to Desire (D) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
Estimate Bootstrap
95% CI
Significant
from Attach -.01 (.12),
p = .96
.86 (.10),
p < .0001
.12 (.09), p = .20
from Desire -.09 (.16),
p = .55
.64 (.08),
p < .0001

from Motivated Reasoning .88 (.18),
p < .0001

Total .51 .29, .75 Yes
Specific: Attach--> D --> F -.08 -.35, .16 no
Specific: Attach--> MR --> F .10 -.06, .25 no
Specific: Attach --> D --> MR --> F .49 .25, .83 yes

82

Figure 2.10: Reversed Forgiveness Model BSC

Close Brand
Relationships
(BSC)(X)
Forgiveness
(Y)
Forgiveness
(Y)
c = .45, p < .0001
Motivated
Reasoning
(M1)
Desire to
Maintain (M2)
a1 = .60,
p < .0001
a3 = .91,
p < .0001
c ‘ = .01, p = .95
a2 = .26,
p = .0052
b1 = .88,
p < .0001
b2 = -.09,
p = .56
REVERSED FORGIVENESS MODEL BSC
Close Brand
Relationships
(BSC) (X)

Table 2.16 Reversed Forgiveness Model BSC

Path Coefficients Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
to Desire (D) Estimat
e
Bootstrap 95%
CI
Significa
nt
from BSC -.01 (.11), p =.95 .60 (.09),
p < .0001
0.26 (.09) ,
p = .0052

from Motivated
Reasoning
.88 (.18) ,p < .0001 .91 (.10) ,
p < .0001

from Desire -.09 (.16), p = .56
Total .46 .26, .67 yes
Specific:
BSC--> MR --> F
.53 .32, .77 yes
Specific:
BSC--> D --> F
-.02 -.12, .04 no
Specific: BSC --> MR --> D --> F -.05 -.22, .11 no

83

Figure 2.11: Reversed Forgiveness Model Attachment

Close Brand
Relationships
(ATTACH)(X)
Forgiveness
(Y)
Forgiveness
(Y)
c = .50, p < .0001
Motivated
Reasoning
(M1)
Desire to
Maintain (M2)
a1 = .67,
p < .0001
a3 = .89,
p < .0001
c ‘ = -.01, p = .96
a2 = .27,
p = .0087
b1 = .88,
p < .0001
b2 = -.09,
p = .55
REVERSED FORGIVENESS MODEL ATTACHMENT
Close Brand
Relationships
(ATTACH) (X)

Table 2.17 Reversed Forgiveness Model Attachment

Path Coefficients Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
to Desire (D) Estimate Bootstrap
95% CI
Significant
from Attach -.01 (.12), p =.96 .67 (.09),
p < .0001
.27 (.10) ,
p = .0087

from Motivated
Reasoning
.88 (.11) ,
p < .0001
.89 (.11) ,
p < .0001

from Desire -.09 (.16), p = .55
Total .51 .29, .76 yes
Specific:
Attach--> MR --> F
.59 .34, .88 yes
Specific:
Attach--> D --> F
-.03 -.14, .05 no
Specific: Attach --> MR --> D --> F -.06 -.23, .11 no

84

2.10 Discussion

Study 2 was conducted in order to replicate study 1 using a different approach to explore
brand transgressions. And even with such a different approach, the Forgiveness Process
Model was fully replicated. The Forgiveness Process Model has been supported
following experienced failures and a hypothetical brand failure scenario. The one concern
that emerges from a consideration of both studies 1 and 2 is the relationship between
desire to maintain a relationship and motivated reasoning. In both experiments, the
association between the two constructs is high (r > .8). One concern with such a high
association is that the two constructs are one. If so, a more parsimonious model is one in
which relationship closeness leads to a central construct (including both desire and
motivated reasoning) which leads to forgiveness. In effect, this model would not advance
the currently accepted interpersonal forgiveness models.

2.11 Study Three

We conduct Study 3 to explore the relationship between desire to restore the relationship
and motivated reasoning. The question, then, is whether the two represent one, or two
distinct, constructs. If they constitute one construct, then a manipulation should lead to

85

similar results for both. If, on the other hand, they are two, distinct constructs, it should
be possible to demonstrate that a manipulation influences one but not the other. Recall
that motivated reasoning requires cognitive resources (Kunda 1990, Wilkowski,
Robinson, and Troop-Gordon 2010, Yovetich and Rusbult 1994). In contrast, such
cognitive resources are not entailed for desire to maintain a relationship. That is, a desire
to maintain a relationship exists as a consequence of relationship closeness regardless of
amount of thought, whereas motivated reasoning follows from the desire, but requires
cognitive resources to accomplish the reasoning. This distinction between the desire to
maintain a relationship and motivated reasoning affords us a means by which to test the
concern of whether these are one or two constructs.

Study 3 leverages this distinction by replicating Study 2 with the addition of a
manipulation of cognitive load (e.g. Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999): Half of the participants
completed the hypothetical scenario with experimentally induced limited cognitive
resources, half without. If the two constructs are one, then there should be no difference
in the effects of cognitive load between the variables: The manipulation should influence
both constructs equally. On the other hand, if the two are two distinct constructs, the
manipulation should yield different results for each, with high cognitive load
undermining motivated reasoning, and thus, forgiveness, but not influencing the desire to
maintain a relationship.

86

2.11.1 Methods

Sixty-four undergraduate students participated for partial fulfillment of a course
requirement. Two students were eliminated from the data collection because they had
never purchased anything from the focal restaurant, Chipotle, leaving 62 student
participants. Participants were exposed to the same failure scenario used in Study 2.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: high or low cognitive load.
Participants were asked to memorize and continually rehearse either a 2 or an 8 digit
number to manipulate cognitive load. This manipulation of cognitive load replicates
previous studies which manipulated cognitive load to limit cognitive processing (Lee,
Amir, and Ariely 2009; Patrick, MacInnis, and Park 2007; Shiv and Fedorikhin
1999).Participants responded to the same questions assessed in Study 2. Additionally, we
included manipulation checks to assure that participants were still able to read and
answer the questions correctly while under high cognitive load. An example of such a
question is, “For this question, please circle “3” as your answer.”

We measured brand relationship closeness with the modified IOS measure and brand self
connection. The same items used in the first two studies to measure desire to restore the
relationship, motivated reasoning, and forgiveness are used in Study 3.

87

2.11.2 Results

First, we explore whether brand relationship closeness influences the three variables of
desire to restore the relationship, motivated reasoning, and forgiveness equally under
both low and high cognitive load. Then we perform three regression analyses to examine
the influence of cognitive load, brand relationship, and their interaction on desire to
maintain a relationship, motivated reasoning, and forgiveness. We hope to show that
cognitive load turns off the influence of brand relationship closeness on motivated
reasoning and forgiveness, while still predicting desire to maintain the relationship.

For the desire to maintain a relationship, brand relationship closeness, as measured by
both IOS and brand self connection, equally influences the desire to maintain the
relationship. As predicted, brand relationship closeness significantly predicts the desire to
maintain the relationship under low cognitive load BSC b = .66, F(1, 41) = 28.34, p <
.0001, and IOS b = .98, F(1, 41) = 16.74, p = .0002 and high cognitive load BSC b = .62,
F(1, 39) = 20.76, p < .0001, and IOS b = -.78, F(1, 38) = 8.19, p = .0068
14
. Thus, as
predicted, relationship closeness influenced desire to maintain a relationship equally for
low and high cognitive load.

14
The brand self connection by cognitive load interaction on desire to maintain the relationship is p = .81
and the IOS by cognitive load interaction on desire to maintain the relationship is p = .58.

88

For motivated reasoning, brand relationship closeness, as measured by both IOS and
brand self connection, replicated previous studies under low cognitive load, but does not
replicate under high cognitive load. As predicted, brand relationship closeness
significantly predicts the extent to which individuals engage in motivated reasoning
following the failure under low cognitive load BSC b = .26, F(1, 41) = 7.07, p = .0111,
and IOS b = .45, F(1, 41) = 6.91, p = .0120, but not under high cognitive load BSC b =
.08, F(1, 39) = .39, p = .53, and IOS b = -.11, F(1, 38) = .20, p = .66
15
. Thus, as
predicted, relationship closeness influenced motivated reasoning only under low
cognitive load. However, this was unable to be replicated under high cognitive load
because motivated reasoning requires cognitive resources which were limited due to the
memorization and rehearsal of the eight digit number.

For forgiveness, brand relationship closeness replicated previous studies under low
cognitive load, but does not replicate under high cognitive load. As predicted, brand
relationship closeness significantly predicts the extent to which individuals forgive
Chipotle following the failure under low cognitive load BSC b = .32, F(1, 41) = 5.32, p =
.03, and IOS b = .51, F(1, 41) = 4.12, p = .05, but not under high cognitive load BSC b =
.15, F(1, 39) = .84, p = .36, and IOS b = .24, F(1, 38) = .06, p = .44
16
. Thus, as
predicted, relationship closeness influenced motivated reasoning only under low

15
The brand self connection by cognitive load interaction on motivated reasoning is p = .27 and the IOS by
cognitive load interaction on motivated reasoning is p = .06.
16
The brand self connection by cognitive load interaction on forgiveness is p = .43 and the IOS by
cognitive load interaction on forgiveness is p = .50.

