Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Why firms should be thankful for thankful customers: incidental gratitude enhances judgments about consumption experiences
(USC Thesis Other)
Why firms should be thankful for thankful customers: incidental gratitude enhances judgments about consumption experiences
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
i
WHY FIRMS SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR THANKFUL CUSTOMERS: INCIDENTAL
GRATITUDE ENHANCES JUDGMENTS ABOUT CONSUMPTION EXPERIENCES
by
Arianna R. Uhalde
________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)
August 2017
ii
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of my advisor, Valerie
Folkes. Valerie, thank you for giving me so much of your time and sharing so much wisdom. I
have become a much stronger researcher because of your guidance, and I will always appreciate
you regardless of where I end up. I am incredibly lucky to be one of your students.
I have also had support from my wonderful committee members—Debbie MacInnis, Joe
Priester, and Jesse Graham—during the development of this dissertation and throughout the
Ph.D. program. Debbie, thank you for embodying kindness, success, and humility. You make
everyone feel important, and you go out of your way to help others. I am privileged to have you
as a mentor. Joe, thank you for being my life coach when I needed it most, and for bringing
much-needed laughter to my third year in the Ph.D. program. You are truly one of my favorite
people at USC. Jesse, thank you for welcoming me into your lab when I first started the Ph.D.
program, and for being hilarious, passionate, and encouraging. I always looked forward to your
classes and lab meetings—your positive energy is infectious.
I am fortunate to have gone through the Ph.D. program with Bora Min, the better half of
the 2017 marketing cohort. Bora, thank you for being such a great friend and fun office-mate. I
can’t wait to see all that you accomplish in the future.
Finally, thank you to my boyfriend, close friends, and family for offering continuous love
and support throughout the past five years, even when I wasn’t the most enjoyable person to be
around. I am so grateful for all of you.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. vii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
The Importance of Understanding Drivers of Consumer Satisfaction .......................................................... 1
Research Questions ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Preview of Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Chapters .................................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 5
Consumers’ (Dis)satisfaction and Its Effects ................................................................................................ 5
Positive Affect and Gratitude in the Psychology Literature .......................................................................... 6
Gratitude in the Marketing/Consumer Behavior Literature .......................................................................... 7
Incidental Gratitude May Enhance Satisfaction with Consumption Experiences: A Theoretical
Explanation .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 3: Conceptual Model and Hypotheses ........................................................................ 11
Overview of Conceptual Model .................................................................................................................. 11
Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 4: Empirical Investigation ........................................................................................... 13
Field Data .................................................................................................................................................... 13
Overview of Experiments ............................................................................................................................ 14
iv
Study 1: A Gift Increases Satisfaction with University Course Lectures .................................................... 15
Method ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 17
Study 2A: Incidental Gratitude Increases Satisfaction with a Song Listening Experience ......................... 19
Stimuli Development ............................................................................................................................... 19
Method ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 26
Study 2B Pretest: Incidental Gratitude Activates Positive Other-Oriented Thoughts ................................. 27
Method ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 29
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Study 2B: Mitigating the Effect of Incidental Gratitude on Satisfaction by Inhibiting Content Activation,
Correcting for Misattribution ....................................................................................................................... 31
Method ..................................................................................................................................................... 32
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 34
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Study 3A: Incidental Gratitude Increases Satisfaction with Restaurant Experiences Involving Product
Failure, Reduces Grudge-Holding Against the Restaurant ......................................................................... 37
Method ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 41
Study 3B: Incidental Gratitude Increases Satisfaction with Restaurant Experiences Involving Product
Failure, Reduces Negative Word-of-Mouth About the Restaurant ............................................................. 42
Method ..................................................................................................................................................... 42
v
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 44
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 45
Study 4: Incidental Gratitude Increases Positivity Toward Ridesharing Company Following Service
Failure by Fostering Positive Other-Oriented Thoughts ............................................................................. 46
Methods ................................................................................................................................................... 46
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 48
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 50
Summary of Findings from Empirical Investigation ................................................................................... 50
Chapter 5: Implications and Future Directions ....................................................................... 52
Managerial Implications .............................................................................................................................. 55
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 56
References .................................................................................................................................... 57
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Before,
During, and After the Holiday Season (2015 – 2017) 14
Table 2: Overview of Study Details and Findings 51
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Proctor & Gamble campaign with potential to elicit incidental gratitude (left)
and Nike campaign with potential to elicit incidental pride (right) 2
Figure 2: Conceptual model of relationships among variables 11
Figure 3: Incidental gratitude leads to higher satisfaction with song listening
experience compared to incidental pride 25
Figure 4: Content inhibition mitigates the effect of incidental gratitude on
satisfaction, whereas a misattribution correction does not 35
Figure 5: Incidental gratitude leads to relatively high satisfaction following product
failure compared to incidental pride 40
Figure 6: Incidental gratitude leads to relatively high satisfaction following product
failure compared to neutral affective state 44
Figure 7: Incidental gratitude leads to positivity toward service provider by fostering
positive other-oriented thoughts 49
Figure 8: “Thank America’s Teachers” campaign by Farmer’s Insurance 55
viii
Abstract
Prior research suggests that consumers who are grateful for a firm’s product or service
are motivated to reward the firm in a reciprocal fashion, and do so by repeat purchasing and
spreading positive word-of-mouth about the firm (e.g., Morales, 2005; Palmatier et al., 2009;
Soscia, 2007). When consumers feel grateful to people not associated with a firm (e.g., friends or
family), does this incidental gratitude also have positive effects for a firm? This dissertation
shows that incidental gratitude enhances judgments about the overall consumption experience.
Specifically, incidental gratitude leads to greater satisfaction with consumption experiences
compared to relatively neutral affect (Study 1; Study 3B) and other incidental positive affects
(i.e., pride, general happiness) (Study 2A; Study 3A). Incidental gratitude also leads to greater
positivity toward a firm (Study 4) and mitigates negative responses (Study 3A; Study 3B) when
product or service failure has occurred. Incidental gratitude’s positive effect on satisfaction and
other post-purchase responses seems to be driven by grateful individuals’ tendency to rate
average aspects of a consumption experience more positively (Study 2A; Study 2B), which is
partly due to the activation of thoughts about other people’s goodness (Study 2B Pretest; Study
2B; Study 4) rather than increased other-oriented moral reasoning or decreased self-entitlement
(Study 2C). Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Importance of Understanding Drivers of Consumer Satisfaction
Consumers’ satisfaction is a critical determinant of success for any business (for reviews,
see Oliver, 2014; Szymanski & Henard, 2001; Giese & Cote, 2000). Satisfaction leads to positive
firm-oriented behaviors, such as repeat purchase and loyalty (e.g., Anderson, Fornell, &
Lehmann, 1994; Gustafsson, Johnson, & Roos, 2005; Mittal & Kamakura, 2001) and spreading
positive word-of-mouth (WOM) (e.g., Anderson, 1998). In contrast, dissatisfaction leads to
negative behaviors, such as “exiting” the customer-firm relationship (Singh, 1990) and spreading
negative WOM (e.g., Richins, 1983; Anderson, 1998; Bambauer-Sachse & Mangold, 2011).