89

cognitive load. However, this was unable to be replicated under high cognitive load
because motivated reasoning requires cognitive resources which were limited due to the
memorization and rehearsal of the eight digit number.

2.11.3 Discussion

Study 3 was conducted to provide insight into the relationship between desire to maintain
a relationship and motivated reasoning. Results were consistent with the notion that they
are distinct constructs. These results provide support for the Forgiveness Process Model
– both serve as distinct mediators to the relationship closeness to forgiveness relationship.
Study 3 also demonstrates that without the ability to use motivated reasoning to cope with
the transgression close brand relationships no longer have the same influence on
forgiveness of the transgression.

2.12 General Discussion

At the most basic, this research provides a model, the Forgiveness Process Model, which
addresses the questions of when, why, and how brand forgiveness arises. Forgiveness
occurs when consumers feel a close relationship with a brand, it occurs because this

90

relationship fosters the desire to maintain the relationship, and it occurs by means of
motivated reasoning, construing brand failures and transgressions in a manner that allows
for forgiveness.

An interesting question that arises is how to reconcile this research with a recent set of
papers that seem to suggest that relationships should make brand transgressions worse.
We suggest that a close reading of this recent research provides consistent evidence that,
more typically, close brand relationships mitigate the negative effects of brand
transgressions.

An example of an approach arguing for the negative effects of brand relationships is
offered by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003). These authors present a conceptual model of
consumer brand relationships, exploring when and why individuals develop relationships
with companies. Within this model they propose that strong consumer-company
relationships should make the negative effects of severe transgressions more damaging
and permanent (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003). Interestingly, an alternative hypothesis is
provided by Fournier (1998). Fournier (1998) also advances a conceptual model of
consumer brand relationships, which argues for the positive effects of brand relationships
following brand transgressions. This conceptual model explores the many types and
consequences of brand relationships and proposes that close brand relationships should

91

buffer the effects of transgressions. However, these are both conceptual papers absent
any empirical support for the proposed models. So clearly, it is beneficial to examine
what empirical data suggests concerning the influence of brand relationships on the
effects of transgressions.

The inferences from prior recent research, which uses empirical data, are possibly
misleading. The most recent research, at first blush, seems to support the exacerbating
effect of brand relationships on negative consequences following transgressions. If one
were to read the titles and conclusions, the take away point would be that brand
relationships can actually be harmful for companies following a transgression. However,
as we will review below, these papers either focus on atypical consumers and/or unusual
circumstances, and further, the data often do not support the conclusions offered.

For example, Grégorie, Tripp, and Legoux (2009) conclude that close brand relationships
can amplify the effects of transgressions over time. That is, people who are closest to the
brand at the time of the failure can come to hate the brand the most following a failure.
They base this conclusion on the findings that those with close brand relationships have
an escalating desire for avoidance and a lesser decline in desire for revenge over time
compared to consumers without close brand relationships. We suggest that these results

92

stem from an atypical sample and even within this atypical sample, there is evidence
contrary to the love-becomes-hate effect.

In Study 1, their sample consists of people who have already gone to a 3
rd
party website
to complain, ConsumerAffairs.com or Ripoffreport.com. When surveyed, almost all
complaints had been followed by a failed recovery effort. Of 2386 people contacted, 431
respondents completed the first wave, and only 172 respondents complete all four
surveys. It is known that few people complain to a company themselves, much less a
third party: the authors note that this atypical sample consists mainly of people who will
not return to this company ever again. Clearly, this is a highly select group of scorned
customers, akin to ex-spouses or lovers. Even within this highly select group of exes,
they find evidence that brand relationships can buffer transgressions. In Study 1,
immediately following a reported transgression, relationship quality has a buffering effect
on both revenge and avoidance behaviors (Table 1, pg 23). Of note, within this select
group of ex’s, the relationship quality does influence feelings of betrayal. We explore
and investigate the role of betrayal below.

Grégorie, Tripp, and Legoux (2009) conducted a second study, in which they used a
hypothetical scenario to manipulate relationship quality. Here, rather than finding the
love-becomes-hate effect, they find the reverse. Participants who were in the

93

manipulated high quality relationship condition had a lower desire for revenge a)
immediately after the failure (M
High
= 2.67 vs. M
Low
= 3.62), b) when no recovery effort is
offered (M
High
= 2.27 vs. M
Low
= 3.33), c) when a normal recovery effort is offered (M
High
= 2.00 vs. M
Low
= 3.18), and d) when a high recovery effort is offered (M
High
= 1.74 vs.
M
Low
= 1.92), than those in the low quality relationship condition. One key take away
may be that the love becomes hate effect may only emerge for highly atypical subjects
(ex’s) on feelings of betrayal (Study 1), and in fact the opposite effect emerges in Study
2. Thus, rather than demonstrating that love-becomes-hate, the paper actually suggests
that, overall, love shields from hate, save perhaps feelings of betrayal experienced by
ex’s.

Grégorie and Fisher (2008) explored the idea of when your best customers become your
worst enemies. These authors examined the effects of perceived betrayal upon retaliatory
behaviors (vindictive complaining, negative word of mouth, and why they engaged in
third-party complaining). Of particular note is that in this research the authors used an
atypical sample. Specifically, the possible sample for this study contains of all of the
people that flew Canadian airlines, of whom 2,057 were contacted because they had
complained to a third party website designed to intervene after an airline had failed to
resolve a complaint after a reasonable delay of 60 days. And of these 2,057 contacted by
survey, only 250 responded. In effect these are extremely bitter and angry individuals
who comprise a miniscule proportion (less than .0001%) of consumers. And even with

94

that highly select group, they find no main effect (negative or positive) of close brand
relationships based upon the analysis of the reported attempted recovery effort. They
conclude that the relationship quality negatively affects consumers’ responses to recovery
efforts made by companies. They suggest that under extremely unfair recovery attempts–
when one experiences both low distributive unfairness (overall the outcome of the failure
and recovery effort were unfair and the customer feels they did not get what they
deserved) in combination with either interactional unfairness (when then employees did
not give good explanations and/or treated them without respect or empathy) or procedural
unfairness (the airline did not handle their complaint or concerns well) simultaneously -
customers with close relationships felt more betrayed. Additionally, under all other
conditions of perceived fairness, close brand relationships demonstrated either no
significant effect or a buffering effect (Grégorie and Fisher 2008). However, they do find
a buffering effect of relationship quality and distributive fairness interaction on perceived
betrayal. They demonstrate that betrayal influences desire for retaliation and demand for
reparation. However, there is no reported effect of overall brand relationship quality on
retaliatory behaviors or demands for reparation from a company. Finally, this research
does not address how the consumers with the closest brand relationships felt when they
were given an acceptable recovery response (as companies have the opportunity to
accomplish following a customer complaint) – as all of these customers had complained
and been unsatisfied with the response from the airline. But even within this atypical
sample, love seems to shield, rather than turn to hate.

95

Johnson, Matear, and Thomson (2010), examined circumstances when once loved brands
(as measured by self relevance) may provoke extremely negative reactions from
consumers. They examine relationships along the dimension of self-relevance – or
whether the brand relationship implicates an important aspect of the self-concept and
relationship quality.
17
The authors find that brands relationships that were high in self-
relevance, prior to the break up, lead to increases in negative word of mouth, hatred, third
party complaining and anti-brand (or revenge) behaviors. However, they find that overall
brand relationship quality actually shows evidence of buffering. In Studies 1 and 2, they
asked participants to discuss a brand they no longer used. In Study 1, they show that
relationship quality buffers third-party complaining (p = .01), negative word of mouth (p
= .01), and hatred (p = .01) following relationship dissolution. In Study 2 the results
show that brand relationship quality buffers the retaliatory behaviors of hatred (p = .02)
and whether they threatened the company or employees (p = .02) and approaches
significance for whether they stole something from the company (p = .08) and whether
they broke or damaged something of the companies (p = .15). In sum, once again, brand
quality acts as a shield from negative brand behaviors following a transgression.

Finally, other research by Grégorie and Fisher (2006), pitting the buffering versus
exacerbating effects of brand relationships on desire for retaliation, find the opposite of

17
Another study manipulated self-relevance and found that if a negative event affects them (self-
relevance), then this will produce more negative emotions and will lead to increased negative word of
mouth (Nyer 1997).

96

their love-becomes-hate hypothesis. In fact, in this paper the authors provided evidence
suggesting that close brand relationships can buffer double deviation (a transgression
followed by a failed recovery effort) failures and that close brand relationships can
decrease the desire for retaliation. They find strong support for close brand relationships
decreasing the desire for revenge. Overall, it appears that, once again, relationship quality
mitigates revenge and retaliation following transgressions.

2.13 The Buffering Effects

There is other recent research that provides additional support of this brand relationship
buffering effect. For example, Priluck (2003) investigated the positive, or buffering,
effects of brand relationships. Participants completed two studies in which brand
relationship was manipulated to be either relational versus a single purchase. It is often
hard to meaningfully manipulate relationships, so this provides a strong test for the
buffering effects of brand relationships. She finds that following a transgression, those
with close brand relationships report higher levels of trust and commitment, higher
satisfaction following a recovery effort and were less likely to exit the relationship, than
those with distant relationships. Thus, even minimal relationships, stemming from a
manipulated hypothetical scenario, provided evidence that brand relationships can buffer

97

transgressions, reduce exit behavior and increase the evaluation of minimal recovery
efforts (Priluck 2003).

Hess, Ganesan and Klein (2003) examined how number of past services experiences and
the quality of past experiences influences failure attributions, service recovery
expectations and satisfaction with recovery efforts. They find that consumers with more
past experiences, and the better quality of these experiences (or brand relationships)
buffer transgressions. Participants with close relationships had lower expectations of
service recovery by the company and were more satisfied following the recovery effort,
than did those with distant relationships.

Additionally, Donovan et al. (2012) demonstrate that close brand relationships a) buffer
transgressions, b) lead to positive future brand intentions, and c) lead to brand
forgiveness following a brand failure. Specifically, they find that close brand
relationships moderate future brand intentions (such as repurchase) following a brand
transgression. That is, people with close relationships are not affected by transgressions
whereas those with moderate and distant relationships reveal decreased future brand
behaviors.

98

2.14 Conclusion

What is most noteworthy is that the most recent research suggests that close relationships
can backfire and even be a negative factor for companies following brand transgressions.
However, our general conclusion is that, overall, the evidence is consistent with the
notion that brand relationship closeness buffers the ill effects of brand transgressions. By
understanding the processes of consumer brand forgiveness, our model answers the
question of how close brand relationships can influence positive reactions, such as
forgiveness, following brand transgressions.

Our model of the underlying cognitive processes leading to forgiveness addresses gaps in
both the consumer behavior literature and in the psychology literature. The model makes
a significant contribution to the understanding reactions following transgressions. We
have been able to demonstrate when, why, and how consumers (and individuals) are able
to come to forgive a brand following a brand failure.

99

Chapter 3: Elucidating the Underlying Psychological Processes that Foster
Interpersonal Forgiveness

3.1 Introduction

Forgiveness plays an important role in interpersonal relationships. Drawing upon theories
about interpersonal forgiveness, we advance a parsimonious, sequential mediation model,
of interpersonal forgiveness. In previous chapters, we have proposed and tested this
model within consumer brand relationships. The objective of this chapter is to assess
whether the same processes individuals use to forgive brands apply to interpersonal
transgressions. First, we will review the relevant literature that lead to the development
of our model of forgiveness. Second, in Study 1, we will test the model using
interpersonal offenses to explore whether the same mediating variables of desire to
restore the relationship and motivated reasoning are also critical in how we forgive
others.

100

3.2 Literature Review

It is well established that transgressions negatively affect interpersonal relationships (e.g.
Smith and Bolton 2002). Transgressions are a source of relational disruption (Metts
1994) which can be viewed as a turning point in a relationship (Smith and Bolton 2002).
A relational transgression is any unfavorable act that violates the explicit or implicit
norms of a relationship (Metts 1994). However, the process of how individuals forgive
transgressions has yet to be clearly specified. Even with the recent attention forgiveness
has received in the social sciences, there is still a need for better understanding of the
psychological processes underlying forgiveness as stated by Strelan and Covic (2006)
“despite substantial advances in other areas of forgiveness research, empirical evaluation
of a fundamental aspect of forgiveness, the process itself, has been virtually nonexistent”
(Strelan and Covic 2006, 1059).

To understand the process of forgiveness, we propose a model which specifies the
forgiveness processes in interpersonal relationships. We develop this model by
combining, and then expanding upon, pieces of proposed models in the psychology
literature examining commitment, forgiveness, and transgressions. When developing our
model for consumer brand forgiveness, we relied upon theories and prior work which
seeks to understand the relationship between commitment and forgiveness. Based upon

101

the proposed relationships revealed in the literature, we believe that the process of
forgiveness stems from a relationship, occurs because of a desire to restore this
relationship, and happens through motivated reasoning to arrive at forgiveness. Thus, we
are proposing a sequential mediation model (figure 3.1). Below is a discussion of papers
that have examined the relationship between relationships and forgiveness, the constructs
they focused upon, and how they relate to our model.

Figure 3.1: Proposed Model

IV (X) DV (Y)
IV (X) DV (Y)
c
M1 M2
a1
a3
c ‘
a2 b1
b2
PROPOSED MODEL

102

3.2.1 Commitment

Within the literature examining the relationship between commitment, positive
behavioral tendencies, and responses following transgressions, researchers have
examined the links between these constructs in various steps. Next, we will briefly
review how previous researchers have examined the links between these constructs which
lead to the development of our model. One finding that is indisputable in understanding
interpersonal transgressions is that the quality of the relationship influences behavioral
responses towards transgressors. Commitment has been shown to predict
accommodation in relationships (Rusbult et al. 1991). Accommodation is when a partner
(a) inhibits destructive reactions and instead, (b) engages in constructive reactions
following a partner’s destructive behavior. Thus, commitment influences behavioral
responses following a transgression.

We follow previous research and examine transgressions and the responses following
transgressions in the context of close relationships, expecting the relationship to influence
forgiveness. As Fincham et al. (2006) stated, forgiveness occurs within a relationship
and should be studied in this context. Specifically, relationship satisfaction and
relationship quality have both been shown to be positively associated with episodic
forgiveness following a transgression (Allemand et al. 2007; Fincham, 2000; Fincham &

103

Beach, 2002; Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002; McCullough et al., 1998). This research
leads to the first link in our model of forgiveness, the link between relationships and
forgiveness. However, even the researchers that have explored this relationship state, “It
is still unclear, however, what processes underlie this association,” (Allemand et al.
2007). Thus we explore how close brand relationships influence forgiveness.

3.2.2 Desire to Maintain the Relationship

Rusbult and colleagues have conducted a long line of research that explores how
commitment influences relationship behavior, such as accommodation (Rusbult et al.
1991), sacrifice (Van Lange et al. 1997), and behavioral tendencies combined with
forgiveness (Finkel et al. 2002). Of particular interest is the research conducted by Finkel
et al. (2002) where the authors explored which aspect(s) of commitment are really driving
positive behavioral tendencies (including a forgiveness item) following a transgression.

Finkel et al. (2002) conducted an intriguing exploratory study examining which aspects
of commitment influence behavioral tendencies following transgressions and the possible
mediating variables. In the first two studies, the authors show that commitment to a
relationship partner positively influences behavioral tendencies following a transgression
and those behavioral tendencies are positively correlated with forgiveness. In the third

104

study, the authors used a new 15 item scale, developed by Arriaga and Agnew (2001),
which is composed of three parts, to assess the three dimensions of commitment. This
scale examines commitment in terms of affective, cognitive, and conative components.
Thus, the state of commitment is seen as being composed of three distinct components:
(a) psychological attachment, (b) long-term orientation, and (c) intention to persist.

The authors found the combined commitment measure predicted post behavioral
tendencies. Following this analysis, they explored, and confirmed, that each aspect
significantly predicted post behavioral tendencies. Next, they pitted each of the three
measures against the other measures and found that only intent to persist predicted post
transgression behavioral tendencies when competing against the other measures. Their
results demonstrate that when the three items are pitted against one another, only the
intent to persist in the relationship significantly predicts future behavioral tendencies.
However, we feel that another way in which this problem can be examined is through
mediation. Specifically, we find their last simultaneous regression analysis to be
indicative of mediation. Thus, we predict that following a transgression, commitment as
measured by psychological attachment, will predict intent to persist in the relationship
and this intent to persist in the relationship will in act as a mediator from psychological
attachment to forgiveness. We feel that intent to persist in the relationship is especially
important following a transgression. Transgressions are a source of relational disruption
(Metts 1994) which can be viewed as turning points in a relationship (Smith and Bolton

105

2002). Thus, transgressions offer an opportunity to the person who was hurt, to evaluate
their relationship with the offender and consider which path they want to take considering
their relationship: the path to end the relationship or the path to restore the relationship.

We propose that intent to persist in the relationship, hereafter referred to as desire to
maintain the relationship, stems from, but is separate from, relationship commitment
following a transgression. Other researchers have also explored, or at least proposed, that
desire to restore the harmony to a relationship or the intent to persist in the relationship
may be a reason for forgiveness. For example, Girard and Mullet (1997) suggested that
one ‘reason’ to forgive is to restore the harmony of the relationship. And Hodgins et al.
(1996) show that one consequence of relationship closeness is that we want to maintain
these relationships and they predict people would make more of an effort to repair a close
versus distant relationship. Within our model, these last two papers could be interpreted
as a desire to restore the relationship.

Thus, we propose that the second step of our model, or the first sequential mediating
variable, is the desire to maintain the relationship. Specifically, those who have close
relationships will be more likely to have a desire to maintain this relationship following
an interpersonal transgression. By decoupling the relationship and the desire to maintain

106

the relationship, we believe that this will be able to demonstrate why individuals are
willing to think about how they can forgive the transgressor.