These important consequences justify understanding how to increase satisfaction and mitigate
dissatisfaction.
One factor novel to the marketing literature that could influence consumers’ satisfaction
is incidental gratitude. Gratitude is an affective response that is positive and other-oriented (e.g.,
Emmons & McCullough, 2003; McCullough, Tsang, & Emmons, 2004; McCullough, Kimeldorf,
& Cohen, 2008). It arises when an individual (beneficiary) perceives that the intentional action of
another person or source has improved his or her wellbeing (Fredrickson, 2004; Emmons &
Shelton, 2002). In the present research context, “incidental” gratitude suggests that the gratitude
is not elicited by the firm’s product or service (i.e., the target of satisfaction judgments). Rather,
it is elicited by either 1) a non-firm factor in the consumption environment (e.g., a fellow
consumer; a social media post), or 2) a firm factor (e.g., a marketing campaign) that fosters
gratitude for something besides the firm’s product or service. The latter has become more
2
common recently. Procter & Gamble promotes their “Thank you, Mom” campaign, Farmer’s
Insurance encourages everyone to “Thank America’s Teachers,” and the NFL includes a “Salute
to Service” at most football games. These campaigns have the potential to make consumers feel
grateful to mothers, teachers, and military members, respectively. Might they also enhance
consumers’ satisfaction with their consumption experiences? For example, does feeling grateful
for the military lead to a more satisfying football viewing experience?
Whereas consumer psychologists generally accept that positive incidental affect tends to
positively impact judgments (for reviews, see Forgas, 1995; Pham, 2008; Schwarz & Clore,
2007), positive affect is a very broad construct encompassing moods and emotions (Forgas,
1995). The differential effects of distinct positive emotions on consumers’ judgments—
particularly judgments about consumption experiences and firms offering these experiences—are
not well understood. In this dissertation, I focus on comparing the effects of two positive
incidental emotions—gratitude and pride—on judgments about consumption experiences (e.g.,
satisfaction). These two emotions occur for all sorts of reasons, and are commonly facilitated by
marketing campaigns (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Procter & Gamble campaign with potential to elicit incidental gratitude (left)
and Nike campaign with potential to elicit incidental pride (right).
3
Research Questions
The primary purpose of this research is to explore the effect of incidental gratitude on
consumers’ satisfaction with various consumption experiences. With a series of experiments, I
address the following questions:
1. Does incidental gratitude enhance judgments about a consumption experience (e.g.,
satisfaction with the experience) and the firm that delivers this experience relative to
a more neutral state and to another incidental positive emotion (pride)?
2. If incidental gratitude does enhance judgments relative to these other states, what
psychological process accounts for this effect?
3. When product/service failure has occurred, does incidental gratitude mitigate negative
firm-oriented reactions (e.g., grudge-holding; spreading negative word-of-mouth)
relative to these other states?
Preview of Findings
I find that incidental gratitude leads to greater satisfaction with consumption experiences
compared to a relatively neutral state (Study 1; Study 3B) and other incidental positive emotions
(i.e., pride, general happiness) (Study 2A; Study 3A). It also leads to greater positivity toward a
firm (Study 4) and mitigates negative reactions (Study 3A; Study 3B) when product or service
failure has occurred. Incidental gratitude’s positive effect on satisfaction and other post-purchase
responses seems to be driven by grateful individuals’ tendency to rate average aspects of a
consumption experience more positively (Study 2A; Study 2B), which is partly due to activation
of thoughts about other people’s goodness (Study 2B Pretest; Study 2B; Study 4).
4
This dissertation contributes to theorizing about emotion in the fields of consumer
behavior and psychology. While prior consumer behavior research has focused on firm-elicited
integral gratitude and its benefits in the context of consumer-firm relationships (Morales, 2005;
Palmatier et al., 2009; Soscia, 2007), this research shows that incidental gratitude can also
benefit consumers and firms. Moreover, this research provides support for the content activation
explanation of how incidental affect impacts judgments (e.g., Forgas, 1995; Greifeneder, Bless,
& Pham, 2010), and suggests why particular positive feelings (e.g., incidental gratitude) may be
more beneficial than other positive feelings (e.g., incidental pride) for firms to evoke. This
research shows that incidental gratitude activates positive other-oriented thoughts, which can
spread and activate positive thoughts about people associated with consumption experiences.
This, in turn, positively influences satisfaction judgments and other firm-oriented reactions.
Overview of Chapters
The following chapter includes an overview of research in the marketing and consumer
behavior fields on satisfaction and associated behaviors. The second chapter also includes an
overview of the literature from psychology and marketing on positive affect and gratitude, and a
theoretical explanation of how incidental gratitude might positively influence consumers’
satisfaction judgments. The third chapter presents a conceptual model and hypotheses, which are
the basis for the empirical investigation described in the fourth chapter. The fifth and final
chapter includes a general discussion of findings, as well as a discussion of implications for
marketers and directions for future research.
5
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Consumers’ (Dis)satisfaction and Its Effects
Satisfaction and its opposite, dissatisfaction, are frequently cited as critical drivers of
consumer behavior. However, despite decades of research on the (dis)satisfaction construct (for
reviews, see Oliver, 2014; Szymanski & Henard, 2001; Giese & Cote, 2000), researchers have
not yet come to a consensus about its definition. While it is sometimes defined as an affective
response (e.g., Haistead, Hartman, & Schmidt, 1994; Westbrook & Reilly, 1983; Giese & Cote,
2000), other times it is defined as a cognitive judgment that is conceptually distinct from affect
(Oliver, 2014; Westbrook, 1987). I adopt the perspective that (dis)satisfaction is a judgment
preceded by consumption-related affect (Oliver, 1993; 2014). Consistent with Oliver (2014), I
formally define (dis)satisfaction as a consumer’s judgment that a product/service has provided a
pleasant (an unpleasant) level of consumption-related fulfillment. In other words, feelings of
(un)pleasantness that arise from a consumption experience elicit a judgment of (dis)satisfaction,
and this judgment can vary in intensity from mild to extreme (Giese & Cote, 2000).
Satisfaction is desirable from the vantage point of both the consumer and the firm. For
consumers, satisfaction is associated with a host of positive emotions (e.g., joy and interest;
Oliver, 1993) and can provide the foundation for a positive relationship with a product, brand, or
firm that will offer ongoing benefits (e.g., Fournier, 1998; Bolton, 1998). For firms, satisfaction
can lead to increased profits and market share (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994). Thus,
novel strategies to increase consumer satisfaction and mitigate dissatisfaction should be of
interest to consumers and marketers alike. Positive affect has been shown to increase reported
life satisfaction (Schwarz & Clore, 1983), and it seems quite possible that positive affect could
also increase consumers’ satisfaction with consumption experiences.
6
Positive Affect and Gratitude in the Psychology Literature
The traditional conceptualization of “positive affect” is broad and encompasses a host of
different positive emotions, such as happiness, joy, interest, contentment, pleasure, and
amusement. Positive affect has many adaptive functions, as it enables individuals to build their
physical, intellectual, and social resources (Fredrickson, 1998). It helps individuals cope with
negative situations and stress that arises (e.g., Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999; Frederickson et al.,
2000), and increases individuals’ optimism and creative problem solving (Isen, Daubman, &
Nowicki, 1987).
More recent research on positive affect focuses on the differences between various
positive emotions, including gratitude. Gratitude has been called an empathic emotion, rooted in
humans’ ability to empathize with others (Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994). It arises when an individual
(beneficiary) perceives that another person or source has intentionally acted to improve his or
her well-being (Fredrickson, 2004; Emmons & Shelton, 2002). Gratitude has also been called a
“moral” emotion (Haidt, 2003) that is “other praising,” emerging as a response to generosity,
thoughtfulness, or some other moral excellence that benefits the self (Algoe and Haidt 2009).
In the social psychology literature, gratitude has been studied at both the trait and state
levels (e.g., Wood et al., 2008; for reviews, see Emmons and McCullough 2004; Emmons and
Mishra 2011). Gratitude has been shown to increase accessibility to positive memories (Watkins,
Grimm, & Kolts, 2004; Watkins et al., 2008), increase self-esteem (Lin, 2015), improve social
relationships (Algoe, Haidt, & Gable, 2008), and reduce materialism (Polak & McCullough,
2006). Gratitude also has social benefits that transcend the relationship in which the feeling
emerges. A grateful individual tends to consider the welfare of others in general (i.e., the
benefactor and third parties) when contemplating possible actions that reflect his or her gratitude
7
(McCullough, Tsang, & Emmons, 2004; McCullough et al., 2001). Supporting this idea, two
empirical studies find that gratitude increases individuals’ cooperation and contribution to
communal profit (even at the expense of individual gains) in economic games (DeSteno et al.,
2010) and time spent helping a stranger who requests assistance with a task (e.g., taking a
survey) (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006).
Gratitude in the Marketing/Consumer Behavior Literature
In the marketing literature, consumers’ gratitude has been investigated in the context of
consumer-firm relationships, in which the principle of reciprocity (i.e., the firm gives me
something, so I am motivated to give back to the firm) is salient. This research finds that when a
firm elicits customers’ gratitude to them for providing a product or service, those customers are
more likely to purchase from the firm in the future and spread positive WOM about it (Morales,
2005; Palmatier et al., 2009; Soscia, 2007). More specifically, when firms put effort into making
or displaying their products, consumers feel grateful to the firm and so feel compelled to reward
the firm with favorable evaluations and higher willingness to pay for products (Morales, 2005).
Similarly, when a firm invests in customer relationship marketing it generates short-term feelings
of gratitude, and these feelings motivate reciprocal behavior (i.e., consumers purchasing from the
firm) and contribute to improved firm performance (Palmatier et al., 2009). Moreover, when a
goal-congruent outcome (e.g., health) is interpreted as being caused by a seller (e.g., a personal
trainer), consumers feel grateful and are motivated to repay the seller through repurchasing and
positive WOM (Soscia, 2007). In these studies, the consumer (the beneficiary) attributes a
benefit to the firm (the benefactor), and so he “repays” the firms in a tit-for-tat fashion.
8
In other words, marketing research has examined the effects of gratitude when it was
integral to the product experience. Yet, positive affect arises in two forms: integral or incidental
(Bodenhausen, 1993). Integral positive affect is a subjective emotional experience that is relevant
to present judgments and choices (e.g., my friend makes me happy and this influences my
judgments about her). In contrast, incidental positive affect is a subjective emotional experience
that should be irrelevant to present judgments and choices (e.g., my friend makes me happy and
this influences my judgments about dinner) (Lerner and Keltner 2000). The focus of this
dissertation is on the latter, to more fully understand gratitude and its effects on consumers.
Incidental gratitude may be fostered in consumers by 1) non-firm factors in the
consumption environment (e.g., another consumer; a sign; a social media post) or 2) firm factors
(e.g., marketing campaigns) that foster gratitude for something besides the firm’s product or
service, and the effects of incidental gratitude on consumer behavior are less clear. Research on
how consumers’ incidental affect in general influences their evaluations of products and
consumption experiences is limited (Kim, Park, & Schwarz, 2010). Prior studies have focused on
how incidental feelings influence attitudes about advertisements (Kim, Park, & Schwarz, 2010;
Bosmans & Baumgartner, 2005), but not on how incidental feelings influence judgments about
consumption experiences and associated behaviors.
Incidental Gratitude May Enhance Satisfaction with Consumption Experiences: A
Theoretical Explanation
A large body of research indicates that incidental affect influences a variety of judgments
(for reviews, see Forgas 1995; Schwarz, 2004; Schwarz & Clore, 2007; Pham, 2008). For
example, incidental affect has been shown to influence judgments about pictures (e.g., Isen &
9
Shalker, 1982), political issues (e.g., Forgas & Moylan, 1987), past life events (e.g., Clark &
Teasdale, 1982), and life satisfaction (e.g., Schwarz & Clore, 1983). One major theory that
explains how incidental affect influences judgments involves the cognitive content that is
activated by the affect (Forgas, 1995; Greifeneder, Bless, & Pham, 2010).
The theory of content activation states that incidental affect has an indirect effect on
judgments by bringing to mind particular cognitive concepts (e.g., Bower 1981; Forgas and
Bower, 1987; Isen et al., 1978). When individuals form a judgment about a target, they bring to
mind affect-congruent concepts or memories due to spreading activation through an associative
network. If incidental affect is positive, then positive content is activated and judgments become
more positive (and the reverse is true for incidental affect that is negative). Notably, prior
research has focused on the consistency of valence across affect and content. However, similarly
valenced incidental feelings (e.g., pride and gratitude, which are both positive) are likely to bring
different cognitive content to mind. Specifically, incidental gratitude is likely to bring positive
thoughts about others to mind, while incidental pride is likely to bring positive thoughts about
the self to mind. Incidental gratitude might activate thoughts like “other people are more good
than bad” or “others have a lot to offer,” while incidental pride might make someone think “I am
so talented” or “I am deserving of praise.” If a consumer experiences incidental gratitude,
spreading activation might lead him to think, “that salesperson is more good than bad” or “my
friends [who were with me during the consumption experience] are enjoyable,” so when they
evaluate the experience, the evaluation is more positive.
It seems plausible that compared to neutral thought content or positive thoughts about the
self, positive thoughts about others would lead to more positive judgments about consumption
experiences involving other people. One could argue that most consumption experiences involve
10
at least one other person, whether that person is a salesperson or a fellow consumer (e.g., a
customer is served by a waiter at a resort pool; a man watches an entertainer put on a show; a
women eats at a restaurant with friends). I focus on consumption experiences involving other
people, and how an incidental emotion that is positive and other-oriented (gratitude) versus an
incidental emotion that is positive and self-oriented (pride) influences judgments of these
experiences.