3.2.3 Motivated Reasoning

A second construct that has been widely examined in conjunction with forgiveness
broadly falls under the umbrella construct of motivated reasoning (Kunda 1990).
Motivated reasoning can be defined as using biased processing to reach a desired (or
directional) conclusion. There is extensive evidence that individuals are able to engage in
such biased processing. Motivated reasoning is frequently found in relationships: Close
relationships influence how a partner’s behavior is interpreted, and such interpretation
influences an individual’s reaction to such behavior (e.g., Rusbult and Buunk 1993).
Previous research has shown that when individuals are in a relationship, they will use
relationship-enhancing illusion to view or assess their relationship with their partner
(Rusbult et al. 1998; Murray and Holmes 1993). This illusion is described as the
tendency to view your relationship as better than and not as bad as other relationships.

A comprehensive literature review by Bradbury and Fincham (1990) found that the
nature of a relationship influenced the attributions made to understand a partner’s
transgression: Satisfied partners are more likely to form positive attributions and

107

explanations than less satisfied partners. This finding is robust and found across many
different studies (Boon and Sulsky 1997; Fincham 2000; McCullough et al. 1997, 1998).

Researchers have also documented other types of motivated reasoning, beyond just
attributions. The better the relationship, the more likely that one develops stories that
serve to quell feelings of doubt. Such motivated construal allows individuals to
transform the meaning of negative events and behaviors into positive narratives. Not
only does such a process allow individuals to see virtues in a partner’s faults, but it comes
to make the representation of the partner even more positive. “Individuals were able to
weave even the most seemingly compelling evidence of negativity into stories supporting
their desired, positive conclusions,” (Murray and Holmes 1993). Indeed, subsequent
research has shown that the cognitive structures used to represent a partner are colored by
positive illusions – minimizing and connecting specific weaknesses in a partner to more
positive, and presumably more important, aspects of the relationship (Murray and
Holmes 1999). That is, the closer a relationship, the more likely one is to construe
negative behavior and to represent faults in ways that support the relationship.

Referring back to the exploratory study conducted by Finkel et al. (2002) the authors also
examined through what mediating factors commitment leads to forgiveness. In their
second and third studies, they explored whether the link between commitment and

108

forgiveness was mediated by cognitive interpretations or emotional reactions. In the
second study, they used four items to assess cognitive interpretations and in the third
study, they used two items
18
. Positive behavioral tendencies were assessed in study 2
using seven items e.g., “I thought that I had the right to ‘get even’ with my partner,”
reverse scored; “I forgave my partner” and in study 3 using three items; e.g., “My partner
ought to be especially nice to me to make up for what he/she did,” reverse scored; “I
forgive my partner.” Thus, the measure of forgiveness is conflated with the outcomes it is
expected to predict. We believe that forgiveness should be assessed separately from
future behavioral intensions because forgiveness can occur without the intention of
enacting these behaviors. For an extreme example, you may never expect to spend time
with a person that you have decided to forgive because this person may have passed
away, but you can still forgive them. The authors found partial mediation of cognitive
interpretations on behavioral tendencies in both studies and partial mediation of
behavioral tendencies in study 3.
19
Second, we believe that the authors are using an
overly specified, and inconsistent, assessment of cognitive interpretations. We believe
that by creating a larger, more comprehensive measure of biased processing and that by
looking at the model of how close relationships lead to a desire to restore the relationship
and how individuals use motivated reasoning to lead to forgiveness, we will be better

18
They do not list the exact items they used. Only that in Study 2 they use 4 items e.g. positive cognitive
interpretations (four items; e.g., “I thought that my partner didn’t try hard enough to behave in a positive
manner,” reverse scored), and positive emotional reactions (four items; e.g., “I felt very angry about the
way my partner behaved,” reverse scored; 0 _ do not agree at all, 8 _ agree completely). positive
cognitive interpretations (two items; e.g., “My partner upset me on purpose,” reverse scored), and
positive emotional reactions (two items; e.g., “I feel very hurt by the way my partner behaved,” reverse
scored; 1 _ do not agree at all, 7 _ agree completely).
19
Emotional reactions did not meet the qualifications to test for mediation in study 2.

109

able to understand the forgiveness process. Thus, this proposed model explores the links
between relationships, motivated reasoning, and post transgression behaviors. We believe
that this research demonstrates that commitment can lead to motivated reasoning. We
propose motivated reasoning to be the second mediator in our sequential mediation
model.

We measure motivated reasoning using a broad set of questions. These items were
developed based upon previous research that has tried to measure attributions and biased
processing (Bradbury and Fincham 1992; Finkel et al. 2002). Additionally, the measures
are also consistent with motivated reasoning as described in Kunda (1990). Our items
assess the positivity bias exhibited by the offended, stability attributions, and the
minimization of impact of the failure.

By combining what each of these studies have suggested into a single, parsimonious
mediation model, we will be able to better understand the process of forgiveness. While
each study reviewed contributes to our model, each study is only testing a part of our
model, thus ours is the first model to establish each step simultaneously in a unified
model. In our proposed model, we show why and how a close relationship leads to
forgiveness. With our new model, we hope to add to the understanding of the process of

110

forgiveness. Thus, in our first study we propose and test our model of interpersonal
forgiveness.

3.3 Study 1

Fifty five undergraduate business students participated in exchange for partial fulfillment
of course credit. Participants were asked to describe an interpersonal transgression.
Specifically, they were told: “Sometimes people we know let us down. For this study, we
would like you to remember a time that a person failed you. Please recall a specific
incident when a person hurt and/or disappointed you.” This method allows us to examine
the model following a naturally occurring and experienced failure. Additionally, since
relational transgressions, by definition, constitute a broad range of behaviors, we wanted
to be able to examine a variety of behaviors individuals found to be relationship
transgressions.

Following this recall of an interpersonal failure, participants provided measures of
relationship closeness as indicated by both IOS (Inclusion of the other in the self scale)
and self connection. We adapted our measure of self connection from Arriaga and
Agnew (2001), Park et al. (2010), and Escalas and Bettman (2003). The IOS scale (Aron,
Aron and Smollen, 1992) consists of seven pairs of circle pairs. One circle represents the

111

self and the other represents the other person. Each of the seven pairs represents a
different depiction of closeness, overlapping to differing degrees from least overlapping
(least inclusive) to most overlapping (most inclusive). Participants are asked to pick the
pair of circles that best describes their relationship with the other. Self connection was
measured with two items: “To what extent do you feel that you are personally connected
to this person?” and “To what extent is this person a part of you and who you are?” Each
item was assessed on an 11 point scale (0 = not at all; 10 = completely).

Participants provided measures of their desire to maintain the relationship, motivated
reasoning, and forgiveness. Our measure of desire to maintain the relationship consists
of three items. These items were adapted from the relationship measure used by Arriaga
and Agnew (2001). Specifically, we measured desire to maintain the relationship with
three items: “How motivated were you to restore your relationship with this person,”
measured on an 11 point scale (0 = not at all to 10 = completely), “I would be really sad
if I stopped spending time with this person,” measured on an 11 point scale (0 = not at all
to 10 = extremely) and “I intend to continue interacting with this person” measured on an
11 point scale (0 = disagree to 10 = agree).

Next we used a broad set of questions to indicate motivated reasoning. This set of
measures is consistent with the types of motivated reasoning individuals use, (Kunda

112

1990), and provides a more complete measure of motivated reasoning beyond a focus on
just attributions, such as minimization of impact, and optimistic biases. Specifically, we
asked participants: “I would think twice about spending time with this person again,”
measured on an 11 point scale (0 = not at all to 10 = completely), “I am positive this was
a onetime mistake and won’t happen again,” (0 = not at all to 10 = completely), “How
important is this incident in your overall judgment of the person,” (0 = not influential to
10 = very influential), “Did you hope to just put this incident behind you,” (0 = not at all
to 10 = completely), “Do you think that an experience like this would happen again in
the future with this person,” (0 = not at all to 10 = completely), and “I believe that next
time I interact with this person, they will live up to my expectations,” (0 = not at all to 10
= completely).

We measured forgiveness with a single item, “I have forgiven the person following the
incident,” measured on an 11 point scale (0 = not at all to 10 = completely). Numerous
studies in psychology have used a single item measure of forgiveness (e.g. Exline et al.
2004; Girard and Mullet 19997; Green, Burnette, and Davis 2008; Hannon et al. 2010;
Karremans, Van Lange, and Holland 2005; Kearns and Fincham 2005; Fincham and
Beach 2002; McCullough and Hoyt 2002).

113

In addition, participants indicated their perception of how severe the incident was and
how upset this incident made them, measured on an 11 point scale (0 = not at all to 10 =
extremely). The alphas for each construct are in tables 3.1-3.3.

Table 3.1 Relationship Closeness Items and Correlations, α = .86

1 2
1 To what extent do you feel that you are personally
connected to the brand? (BSC1)
-
2 To what extent is the brand a part of you and who you are?
(BSC2)
0.76 -

114

Table 3.2 Process Measures and Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 How motivated were you to restore
your relationship with this person
(DTM1)
-

2 I would be really sad if I stopped
spending time with this person
(DTM2)
.79 -

3 I intend to continue interacting with
this person (DTM3)
.73 .72 -

4 I would think twice about spending
time with this person again
(reversed) (MR1)
.60 .50 .55 -

5 I am positive this was a onetime
mistake and won’t happen again
(MR2)
.44 .43 .42 .25 -

6 How important is this incident in
your overall judgment of the person
(reversed) (MR3)
.55 .39 .52 .57 .28 -

7 Did you hope to just put this incident
behind you (MR4)
.54 .36 .42 .26 .32 .40 -

8 I believe that next time I interact with
this person, they will live up to my
expectations (MR5)
.63 .66 .51 .40 .56 .54 .37 -

9 Do you think that an experience like
this would happen again in the future
with this person (MR6)
.01 -.02 -.15 -.06 .50 .01 .08 .12 -

115

Table 3.3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Composite Variables

Variable
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Brand Self Connection α = .86
5.50 2.89 -

2 IOS
3.63 1.84 .69 -

3 Desire to Maintain α = .90
5.41 3.15 .58 .70 -

4 Motivated Reasoning α = .73
4.50 2.14 .49 .37 .69 -

5 Forgiveness
6.11 3.15 .38 .29 .55 .69 -

3.3.1 Results

Two measures of relationship closeness were used in this study; both results will be
reported, IOS first and self connection (SC) second. In order to test the independent
influences of relationship closeness on forgiveness and the two process variables (the so-
called “total effects” in the kind of mediation path analysis we report below), we first
conducted three analyses in which desire to maintain, motivated reasoning, and
forgiveness were regressed on brand relationship closeness. Desire to maintain the
relationship was significantly predicted by relationship closeness, IOS b = .98, F(1, 48) =
23.81, p < .0001 and SC b = .78, F(1, 54) = 51.48, p < .0001; as was motivated
reasoning, IOS b = .55, F(1, 48) = 14.55, p < .0005 and SC b = .28, F(1, 54) = 8.49, p =
.0052; and forgiveness, IOS b = .65, F(1, 48) = 8.06, p = .0067 and SC b = .31, F(1, 54)
= 4.79, p = .03. Interestingly, neither perceived severity nor how upset participants were

116

following the transgression, significantly influenced individuals willingness to forgive,
severity b = -.28, F(1, 54) = 2.63, p = .11, and upset b = -.45, F(1, 54) = 2.95, p = .09.
Additionally, relationship closeness does not influence perceived severity, IOS b = .03,
F(1, 48) = .02, p = .88 and SC b = .09, F(1, 54) = .57, p = .45, or how upset participants
were following the transgression upset IOS b = -.04, F(1, 48) = .11, p = .74 and SC b =
.09, F(1, 54) = 1.51, p = .22. It is important to note that relationship closeness does not
influence the perceived severity or the perceived negative reaction to the failure. This
allows us to rule out other possible explanations of forgiveness such as; transgressions by
close others are just not seen as severe or as upsetting. Thus, these variables will be
excluded from further analyses.

To test the proposed four step sequential mediation model, we employed bootstrap OLS
regression analyses, with relationship closeness as the independent variable, forgiveness
as the dependent variable, desire to maintain the relationship (DTM) as the first possible
mediator (M1), and motivated reasoning as the second possible mediator (M2). We also
conducted these analyses with the two mediators reversed. This procedure uses boot-
strapping (MacKinnon 2008; MacKinnon et al. 2002; Preacher and Hayes 2004, 2008;
Shrout and Bolger 2002; see also Zhao et al. 2010) to directly estimate and test the path
coefficients and indirect effect(s) of an independent variable (x) on a dependent variable
(y) through mediating variables (M). We used a recently advanced statistical tool to
estimate the dual mediation model (MEDTHREE; Hayes, Preacher, and Myers 2011).

117

Specifically, we estimated a combination of three possible indirect effects (presented in
figure 1); mediation by M1 (as indicated by paths a1 and b1), by M2 (as indicated by
paths a2 and b2), and by M1 and M2 in sequences (as indicated by a1, a3, and b2). This
approach allows us to isolate the indirect effect of both mediators, as well as the indirect
effect passing through M1 to M2. We also provide an analysis in which we reverse the
order of the two hypothesized mediators to provide additional support for the model.

The results of these analyses are presented in tables 3.4 and 3.5 and figures 3.2 and 3.3.
Inspection of these tables and figures reveals that the hypothesized model, in which the
influence of relationship closeness on forgiveness is mediated by desire to maintain a
relationship (DTM, M1) and motivated reasoning (MR, M2), is supported by the data. In
contrast, the reversed models (tables 3.6 and 3.7 and figures 3.4 and 3.5) do not show a
similar pattern of mediation. In combination, these analyses provide support for the
proposed Forgiveness Process Model.

118

Figure 3.2 Forgiveness Model IOS

Forgiveness
Desire to
Maintain
Motivated
Reasoning
a1 = .98,
p < .0001
a3 = .38,
p < .0001
c = .65, p = .0067
c ‘ = -.06, p = .78
a2 = .18,
p = .25
b1 = .17,
p = .23
b2 = .98,
p < .0001
Forgiveness Model
Relationship
IOS--> D --> MR --> F, est .33, CI (.16, .57), Significant
2

Table 3.4 Forgiveness Model IOS

Path Coefficients
Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Desire (D) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
Estimat
e
Bootstrap 95%
CI
Significa
nt
from IOS -.06 (.21), p = .78 .98 (.20),
p < .0001
.18 (.15), p = .25
from Desire .17 (.14), p = .22 .38 (.09),
p < .0001

from Motivated
Reasoning
.98 (.20),
p < .0001

Total .70 .32, 1.03 yes
Specific: IOS--> D --> F .17 -.14, .45 no
Specific:
IOS--> MR --> F
.17 -.13, .51 no
Specific: IOS --> D --> MR --> F .36 .16, .57 yes

119

Figure 3.3 Forgiveness Model SC

Forgiveness
Desire to
Maintain
Motivated
Reasoning
a1 = .77,
p < .0001
a3 = .57,
p < .0001
c = .31, p = .03
c ‘ = -.08, p = .61
a2 = -.16,
p = .12
b1 = .21,
p = .26
b2 = .85,
p = .0002
Forgiveness Model
Relationship
SC --> D --> MR --> F, est .37, CI (.18, .59), Significant
3

Table 3.5 Forgiveness Model SC

Path Coefficients
Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Desire (D) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
Estimat
e
Bootstrap 95%
CI
Significa
nt
from BSC -.08 (.16), p = .61 .77 (.11),
p < .0001
-.16 (.10),
p = .12

from Desire .21 (.18), p = .26 .57 (.09),
p < .0001

from Motivated
Reasoning
.85 (.21),
p = .0002

Total .39 .09, .69 yes
Specific: BSC--> D --> F .16 -.09, .42 no
Specific: BSC--> MR -->
F
-.14 -.39, .03 no
Specific: BSC --> D --> MR --> F .37 .18, .61 yes

120

Figure 3.4 Reversed Forgiveness Model IOS

Forgiveness
Desire to
Maintain
a1 = .55,
p = .0004
a3 = .74,
p < .0001
c = .65, p = .0027
c ‘ = .06, p = .78
a2 = .54,
p = .0054
b1 = .98,
p < .0001
b2 = .17,
p = .22
Reversed Forgiveness Model
Relationship
Motivated
Reasoning
IOS--> MR --> D --> F, est .06, CI (-.05, .24), not significant
4

Table 3.6 Reversed Forgiveness Model IOS

Path Coefficients Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
to Desire (D) Estimate Bootstrap
95% CI
Significant
from IOS .06 (.21), p =.78 .55 (.14),
p = .0004
0.54 (.20) ,
p = .0054

from Motivated
Reasoning
.98 (.20) ,p < .0001 .74 (.18) ,
p < .0001

from Desire .17 (.14), p = .22
Total .70 .30, 1.04 yes
Specific:
IOS--> MR --> F
.54 .19, .87 yes
Specific:
IOS--> D --> F
.10 -.10, .27 no
Specific: IOS --> MR --> D --> F .06 -.05, .24 no

121

Figure 3.5 Reversed Forgiveness Model SC

Forgiveness
Desire to
Maintain
a1 = .28,
p = .0052
a3 = .73,
p < .0001
c = .31, p = .0330
c ‘ = -.08, p = .61
a2 = .57,
p < .0001
b1 = .85,
p = .0002
b2 = .21,
p = .26
Reversed Forgiveness Model
Relationship
Motivated
Reasoning
SC-> MR --> D --> F, est .04, CI (-.02, .14), not significant
5

Table 3.7 Reversed Forgiveness Model SC

Path Coefficients Indirect Effects
to Forgiveness (F) to Motivated
Reasoning (MR)
to Desire (D) Estimat
e
Bootstrap 95%
CI
Significa
nt
from SC -.08 (.16), p =.61 .28 (.09),
p = .0052
.57 (.09) ,
p <.0001

from Motivated
Reasoning
.85 (.21) ,p < .0001 .72 (.12) ,
p < .0001

from Desire .21 (.18), p = .26
Total .39 .09, .68 yes
Specific:
SC--> MR --> F
.23 .06, .40 yes
Specific:
SC--> D --> F
.12 -.07, .30 no
Specific: SC --> MR --> D --> F .05 -.02, .14 no

122

3.3.2 Discussion

The results of Study 1 provide support for the Forgiveness Process Model. Clear
mediation is found through the hypothesized pattern of desire to maintain a relationship
leading to motivated reasoning. In contrast, the reversed model (in which motivated
reasoning leads to a desire to maintain a relationship) model does not work, nor do the
single mediational patterns. Study 1 provides support that following an interpersonal
transgression, when individuals have a close relationship with the offender, they have a
desire to maintain the relationship following the failure, which leads to motivated
reasoning, which enables these individuals to forgive the other.