11
Chapter 3: Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
Overview of Conceptual Model
The research discussed in the previous section suggests that incidental gratitude is likely
to positively impact judgments of consumption experiences indirectly by activating positive
thoughts about others. This, in turn, could mitigate reactions that could potentially harm the firm,
particularly when product or service failure has occurred (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Conceptual model of relationships among variables.
I predict that individuals who experience incidental gratitude will think positively about
other people in general. When they then form judgments about a consumption experience, their
thoughts about others’ goodness spread and activate positive thoughts about people associated
with the experience (e.g., businesspeople who provided the experience; other consumers who
12
were present; conversations that occurred). This results in more favorable judgments about the
consumption experience and the firm, and decreased intentions for anti-firm behavior (e.g.,
spreading negative WOM). In contrast, an individual who experiences incidental pride or more
general feelings of happiness will be less likely to have such positive other-oriented thoughts, so
their judgments about the consumption experience and firm would not be influenced in the same
way.
Hypotheses
In sum, consumers’ incidental gratitude should enhance satisfaction with consumption
experiences, partly because it activates positive other-oriented thoughts. Moreover, this increased
satisfaction should result in reduced negative actions (e.g., grudge-holding against the firm;
spreading negative WOM) when product or service failure has occurred.
H1: Consumers who experience incidental gratitude (vs. neutral affect or incidental
pride) express more positive judgments about their consumption experience (e.g., more
satisfaction) and the firm that provided the experience.
H2: Incidental gratitude (vs. incidental pride) enhances judgments due to more positive
other-oriented thoughts.
H3: Incidental gratitude (vs. neutral affect or incidental pride) reduces negative reactions
(grudge-holding; negative WOM) when product or service failure occurs.
13
Chapter 4: Empirical Investigation
Field Data
To gain preliminary insight into whether naturally occurring feelings of gratitude might
be positively associated with satisfaction (H1) and negatively associated with anti-firm behaviors
(H3), I conducted cross-sectional research examining seasonal patterns in consumer complaints.
I assume that consumers may experience incidental gratitude more in November and December
than they do in neighboring months due to commonly celebrated holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving,
Hanukkah, Christmas). This could reduce their tendency to complain about marketplace
transactions.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) tracks consumer complaints about
product failures in the financial services industry. An analysis of complaints filed between
September, 2015 and February, 2017 reveals a considerable decline in November and December
for both years (see Table 1). One plausible explanation for this decline is that consumers do not
have time to file complaints around the holidays because they are busy visiting or hosting family
and friends. However, another plausible explanation is that consumers experience heightened
gratitude (due to feeling thankful on Thanksgiving, receiving gifts on Christmas, etc.), so they
feel more positively about others and complain less about consumption experiences. I explore the
latter possibility in a series of controlled experiments.
14
Sept/Oct
# of Complaints
Nov/Dec
# of Complaints
Jan/Feb
# of Complaints
2015 - 2016 47,700 41,400 44,600
2016 - 2017 53,400 46,000 56,000
Table 1. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Before,
During, and After the Holiday Season (2015 – 2017).
Overview of Experiments
Following the collection of CFPB field data, I conducted a series of experiments. Study 1
provides preliminary evidence of consumers’ incidental gratitude increasing satisfaction with a
consumption experience relative to a neutral state (testing H1). Study 2A provides additional
evidence of consumers’ incidental gratitude affecting satisfaction with a consumption
experience, now relative to incidental pride (testing H1). Study 2B explores the psychological
process by which incidental gratitude affects judgments, with a focus on the cognitive content
that incidental gratitude activates (testing H2). Studies 3A and 3B begin to explore the
robustness of the effect, testing whether incidental gratitude enhances satisfaction for
consumption experiences involving product failure and mitigates negative firm-oriented
reactions (testing H1 and H3). The product failure context was chosen for these studies because
when product/service failure occurs, the firm is likely to be concerned about mitigating
consumers’ negative reactions so they remain customers. Study 4 uses a service failure context,
and looks at whether positive thoughts about others mediate the effect of incidental gratitude on
judgments about the firm (testing H2).
15
Study 1: A Gift Increases Satisfaction with University Course Lectures
The purpose of Study 1 is to provide initial evidence of the relationship between
incidental gratitude and favorable judgments about a consumption experience (a course lecture),
as well as a person delivering that experience (the professor) (H1). This study involves an
experimental manipulation that is common in the literature on positive affect—giving study
participants an unexpected gift, (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999)—which more recent research
suggests will evoke the specific feeling of gratitude (Frederickson, 2004). Previous studies that
have used this manipulation show that receiving an unexpected gift leads to prosocial behavior
(e.g., helping), but not that it can influence satisfaction judgments about an unrelated
consumption experience.
Method
Participants. Participants (N = 78) were undergraduate business school students
completing the study for partial course credit. Nearly two-thirds of participants were male
(35.9% female; 64.1% male).
Procedures. Participants were asked to complete a two-page paper survey, which
included questions about the most recent Principles of Marketing lecture they attended (all
participants were enrolled in Principles of Marketing as a prerequisite for participating in the
subject pool). Course evaluations for Principles of Marketing at this university are generally
positive. Data was collected during the last behavioral lab session of the semester to minimize
suspicion about the manipulation of gratitude (e.g., a pen given as a gift). At the end of the
16
semester, materials (e.g., pens) are no longer needed to run future study sessions in the
behavioral lab.
Participants were randomly assigned to either the gift (gratitude) or non-gift (control)
condition. In the gratitude condition, the experimenter said the following upon dropping off the
survey and a pen (which had a USC logo on it, and was red and yellow):
Here’s your survey. The pen is an end-of-semester gift for you. Go ahead and use it to fill
out the survey. Raise your hand when you’re done. I’ll come by and pick up the survey,
but you can keep the pen.
In the control condition, the experimenter said the following as she dropped off the survey and a
pen:
Here’s your survey. Raise your hand when you’re done. I’ll come by and pick up the
survey and the pen.
After participants completed the survey, the experimenter collected the survey from all
participants in the gratitude condition (these participants were allowed to take the pen home with
them; all 40 participants took the pen), and the survey and the pen from all participants in the
control condition (n = 38).
Measures. Satisfaction with the Principles of Marketing lecture was measured using the
following question: Overall, how was the last BUAD 307 lecture you attended? This question
was posed as four separate items with the following anchors (1 = very bad, 9 = very good; 1 =
very negative, 9 = very positive; 1= very dissatisfying, 9 = very satisfying; 1 = very
uninteresting, 9 = very interesting). The mean of these four items was computed to form a
satisfaction with lecture index (α = .93). Additionally, satisfaction with the professor’s delivery
of the lecture was measured (How was your professor’s delivery of the last BUAD 307 lecture
17
you attended?) with similar anchors (1 = very bad, 9 = very good; 1 = very negative, 9 = very
positive; 1= very dissatisfying, 9 = very satisfying; 1 = very unengaging, 9 = very engaging). The
mean of these four items was computed to form a satisfaction with professor’s delivery index (α
= .95). Finally, participants were asked when the last lecture they attended was (this week; last
week; prior to last week) and their professor’s name.