3.3.3 Limitations

Recall that these data were collected by a procedure in which participants recalled an
interpersonal transgression. Though such a protocol is frequently used in psychology, we
do recognize the weaknesses associated with such an approach. The recalled
transgressions may be biased by memory and a broad range of transgressions were
recalled, making this less of a controlled experiment. In the future, we hope to address

123

these weaknesses by running more studies using different methods to study how
individuals react towards interpersonal transgressions.

3.3.4 Conclusion and Future Research

In this study we were able to show support for our model of the forgiveness process
within interpersonal relationships. It is very interesting to demonstrate that the
forgiveness process model elucidates the process of forgiveness in consumer brand
relationships and interpersonal relationships. Thus, we are not only able to use and apply
psychological constructs to consumer brand relationships, but we are able to take what
we have learned about consumer brand relationships and apply this knowledge to
interpersonal relationships.

In the future, we plan to manipulate the relationship (close versus distant) to better
understand how the relationship, or lack thereof, affects the process of interpersonal
forgiveness. We also plan to investigate the role of apologies following transgression to
see how apology versus no apology affects the process of forgiveness and to understand
how apologies influence forgiveness in close versus non close relationships. Within
interpersonal forgiveness there are additional variables that may play a role in the

124

forgiveness process such as, compassion, empathy and blame. We will explore the role
of these variables in future studies.

3.4 Overall Conclusion

In this dissertation I have shown support for the forgiveness process model, not only in
consumption relationships, but also in interpersonal relationships. In the first chapter I
explored why forgiveness is essential in understanding consumer brand transgressions
and future behavioral intentions. In the second chapter I proposed and tested the
sequential mediation model of the forgiveness process in consumer brand relationships,
finding support for the model and the processes underlying forgiveness. I am also able to
disentangle the two mediating variables demonstrating that they are in fact, two distinct
mediators, affected by different processes. Finally in the third chapter I am able to test the
forgiveness process model following interpersonal transgressions, again, finding support
for the model. We are the first to test multiple mediators in a single model to understand
the forgiveness process. By doing this we are able to not only understand how the brand
relationship is influencing forgiveness, but through what processes and how the first
mediator (desire to maintain the relationship) influences the second mediator (motivated
reasoning) to arrive at forgiveness.

125

In the future we plan to explore additional variables that may affect the process of
forgiveness. We have begun exploring how manipulating the betrayal of the transgression
affects forgiveness and how apologies, the refusal to apologize, and the absence of
apologies affect forgiveness in close versus distant relationships.

Overall, through this dissertation I have been able to demonstrate the importance of
understanding, and assessing, forgiveness following consumer brand transgressions. By
acknowledging the importance of forgiveness following brand transgressions companies can
better predict behaviors following failures. I have demonstrated why individuals with close
relationships want to forgive their transgressor and how they are able to arrive at forgiveness
though the sequential mediation model in both consumer brand relationships and interpersonal
relationships. I believe that by specifying this model we have been able to contribute to the
understanding of the forgiveness process.

126

References

Aaker, Jennifer, Aimee Drolet, and Dale Griffin (2008), “Recalling Mixed Emotions,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (August), 268-78.
Ahluwalia, Rohini (2000), “Examination of Psychological Processes Underlying
Resistance to Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September), 217-
32.
Ahluwalia, Rohini, Robert E. Burnkrant, and H. Rao Unnava (2000), “Consumer Response to
Negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 37 (May), 203-14.
Allemand, Mathias, Irina Ambert, Daniel Zimprich, and Frank D. Fincham (2007), “The
Role of Trait Forgiveness and Relationship Satisfaction in Episodic Forgiveness,”
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26 (2), 199-217.
Ariely, Dan (2007), “HBR Case Study: The Customers’ Revenge,” Harvard Business
Review, 85 (December), 31-42.
Aron, Arthur, Elaine N.Aron, and Danny Smollan (1992), “Inclusion of Other in the Self
Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63 (4), 596-612.
Aron, Arthur and Elaine N.Aron (1986), Love as the expansion of self. Understanding
attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere.
Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, and Christina C. Norman (2003), “Self-Expansion Model
of Motivation and Cognition in Close Relationships and Beyond.” In Self and
Social Identity, ed. Marilynn B. Brewer and Miles Hewstone. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell, 100-23.
Aron, Arthur, Christina C. Norman, and Elaine N. Aron (1998), “The Self-Expansion
Model and Motivation,” Representative Research in Social Psychology, 22, 1-13.
Aron, Arthur, Christina C. Norman, Elaine N. Aron, Colin McKenna, and Richard E.
Heyman (2000). “Couples’ Shared Participation in Novel and Arousing Activities
and Experienced Relationship Quality,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 241-53.
Arriaga, Ximena B. and Christopher Agnew (2001), “Being Committed: Affective,
Cognitive, and Conative Components of Relationship Commitment,” Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1190-1203.

127

Baron, Reuben M and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable
Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and
Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6),
1173 –82.
Berry, Jack W., Everett L. Worthington Jr., Les Parrott, III, Lynn E. O’Connor, and
Nathaniel G. Wade (2001), “Dispositional Forgivingness: Development and
Construct Validity of the Transgression Narrative Test of Forgiveness (TNTF),
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (October), 1277-90.
Bettman,James R., Mary Frances Luce and John W. Payne (1998), “Constructive Consumer
Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (December), 187-217.
Bhattacharya, C. B. and Sankar Sen (2003), “Consumer-Company Identification: A
Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Relationships with Companies,” The
Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 76-88.
Bickart, Barbara and Norbert Schwarz (2001), “Service Experiences and Satisfaction
Judgments: The Use of Affect and Beliefs in Judgment Formation,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 11 (1), 29-41.
Bolton, Lisa E., Joel B. Cohen, and Paul N. Bloom (2006), “Does Marketing Products as
Remedies Create “Get Out of Jail Free Cards,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33
(June), 71-81.
Bolton, Lisa E., Americus Reed II, Kevin G. Volpp, and Katrina Armstrong (2008),
‘How Does Drug and Supplement Marketing Affect a Healthy Lifestyle?” Journal
of Consumer Research, 34, (February), 713-26.
Bono, Giacomo, Michael E. McCullough, and Lindsey M. Root (2008), “Forgiveness,
Feeling Connected to Others, and Well-Being: Two Longitudinal Studies,”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (February), 182-95.
Boon, Susan D. and Lorne M. Sulsky (1997), “Attributions of Blame and Forgiveness in
Romantic Relationships: A Policy-Capturing Study,” Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 12 (March), 19-44.
Bradbury, Thomas N. and Frank D. Fincham (1990), “Attributions in Marriage: Review
and Critique,” Psychological Bulletin, 107 (1), 3-33.
Bradbury, Thomas N. and Frank D. Fincham (1992), “Attributinos and Behavior in
Marital Interaction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (October),
613-28.

128

Chernev, Alexander (2006), “Decision Focus and Consumer Choice among
Assortments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (June), 50-9.
Chernev, Alexander (2011), “The Dieter’s Paradox,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
21 (2), 178-83.
Clark, Margaret S. and Edward P. Lemay Jr. (2010), “Close Relationships,” in Susan T.
Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social
Psychology. Wiley: Hoboken: NJ.
Donovan, Leigh Anne Novak, C. Whan Park, Joseph Priester, and Deborah J. MacInnis,
(2012), “Brand Forgiveness: How Close Brand Relationships Influence
Forgiveness”, in Consumer-Brand Relationships: Theory and Applications,
Fournier, Breazeale, Fetscherin and Melewar (eds.)
Enright, Robert D. and Catherine T. Coyle (1998), “Researching the Process Model of
Forgiveness within Psychological Interventions,” in Dimensions of Forgiveness:
Psychological Research and Theological Perspectives, ed. Everett L.
Worthington, Jr., Radnor, PN: Templeton Foundation Press, 139-61.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The
Influence of Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339-48.
Exline, Julie J., Roy F. Baumeister, Brad J. Bushman, W. Keith Campbell, and Eli J.
Finkel (2004), “Too Proud to Let Go: narcissistic Entitlement as a Barrier to
Forgiveness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (6), 894-912.
Fedorikhin, Alexander, C. Whan Park, and Matthew Thomson (2008), “Beyond Fit and
Attitude: The Effect of Emotional Attachment on Consumer Responses to Brand
Extensions, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18 (4), 281-91.
Ferraro, Rosellina, Jennifer Edson Escalas, and James R. Bettman (2011), “Our
Possessions, Our Selves: Domains of Self-Worth and the Possession-Self Link,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (2), 169–77.
Fincham, Frank D. (2000), “The Kiss of the Porcupines: From Attributing Responsibility
to Forgiving,” Personal Relationships, 7 (1), 1-23.
Fincham, Frank D., Hope Jackson, and Steven R. H. Beach (2005), “Transgression
Severity and Forgiveness: Different Moderators for Objective and Subjective
Severity,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24 (6), 860-75.
Fincham, Frank D., Julie Hall, and Steven R. H. Beach (2006), “Forgiveness in Marriage:
Current Status and Future Directions,” Family Relations, 55 (4), 415-27.

129

Fincham, Frank D., Steven R. H. Beach, and Joanne Davila (2004), “Forgiveness and
Conflict Resolution in Marriage,” Journal of Family Psychology, 18 (1), 72-81.
Fincham, Frank D., Steven R. H. Beach (2002), “Forgiveness in Marriage: Implications
for Psychological Aggression and Constructive Communication,” Personal
Relationships, 9, 239-51.
Fincham, Frank D., Georgia Paleari, and Camillo Regalia (2002), “Forgiveness in
Marriage: The Role of Relationship Quality, Attributions, and Empathy,”
Personal Relationships, 9 (March), 27-37.
Finkel, Eli J., Caryl E. Rusbult, Madoka Kumashiro, and Peggy A. Hannon (2002),
“Dealing With Betrayal in Close Relationships: Does Commitment Promote
Forgiveness?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (6), 956-74.
Finkel, Eli J, Jeni L. Burnette, and Lauren E. Scissors (2007), “Vengefully Ever After:
Destiny Beliefs, State Attachment Anxiety and Forgiveness,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (5), 871-886.
Folkes, Valerie S. (1984), “Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional
Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (March), 398-409.
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory
in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343-73.
Girard, Michèle and Ètienne Mullet (1997), “Propensity to Forgive in Adolescents,
Young Adults, Older Adults, and Elderly People,” Journal of Adult Development,
4, 209-20.
Gardial, Sarah Fisher, D. Scott Clemons, Robert B. Woodruff, David W. Schumann, and
Mary Jane Burns. 1994. “Comparing Consumers’ Recall of Prepurchase and
Postpurchase Evaluation Experiences.”Journal of Consumer Research, 20
(March), 548–60.
Green, Jeffery D., Jeni L. Burnette, and Jody L. Davis, (2008). Third-Party Forgiveness:
(Not) Forgiving your Close Other's Betrayer, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34, 407–18.
Goodman, Paul S., Mark Fincham, F. Javier Lerch, and Pamela R. Snyder (1995),
“Customer-Firm Relationships, Involvement, and Customer Satisfaction,” The
Academy of Management Journal, 38 (October), 1310-24.
Grégorie, Yany and Robert J. Fisher (2006), “The Effects of Relationship Quality on
Customer Retaliation,” Marketing Letters, 17 (January), 31-46.

130

Grégorie, Yany and Robert J. Fisher (2008), “Customer Betrayal and Retaliation: When
Your Best Customers Become Your Worst Enemies,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36 (June), 247-61.
Grégoire, Yany, Thomas M. Tripp, and Renaud Legoux (2009), “When Customer Love
Turns into Lasting Hate: The Effects of Relationship Strength and Time on
Customer Revenge and Avoidance,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (November), 18-
32.
Güren-Canli, Zeynep and Durairaj Maheswaran (2000), “Determinants of
Country ‐of ‐Origin Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research , 27 (June), 96-
108.
Hannon, Peggy A., Caryl E. Rusbult, Eli J. Finkel, and Madoka Kamashiro (2010), “In
the wake of betrayal: Amends, forgiveness, and the resolution of betrayal,”
Personal Relationships, 17, 253-78.
Hayes, Andrew F., K. J. Preacher, and T.A. Myers (2011), “Mediation and the Estimation
of Indirect Effects in Political Communication Research,” Sourcebook for
Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical
Techniques, 434-65.
Hess, Ronald L. Jr., Shankar Ganesan, and Noreen M. Klein (2003), “Service Failure and
Recovery: The Impact of Relationship Factors on Customer Satisfaction,” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (2), 127-45.
Hodgins, Holley S., Elizabeth Liebeskind, and Warren Schwartz (1996), “Getting Out of
Hot Water: Facework in Social Predicaments,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71 (2), 300-14.
Holloway, Betsy Bugg, Sijun Wang, and Sharon E. Beatty (2009), “Betrayal?
Relationship Quality Implications in Service Recovery,” Journal of Services
Marketing, 23 (6), 385 – 96.
Hoyt, William, Frank D. Fincham, Michael E. McCullough, Gregory Maio, and Joanne
Davila (2005), “Responses to Interpersonal Transgressions in Families:
Forgiveness, Forgivability, and Relationship-Specific Effects,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (3), 375-94.
Johnson, Allison R., Maggie Matear, and Matthew Thomson (2010), “A Coal in the
Heart: Self-Relevance as a Post-Exit Predictor of Consumer Anti-Brand Actions,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 38, (June), 108-25.

131

Karremans, Johan C., Paul A. M. Van Lange, and Rob W. Holland (2005), “Forgiveness
and Its Associations With Prosocial Thinking, Feeling, and Doing Beyond the
Relationship With the Offender,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31
(10), 1315-26.
Kearns, Jill N. and Frank D. Fincham (2005), “Victim and Perpetrator Accounts of
Interpersonal Transgressions: Self-Serving or Relationship-Serving Biases,”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (March), 321-33.
Kearns, Jill N. and Frank D. Fincham (2004), “A Prototype Analysis of Forgiveness,”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 838-55.
Kunda, Ziva (1990), “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 108
(3), 480-98.
Lazarus, Richard S. (1983), “The Costs and Benefits of Denial,” in The Denial of Stress, 1-30,
New York: International Universities Press, S. Breznitz (Ed.).
Lee, Leonard, On Amir, and Dan Ariely (2009), “In Search of Homo Economicus:
Cognitive Noise and the Role of Emotion in Preference Consistency,” Journal of
Consumer Research , 36, (August) 173-87 .
Lee, Leonard and Dan Ariely (2006), “Shopping Goals, Goal Concreteness, and
Conditional Promotions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (June), 60-70.
MacKinnon, David P. (2008), “Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis,” New
York: Routledge.
MacKinnon, David P., Chondra M. Lockwood, Jeanne M. Hoffman, Stephen G. West,
and Virgil Sheets (2002), “A Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and
Other Intervening Variable Effects,” Psychological Methods, 7 (1), 83-104.
McCullough, Michael E., Lindsey M. Root and Adam D. Cohen (2006), “Writing About
the Benefits of an Interpersonal Transgression Facilitates Forgiveness,” Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, (74), 887–97.
McCullough, Michael E., Giacomo Bono, and Lindsey M. Root (2007), “Rumination,
Emotion, and Forgiveness: Three Longitudinal Studies,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92 (3), 490-505.
McCullough, Michael E., Everett L. Worthington, Jr., and Chris Rachal (1997),
“Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73 (2), 321-36.

132

McCullough, Michael E., Frank D.Fincham, and Jo-Ann Tsang (2003), “Forgiveness,
Forbearance, and Time: The Temporal Unfolding of Transgression-Related
Interpersonal Motivations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (3),
540-57.
McCullough, Michael E. and William T. Hoyt (2002), “Transgression-Related
Motivational Dispositions: Personality Substrates of Forgiveness and their Links
to the Big Five,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (November),
1556-73.
McCullough, Michael E., C. Garth Bellah, Shelley Dean Kilpatrick, and Judith L.
Johnson (2001), “Vengefulness: Relationships with Forgiveness, Ruminatino,
Well-Being, and the Big Five,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27
(May), 601-10.
McCullough, Michael E., K. Chris Rachal, Stephan J. Sandage, Everett L. Worthington,
Jr., Susan Wade Brown, and Terry L, Hight (1998), “Interpersonal Forgiving in
Close Relationships: II. Theoretical Elaboration and Measurement,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (6), 1586-603.
Menzies-Toman, Danielle and John E. Lydon (2005), “Commitment-Motivated Benign
Appraisals of Partner Transgressions: Do They Facilitate Accommodation?”
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 111-28.
Metts, Sandra (1994), “Relational Transgressions,” in The Dark Side of Interpersonal
Communications, ed. William R. Cupach and Brian Spitzberg, Hillsdales, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 217-39.
Mishra, Himanshu , Baba Shiv, and Dhananjay Nayakankuppam (2008), “Arising from Precise
and Vague Information,” Journal of Consumer Research , 35 (December) 573-85.
Murray, Sandra L. and John G. Holmes (1993), “Seeing Virtues in Faults: Negativity and
the Transformation of Interpersonal Narratives in Close Relationships,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (October), 707-22.
Murray, Sandra L. and John G. Holmes (1999), “The (Mental) Ties That Bind: Cognitive
Structures That Predict Relationship Resilience, “Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,” 77 (6), 1228-44.
Nyer, Prashanth U. (1997), “A Study of the Relationships Between Cognitive Appraisals
and Consumption Emotions,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25
(4), 296-304.
Oliver, Richard L. (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-
44.