Results
Chi square tests were conducted to ensure there was no difference between the gratitude
or control condition in terms of 1) students’ frequency of attending lecture, or 2) their professors.
The relationships between condition and participants’ most frequent lecture attended (X
2
(2, N =
78) = 2.00, p = .368) and condition and participants’ Principles of Marketing professors (X
2
(4, N
= 78) = 4.13, p = .389) were not significant, reflecting successful randomization.
Providing initial support for H1, participants in the gratitude condition reported being
more satisfied with the most recent Principles of Marketing lecture they attended (M = 6.20, SD
= 1.77) than those in the control condition (M = 5.27, SD = 1.82), F (1, 76) = 5.23, p = .025.
Moreover, participants in the gratitude condition reported being more satisfied with their
professor’s delivery of the lecture (M = 6.62, SD = 1.92) than those in the control condition (M =
5.68, SD = 1.95), F (1, 76) = 4.60, p = .035.
Discussion
Study 1 provides preliminary evidence of the relationship between consumers’ incidental
gratitude and their satisfaction with a consumption experience, as well as the person delivering
that experience (H1). However, this study did not include measures of emotions (to serve as a
18
manipulation check, ensuring that participants who received the pen as a gift felt more grateful
than participants who received the pen as a tool to fill out their survey). Moreover, it is unclear
whether there is something unique about incidental gratitude (i.e., something that does not
characterize other incidental positive affective states) that enhances consumers’ satisfaction.
In subsequent studies, manipulation check measures follow each manipulation of
incidental gratitude. In addition, the effects of incidental gratitude are compared to those of
incidental pride and happiness, to rule out the possibility that all incidental positive feelings lead
to similar effects.
19
Study 2A: Incidental Gratitude Increases Satisfaction with a Song Listening Experience
The purpose of Study 2A is to provide additional evidence that incidental gratitude
affects consumers’ overall satisfaction with consumption experiences (H1). Attribute satisfaction
has been shown to be an important determinant of overall satisfaction (Spreng, MacKenzie, &
Olshavsky, 1996). Therefore, Study 2A also examines whether grateful consumers’ judge
particular aspects (attributes) of an experience—bad, average, and/or good attributes—more
favorably, thus enhancing overall satisfaction. Given that positive affect makes positive
cognitions more accessible (Bower 1981), it is possible that incidental gratitude has a positive
halo effect on judgments of all attributes. However, research on how consumers use attribute
information to construct overall satisfaction judgments suggests this might not be the case.
Average attributes are ambiguous, and so evaluations of them tend to be more malleable than
evaluations of positive or negative attributes (Wirtz, 2000). Thus, it also seems possible that
incidental gratitude could positively impact judgments about average attributes, but not about
good or bad attributes. Study 2A tests these two possibilities.
Stimuli Development
While Study 1 involved participants recalling and evaluating an experience from their
everyday lives (i.e., a course lecture), Study 2A involves participants going through a more
controlled experience (i.e., listening to amateurs singing popular songs; method adapted from
Sharif and Oppenheimer 2016). The research team gathered several Justin Bieber song clips from
various male amateur (non-professional) singers. Each clip is approximately 45 seconds in
length. The researchers’ goal was to identify singing performances of varying quality, ranging
20
from very bad to very good. This would enable the creation of a listening experience comprised
of five performances, with each performance representing an attribute of the overall experience.
The goal was to create an experience that is average overall, with attributes that are good, bad,
and average.
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Workers were compensated $.25 to listen to three randomly
assigned singing performances, and rate each performance on quality of the singers’ voice (-4 =
very bad; 0 = average; +4 = very good) and liking of the singer’s voice (1 = not at all; 9 = very
much). Based on their ratings, five singing performances were selected: one bad performance (a
cover of “Sorry”) (M
quality
= 1.68, SD = 1.03; M
liking
= 1.51, SD = 1.15); three average
performances (covers of “Be Alright,” “U Smile,” and “Purpose”) (average song 1: M
quality
=
5.39, SD = 1.52; M
liking
= 4.67, SD = 2.15; average song 2: M
quality
= 4.20, SD = 1.83; M
liking
=
3.40, SD = 2.12; average song 3: M
quality
= 4.69, SD = 1.49; M
liking
= 3.67, SD = 1.81), and one
very good performance (a cover of “Fall”) (M
quality
= 7.28, SD = 1.10; M
liking
= 7.00, SD = 1.49).
These performances were used as stimuli for Studies 2A and 2B.
Method
Participants. Participants (N = 186) were Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Workers between
the ages of 18 and 28 who completed the study for $1.00 (M
age
= 24.57; 38.7% male and 61.3%
female). These Workers were also self-reported fans of Justin Bieber’s music (M
fandom
= 7.65 on
9-point scale). The following statement was included in the study description: “To participate in
this study, you must consider yourself to be a fan of Justin Bieber’s music” (although no
participants were excluded based on their response to the question gauging the extent of their
fandom).
21
Procedures. This computer-based study was described as a “music memory” study,
during which participants would be asked to listen to songs, complete an unrelated writing task,
and then evaluate the songs they heard. First, all participants listened to a “test song” (a female
singing Bieber’s “I’ll Show You”), and were asked to adjust the volume on their devices so they
would not need to during subsequent songs. A female singer was used to distinguish the test song
from the main set of songs that would be evaluated (which were all sung by males).
Participants then listened to the five different performances discussed above. Each song
title appeared on the screen, with instructions to click “play” and listen to the performance all the
way through once. Participants were randomly assigned to listen to the performances in one of
the following two orders:
1. Average (Be Alright), Good (Fall), Average (U Smile), Bad (Sorry), Average
(Purpose)
2. Average (Be Alright), Bad (Sorry), Average (U Smile), Good (Fall), Average
(Purpose)
Next, participants were told the second part of the study involved completing an
unrelated writing task. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two incidental emotion
conditions: gratitude or pride. Participants in the gratitude condition were prompted to remember
times when they were grateful to someone else (method adapted from Emmons and McCullough
2003). The prompt read as follows:
There are times when you might have been grateful to another person. If you were
grateful to someone else, you experienced a feeling of appreciation or thanks for them.
This could be for something small or something big they did. Please recall occasions
from the past six months when you were grateful to another person.
22
Similarly, participants in the pride condition were prompted to remember times they were
proud of themselves with the following:
There are times when you might have been proud of yourself. If you were proud of
yourself, you experienced a feeling of pleasure or satisfaction because you accomplished
something. This could be for something small or something big you did. Please recall
occasions from the past six months when you were proud of yourself.
Participants were asked to write a paragraph (3 – 4 sentences) describing a time they
were grateful to someone else (proud of themself). They were asked to do this for two different
incidents. Upon completing the writing task, participants were prompted to recall their
experience listening to songs at the beginning of the study and provide feedback about it.
Measures. Participants were asked to describe incidents that made them feel either
gratitude or pride (open-ended). After describing each incident, participants were asked the
following: When thinking about the occasion you just described, how do you feel? This question
was followed by two items to measure gratitude (appreciative of others; grateful to others), two
items to measure pride (proud of yourself; pleased with yourself), and two items to measure
happiness (happy; content) (for all emotion measures, 1 = not at all; 9 = very much). For each
incident description, the mean gratitude, pride, and happiness score was computed; then the
mean across incidents was computed for each affect resulting in a gratitude index (α = .77), pride
index (α = .85), and happiness index (α = .75).
Overall satisfaction with the listening experience was measured with the question,
“Overall, how was your experience listening to the songs?” with three response scales (1 = very
bad, 9 = very good; 1 = very negative, 9 = very positive; 1= very dissatisfying, 9 = very
satisfying). The mean of these three items was computed to form a satisfaction index (α = .94).
23
Participants were also asked to recall whatever they remembered from the listening experience
(Please tell us everything you remember about the singers and songs you heard. What did you
think about each of the performances?; free response). For each song, participants were asked to
rate the quality of the singer’s performance (For each song, what do you think of the singer’s
performance?; 1 = extremely bad; 5 = average; 9 = extremely good). For the three average
songs, the mean of quality ratings was computed. Common demographic questions (e.g., age,
gender) were also included.
Results
Order of Songs. The order in which participants listened to songs did not affect any of the
dependent variables of interest. Thus, the data was collapsed across orders and analyzed by
incidental emotion condition only.
Open-Ended Recall of Affective Incidents. Participants recalled instances when they felt
grateful or proud. For example, a participant in the gratitude condition recalled:
I am grateful to my Mom who recently took me on a vacation to Disneyworld Orlando
and Universal Studios as a graduation gift for completing my Masters degree. We spent 7
days in Orlando and went to all the Disney parks. On our last day, we decided to make a
last minute trip to Kennedy Air Space museum before heading back to the airport. The
trip was a lot of fun and something that I will remember forever. My mom is the best!
A participant in the pride condition recalled:
I am really proud of myself for getting an A- in my audit class. It was notoriously known
for being an extremely hard class. Thus, I made sure to study a lot for it. The studying
paid off because I was always above average and was able to get an A- in the class!
24
Manipulation Check. The manipulation check revealed that gratitude was a distinct
positive emotional experience from pride and happiness. A factor analysis with Varimax rotation
and two factors explains 83.82% of variance in scores, with gratitude items loading on one factor
and pride/happiness items loading on the other. Participants in the incidental gratitude condition
felt more gratitude (M
gratitude
= 7.98 vs. M
pride
= 7.26, F (1, 184) = 10.33, p = .002), and
participants in the incidental pride condition felt more pride (M
gratitude
= 6.08 vs. M
pride
= 8.22, F
(1, 184) = 82.15, p < .001). Notably, compared to participants in the gratitude condition,
participants in the pride condition felt more happiness (M
gratitude
= 7.70 vs. M
pride
= 8.09, F (1,
184) = 5.45, p = .021). The latter is important because it suggests that if incidental gratitude
elicits higher satisfaction than incidental pride, it is not simply due to positive feelings in general
or an elevated mood.
Satisfaction. A one-way ANCOVA was conducted to determine whether incidental
emotion significantly influenced satisfaction with the listening experience, controlling for
participants’ self-reported fandom for Justin Bieber. Supporting H1, participants in the incidental
gratitude condition reported being more satisfied with their listening experience (M = 5.40, SD =
1.73) than those in the incidental pride condition (M = 4.83, SD = 1.85), F (1,183) = 5.49, p =
.020 (see Figure 1). When the three emotion indices (gratitude, pride, and happiness) and fandom
were entered into a regression to predict satisfaction with the experience, only gratitude was a
marginally significant predictor (B
gratitude
= .167, p = .089; B
pride
= -.009, p = .910; B
happiness
=.084,
p = .598).
25
Figure 3. Incidental gratitude leads to higher satisfaction with song listening experience
compared to incidental pride.
Open-Ended Recall About Songs. In general, participants tended to list singers in the
order they heard them, and offer some sort of positive or negative statement about each voice
they recalled. For example:
The first singer was pretty mediocre, not terrible but not good either. The second singer
(Fall) was really good and I liked that one. The third singer was decent, but his voice was
a little unusual and just not to my taste. The fourth singer (Sorry) was terrible, that one
was annoying to listen to. The fifth singer was pretty good, a little off key at times but
actually a good singer.
The amount of information that participants recalled did not differ across conditions, as
indicated by text responses that were similarly long in terms of character count (M
gratitude
=
211.66 vs. M
pride
= 232.10, F (1, 184) = 1.05 p = .307). This suggests that grateful participants
are not simply more compliant or accommodating of the researcher (leading to more positive
judgments about the listening experience)—if that were the case, they should also write more.
26
Perceived Quality of Songs. Interestingly, incidental affect influenced participants’
perceived quality of some aspects of the experience (i.e., some specific singing performances).
While it did not affect participants’ quality perceptions for good or bad singers, incidental affect
did affect quality perceptions of average singers. Specifically, participants in the incidental
gratitude condition rated the average singers more favorably (M = 5.74, SD = 1.39) than
participants in the pride condition (M = 5.19, SD = 1.81), F (1, 184) = 5.39 (p = .021).
Discussion
Study 2A provides additional evidence of incidental gratitude’s positive effect on
consumers’ judgments about a consumption experience, including their reported satisfaction
(H1). The results suggest that these enhanced judgments are due to grateful consumers’
propensity to evaluate average aspects of an experience more positively than they otherwise
would (whereas their evaluations of overtly good or bad aspects of an experience do not change).
Hence, the effect does not appear to be a general halo effect that enhances judgments about all
aspects of an experience. Nor does the effect seem to increase the accessibility of only positive
memories, in which case judgments of positive aspects of the experience would be more positive.
Study 2B examines the process by which incidental gratitude influences judgments. In
the introduction of this dissertation, I propose that incidental gratitude enhances judgments
because of the cognitive content it activates (i.e., positive thoughts about others). The pretest of
Study 2B, reported next, confirms that incidental gratitude activates such thoughts. Following the
pretest, Study 2B tests whether disrupting the spreading activation of positive thoughts about
other people mitigates the effect of incidental gratitude on judgments.
27
Study 2B Pretest: Incidental Gratitude Activates Positive Other-Oriented Thoughts
This pretest compares the thoughts associated with incidental gratitude and incidental
pride (the control condition used in Studies 2A, 3A, and 4). I argue that incidental gratitude
activates positive thoughts about other people in general, so I developed a measure of positive
other-oriented thoughts (i.e., cognitions that reflect belief in others’ goodness). However, other
kinds of thoughts may also characterize gratitude and differentiate it from another incidental
emotion like pride. This pretest examines whether the manipulation of incidental gratitude used
in most of my studies (i.e., the writing task) elicits positive thoughts about people in general and
does not influence other kinds of thoughts.
While a number of constructs could be associated with incidental gratitude and incidental
pride, I selected two other constructs that I thought might contribute to differences in the effects
of these two feelings: other-oriented moral reasoning and state entitlement. Other-oriented moral
reasoning is cognitive processing that reflects responsibility for and concern about the welfare of
others (Penner et al., 1995). It seems plausible that incidental gratitude would positively predict
other-oriented moral reasoning. If someone is concerned about others’ welfare, he or she might
be more understanding of mistakes others make, and this could ultimately increase satisfaction.
State entitlement is defined as thinking that one deserves more and is entitled to more
than others (adapted from Campbell et al., 2005). It seems plausible that incidental gratitude
could reduce someone’s sense of entitlement, given the help they received from others would be
salient; this might lead to lower standards by which they judge a consumption experience and
increased satisfaction. Conversely, it is possible that incidental pride could increase someone’s
28
sense of entitlement, which could heighten their standards for a consumption experience and
ultimately reduce their satisfaction.
Method
Participants. Participants (N = 366) were Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Workers between
the ages of 18 and 81 who were completing the study for $.50 (M
age
= 36.37; 43.7% male and
56.3% female).
Procedures. This study was describes as a “life events” study, during which participants
would be asked us recall a particular type of life event and report their feelings and thoughts
associated with the event.
The writing task was the same task from Study 2A. Participants were randomly assigned
to one of two incidental affect conditions: gratitude or pride. Like in Study 2A, they wrote about
times they felt grateful to someone else or proud of themselves, and reported on feelings of
gratitude, pride, and happiness.
After the writing task, participants were randomly assigned to respond to one of three
measures: positive other-oriented thoughts, other-oriented moral reasoning, or self-entitlement.
Lastly, they completed demographic measures.
Measures. The writing task, including measures of gratitude, pride, and happiness, was
identical to that used in Study 2A. Indices of gratitude (α = .72), pride (α = .87), and happiness (α
= .85) were formed. A positive other-oriented thoughts index (α = .86) included the following
items: I think others have a lot to offer, I think others are more good than bad, and Even if
someone makes a mistake, I have confidence in their ability to recover. Other-oriented moral
reasoning (Penner et al., 1995) (α = .96) included the following: I would make decisions based
on my concern for other people, I would make decisions based on my concern for others' well-
29
being, and I would make decisions that maximize the help others receive. State entitlement
(adapted from Campbell et al., 2004) (α = .66) included: I deserve good things to happen to me, I
am entitled to positive things and experiences, and I deserve special treatment. Common
demographic questions (e.g., age, gender) were also included.
Results
Open-Ended Recall of Affective Incidents. Participants descriptions were very similar to
those from Study 2A.
Manipulation Check. Very similar to the pattern observed in Study 2A, gratitude emerged
as a distinct positive affective experience from pride and happiness. A factor analysis with
Varimax rotation and two factors explains 87.56% of variance in scores, with gratitude items
loading on one factor and pride/happiness items loading on the other. Participants in the
incidental gratitude condition felt more gratitude (M
gratitude
= 8.21 vs. M
pride
= 6.84, F (1, 364) =
66.08, p < .001), and participants in the incidental pride condition felt more pride (M
gratitude
=
5.59 vs. M
pride
= 8.16, F (1, 364) = 252.96, p < .001). Once again, participants in the pride
condition felt more happiness than participants in the gratitude condition (M
gratitude
= 7.53 vs.
M
pride
= 8.01, F (1, 364) = 11.87, p = .001), suggesting the effect of incidental gratitude on
satisfaction is not simply due to a general happy mood.
Thought Content. Participants in the incidental gratitude condition were higher in terms
of positive other-oriented thoughts than participants in the incidental pride condition (M
gratitude
=
7.79 vs. M
pride
= 6.97, F (1, 120) = 12.27, p = .001). While it seemed quite possible that
participants in the incidental gratitude condition would report more other-oriented moral
reasoning, participants did not differ across conditions (M
gratitude
= 7.26 vs. M
pride
= 7.20, F (1,
30
121) = .044, p = .833). Moreover, while it seemed reasonable to predict that participants in the
incidental gratitude condition would report lower state entitlement, participants did not
significantly differ across conditions (M
gratitude
= 5.59 vs. M
pride
= 5.51, F (1, 119) = .072, p =
.789).
Discussion
This pretest finds that incidental gratitude is associated with positive thoughts about
people in general. Together with Studies 1 and 2A, this pretest provides preliminary support for
H2. The activation of positive other-oriented thoughts spreads to targets being evaluated (e.g.,
the singers in Studies 2A), and this enhances satisfaction. Building on this, Study 2B tests
whether inhibiting the activation of positive thoughts about others in general mitigates the effect
of incidental gratitude on satisfaction.
31
Study 2B: Mitigating the Effect of Incidental Gratitude on Satisfaction by Inhibiting
Content Activation, Correcting for Misattribution
The purpose of Study 2B is to further explore the process by which incidental gratitude
enhances consumers’ judgments about a consumption experience (H2). Based on a theory of
content activation (e.g., Bower 1981; Forgas and Bower, 1987; Isen et al., 1978), I argue that
incidental gratitude indirectly enhances satisfaction because it activates positive thoughts about
other people, which then spreads and activates positive thoughts about anyone associated with
the consumption experience. However, there is an alternative theoretical explanation for how
incidental gratitude might enhance judgments. The theory of feelings as information (e.g.,
Schwarz & Clore, 1983, 1988, 2007; Pham, 2009) posits that incidental gratitude directly
influences satisfaction judgments as it provides experiential information on which people base
their judgments. When individuals form a judgment about a target, they ask themselves questions
like “How do I feel about it?” (Shwarz & Clore, 1988). They tend to misattribute their feelings,
which did not come from the target, to the target, and then judge the target consistent with their
incidental affect. If incidental affect is negative, judgments become more negative; if incidental
affect is positive, judgments become more positive.
If incidental gratitude activates unique cognitive content and this content affects
judgments, inhibiting the content that gratitude brings to mind should eliminate its positive
effect on satisfaction (Bower, 1981). Gratitude is positive, other-oriented, and associated with
broad thinking (Fredrickson, 2004), so it is likely that incidental gratitude activates concepts
related to others’ goodness. Thus, one could inhibit content associated with incidental gratitude
by restricting positive thoughts about other people in general (e.g., people have so much to offer)
32
to the source of incidental gratitude (e.g., the individual who made me feel grateful has so much
to offer). If incidental gratitude provides strong experiential information that consumers use to
inform their judgments (supporting the feelings as information account), correcting for
misattribution should eliminate the positive effect of incidental gratitude on satisfaction
(Schwarz & Clore, 2007).
Method
Participants. Participants (N = 180) were Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Workers between
the ages of 18 and 30 who were completing the study for $1.00 (M
age
= 25.93; 46.7% male and
53.3% female). These Workers were also self-reported fans of Justin Bieber’s music (M
fandom
=
7.57 on 9-point scale). Like in Study 2A, a statement was included in the study description to
increase the likelihood that participants were fans of Justin Bieber’s music, but no participants
were excluded based on their response to a question gauging the extent of their fandom.
Procedures. This study was once again described as a “music memory” study.
Procedures were very similar to those of Study 2A. All participants were asked to listen to a
series of amateurs sing Justin Bieber songs. They heard a test singing performance, followed by
the set of five singing performances that would later be evaluated. Given that the order in which
the performances were presented did not affect evaluations in Study 2A, one order was chosen
for Study 2B—Average (Be Alright), Good (Fall), Average (U Smile), Bad (Sorry), Average
(Purpose).
Following the listening experience, participants completed the writing task as they did in
Study 2A. This time, all participants received the prompt designed to elicit incidental gratitude,
33
and wrote about incidents when they felt grateful to someone else. After each incident, they
reported the extent to which they felt grateful to others.
Unlike before, participants in Study 2B were randomly assigned to one spreading
activation condition (content inhibition: yes vs. no) and one misattribution condition
(misattribution correction: yes vs. no). Participants who were assigned to receive the disruption
of spreading activation viewed a screen with the following message after describing incidents
when they were grateful to others:
Those individuals who made you feel grateful are incredibly unique and special. You are
fortunate to have such exceptional individuals in your life.
Participants who were not assigned to receive this disruption viewed a screen that simply read,
“Please proceed to the next screen.”
Participants who were assigned to receive the misattribution correction viewed a screen
with the following message right before evaluating their listening experience (based on a
commonly used misattribution correction manipulation; Schwarz & Clore, 2003):
Now we will ask you to evaluate your experience listening to the singers. Your
evaluations could be influenced by the incidents of gratitude you recalled as part of this
study.
Participants who were not assigned to receive this correction viewed a screen that read, “Now we
will ask you to evaluate your experience listening to the singers. Please proceed to the next
screen.”
Like in Study 2A, participants were asked to provide feedback about their experience at
the beginning of the study.
34
Measures. Measures were similar to those used in Study 2A. All participants described
incidents when they felt grateful to someone else, then reported how grateful they felt after each
incident. A gratitude index (α = .87) was created as it was previously. Participants also reported
on overall satisfaction with the experience (α = .96) and perceived quality of each singing
performance. As in Study 2A, means were computed for perceived quality for the three average
songs. Common demographic questions (e.g., age, gender) were also included.
Results
Open-Ended Recall of Affective Incidents. Responses were similar to those reported in
the incidental gratitude condition in Study 2A.
Gratitude. Participants felt a high level of gratitude (M = 8.23, SD = .99), and the
strength of the affective experience was similarly high across conditions.
Satisfaction. A two-way ANCOVA was conducted to determine whether content
inhibition and/or misattribution correction influences satisfaction with the listening experience,
controlling for participants’ self-reported fandom for Justin Bieber. While misattribution
correction does not affect overall satisfaction, F (1, 175) = .298 (p = .586), there was only a
significant main effect for content inhibition, F (1, 175) = 5.66 (p = .018). Providing initial
support for H2, when content associated with incidental gratitude is inhibited (i.e., the source of
participants' gratitude is said to be unique and uncommon, so participants are less likely to think
people are good in general), participants report being less satisfied (M = 5.19, SD = 1.71) than
when there is no disruption (M = 5.88, SD = 2.06) (see Figure 4).
35
Figure 4. Content inhibition mitigates the effect of incidental gratitude on satisfaction,
whereas a misattribution correction does not.
Perceived Quality of Songs. Manipulating content activation and misattribution did not
affect participants’ perceptions of good or bad aspects of the experience. While misattribution
correction did not affect evaluations of average singers, content inhibition did. When there is no
inhibition of content activation, a two-way ANCOVA revealed that participants are marginally
more likely to evaluate average singers as higher quality (M = 6.01, SD = 1.67) than when there
is inhibition (M = 5.62, SD = 1.57), F (1, 175) = 2.41 (p = .122).
Discussion
With the pretest, the results of Study 2B suggest that incidental gratitude positively
influences satisfaction judgments through the content it brings to mind. Incidental gratitude
appears to activate positive thoughts about people in general (supporting H2), and this process is
undermined when the positive thoughts are constrained to a person’s source of gratitude.
36
The studies described previously examine the role of incidental gratitude in consumers’
judgment formation for relatively pleasant experiences. Does the positive effect of incidental
gratitude on satisfaction emerge even for experiences involving product failure? Studies 2A and
2B suggest that while incidental gratitude might not influence judgments about an overtly
negative aspect of an experience, it could cause consumers to judge average aspects of an
experience involving product failure more positively, thereby enhancing satisfaction with the
experience overall. Subsequent studies explore this issue.
37
Study 3A: Incidental Gratitude Increases Satisfaction with Restaurant Experiences
Involving Product Failure, Reduces Grudge-Holding Against the Restaurant
Study 3A begins to examine the robustness of the effect of incidental gratitude on
consumers’ judgments and associated reactions. Study 1 involved what were likely to have been
positive experiences and Studies 2A and 2B involved an overall average experience. This study
examines whether consumers’ incidental gratitude enhances judgments even for experiences
involving product failure (H1). Unlike in Studies 2A and 2B, where participants participated in a
relatively controlled experience (i.e., listening to a set of pre-selected performances), in Studies
3A and 3B participants are asked to recall and evaluate more complex product failure
experiences from their everyday lives. Specifically, participants are asked about a time they had
food at a restaurant that was worse than expected. In addition, Study 3A explores whether
incidental gratitude mitigates consumers’ tendency to hold a grudge against the firm (the
restaurant) responsible for product failure (H3).
Method
Participants. Participants (N = 101) were undergraduate business school students
completing the study for partial course credit. They were ages 18 – 29 (M = 20.06), and just over
half were female (53.5% female; 46.5% male).
Procedures. The study was described as a “life events” study, during which participants
would be asked to report on different types of life events they had experienced in the past six
months. First, all participants were asked to report on an incident of product failure in a
restaurant context (i.e., food that was worse than expected). The prompt read as follows:
38
There are times when your expectations for a company's product or service are not met.
We would like to know about a time when you were a customer of a restaurant, and the
food was not up to your expectations. Please tell us about a restaurant experience from
the past six months when the food did not meet your expectations.
Next, participants were asked to recall a “different type of life event.” Participants were
randomly assigned to one of two incidental emotion conditions: gratitude or pride (like in Study
2A). The writing task was similar to that used in Study 2A, including measures of emotions to
serve as a manipulation check.
After completing the writing task, participants were told they would be further evaluating
the various incidents they recalled (e.g., the incident at the restaurant; the incidents when they
felt grateful/proud), although they would only be asked to evaluate the restaurant experience.
They were then asked a series of questions about their restaurant experience.
Measures. Participants were asked to describe a time at a restaurant when their food did
not meet their expectations (open-ended). The writing task