133

Park, C. Whan, Joseph R. Priester, Deborah J. MacInnis, and Zhong Wan (2009). The
Connection-Prominence Attachment Model (CPAM): A Conceptual and
Methodological Exploration of Brand Attachment. In MacInnis, Deborah J., Park,
C. Whan and Priester, Joseph R. (Eds.), Handbook of Brand Relationships.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 327–341.
Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisingerich, Dawn
Iacobucci (2010), “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual
and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers,” Journal of
Marketing.
Patrick, Vanessa M. , Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park, “Not as Happy as I
Thought I'd Be? Affective Misforecasting and Product Evaluations,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 33, (March), 479-90.
Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2004), “SPSS and SAS Procedures for
Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models,” Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-31.
Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2008) “SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models” Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-31.
Priluck, Randi (2003), “Relationship Marketing can Mitigate Product and Service
Failures,” Journal of Services Marketing, 17 (1), 37-52.
Puto, Christopher P. (1987), “The Framing of Buying Decisions,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (December), 301-15.
Raju, Sekar, H. Rao Unnava and Nicole Votolato Montgomery (2009), “The Moderating
Effect of Brand Commitment on the Evaluation of Competitive Brands,” Journal
of Advertising, 38 (2), 21-36.
Reed, Americus II and Karl F. Aquino (2003), “Moral Identity and the Expanding Circle
of Moral Regard Toward Out-Groups,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84 (6), 1270-286.
Reimann, Martin and Arthur Aron (2009). Self-Expansion Motivation and Inclusion of
Brands in Self: Toward a Theory of Brand Relationships. In MacInnis, Deborah
J., Park, C. Whan and Priester, Joseph R. (Eds.), Handbook of Brand
Relationships. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 65–81.
Rempel, John K., Michael Ross, and John G. Holmes (2001), “Trust and Communicated
Attributions in Close Relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81 (July), 57-64.

134

Rook, Dennis W. and Robert J. Fisher (1995), “Normative Influences on Impulsive
Buying Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 305-13.
Rusbult, Caryl E. and Bram P. Buunk (1993), “Commitment Processes in Close
Relationships: An Interdependent Analysis,” Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 10, 175-204.
Rusbult, Caryl, John M. Martz, and Christopher R. Agnew (1998), “The Investment
Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of
alternatives, and investment size,” Personal Relationships, 5, 357-91.
Rusbult, Caryl E., Julie Verette, Gregory A. Whitney, Linda F. Slovik, and Isaac Lipkus
(1991), “Accommodation Processes in Close Relationships: Theory and
Preliminary Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60 (1) 53-78.
Sen, Sankar and Lauren G. Block (2009), ““Why My Mother Never Threw Anything
Out”: The Effect of Product Freshness on Consumption,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 36 (June), 47-55.
Shiv, Baba and Alexander Fedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay
of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 26 (December), 278-92.
Shrout, Patrick E. and Niall Bolger (2002), “Mediation in Experimental and
Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations,”
Psychological Methods, 7 (4), 422-45.
Strasser, J. B., and Laurie Becklund (1991), Swoosh: The Unauthorized Story of Nike and
the Men Who Played There. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Smith, Amy K. and Ruth N. Bolton (1998), “An Experimental Investigation of Customer
Reactions to Service Failure and Recovery Encounters: Paradox or Peril?,”
Journal of Services Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, (August), 65-81.
Smith, Amy K. and Ruth N. Bolton (2002), “The Effect of Customers’ Emotional
Responses to Service Failures on Their Recovery Effort Evaluations and
Satisfaction Judgments,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (1), 5-
23.
Spangenberg, Eric R. and Anthony G. Greenwald (1999), “Social Influence by
Requesting Self-Prophecy,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8 (1), 61-89.

135

Strelan, Peter and Tanya Covic (2006), “A Review of Forgiveness Process Models and a
Coping Framework to Guide Future Research,” Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 25 (10), 1059-85.
Tax, Stephen, Stephen W. Brown, and Murali Chandrashekaran (1998), “Customer
Evaluations of Service Complaint Experiences: Implications for Relationship
Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 60-76.
Thomsom, Matthew (2006), "Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers'
Stronger Attachments to Celebrities", Journal of Marketing, 70, (July), 104 - 19.
Thomson, Matthew and Allison R. Johnson (2006), "Marketplace and Personal Space:
Investigating the Differential Effects of Attachment Style Across Relationship
Contexts", Psychology & Marketing, (23) August, 711 - 26.
Thomson, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005), "The Ties that
Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers' Emotional Attachments to Brands",
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77 - 91.
Tran, SiSi and Jeffry A. Simpson (2009), “Prorelationship Maintenance Behaviors: The
Joint Roles of Attachment and Commitment,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97 (4), 685-98.
Van Lange, Paul A. M., Caryl E. Rusbult, Stephan M. Drigotas, Ximena B. Arriaga,
Betty S. Witcher, and Chante L. Cox (1997), “Willing to Sacrifice in Close
Relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (6), 1371-95.
Wallendorf, Melanie and Merri Brucks (1993), “Introspection in Consumer Research:
Implementation and Implications,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20
(December), 339-59.
Wieselquist, Jennifer, Caryl E. Rusbult, Craig A. Foster, and Christopher R. Agnew
(1999), “Commitment, Pro-Relationship Behavior, and Trust in Close
Relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (5), 942-66.
Wilkowski, Benjamin, Michael D. Robinson, and Wendy Troop-Gordon (2010), “How
Does Cognitive Control Reduce Anger and Aggression? The Role of Conflict
Monitoring and Forgiveness Processes,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98 (May), 830-40.
Witvliet, Charlotte vanOyen, Thomas E. Ludwig, and Kelly L Vander Laan (2001),
“Granting Forgiveness or Harboring Grudges: Implications for Emotion,
Physiology, and Health,” Psychological Science, 12 (March), 117-23.

136

Wood, Wendy, Gregory J. Pool, Kira Leck, and Daniel Purvis (1996), “Self-Definition,
Defensive Processing, and Influence: The Normative Impact of Majority and
Minority Groups,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (6), 1181-
93.
Worthington, Everett L. Jr. (1998), “The Psychology of Forgiveness: History, Conceptual
Issues, and Overview,” in Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice, ed.
Micael E. McCullough, Kenneth I. Pargament, and Carl E. Thoresen, New York,
NY: The Guilford Press, 1-14.
Worthington, Everett L. Jr. and Nathaniel G. Wade (1999), “The Psychology of
Unforgiveness and Forgiveness and Implications for Clinical Practice,” Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 18 (4), 385-418.
Yovetich, Nancy A. and Caryl E. Rusbult (1994), “Accommodative Behavior in Close
Relationships: Exploring Transformation of Motivation,” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 39, 138-64.
Zechmeister, Jeanne S. and Catherine Romerol (2002), “Victim and Offender Accounts
of Interpersonal Conflict: Autobiographical Narratives of Forgiveness and
Unforgiveness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (April), 675-
86.
Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch Jr., and Qimei Chen (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and
Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 37, 197-206.
Zhang, Ying, Szu-chi Huang and Susan M. Broniarczyk (2010), “Counteractive
Construal in Consumer Goal Pursuit,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (June),
129-42.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Powerful brand influentials: conceptualization, measurement, and distinctiveness of a brand’s influential consumers

PDF

How sequels seduce: consumers' affective expectations for entertainment experiences

PDF

Scale construction and effects of brand authenticity

PDF

How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions

PDF

The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers

PDF

Understanding virality of YouTube video ads: dynamics, drivers, and effects

PDF

Consumers' subjective knowledge influences evaluative extremity and product differentiation

PDF

The effects of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment

PDF

The effects of a customer's comparative processing with positive and negative information on product choice

PDF

Creation and influence of visual verbal communication: antecedents and consequences of photo-text similarity in consumer-generated communication

PDF

For the love of the game? ownership and control in the NBA

PDF

Individual differences in heart rate response and expressive behavior during social emotions: effects of resting cardiac vagal tone and culture, and relation to the default mode network

PDF

Essays on consumer product evaluation and online shopping intermediaries

PDF

Essays on narrative economics, Climate macrofinance and migration

PDF

Beyond the plains: migration to the Pacific and the reconfiguration of America, 1820s-1900s

PDF

Trunk control during dynamic balance: effects of cognitive dual-task interference and a history of recurrent low back pain

Asset Metadata

Creator Donovan, Leigh Anne Novak (author)

Core Title Forgiveness: elucidating the underlying psychological processes that foster brand forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Business Administration

Publication Date 08/02/2012

Defense Date 03/07/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag brand relationships,brand transgressions,Forgiveness,OAI-PMH Harvest,Relationships

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Priester, Joseph R. (committee chair), Lutz, Richard J. (committee member), MacInnis, Deborah J. (committee member), Park, C. Whan (committee member), Wood, Wendy (committee member)

Creator Email lanovakdonovan@gmail.com,leigh.novak.2011@marshall.usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-84964

Unique identifier UC11290231

Identifier usctheses-c3-84964 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DonovanLei-1122.pdf

Dmrecord 84964

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Donovan, Leigh Anne Novak

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA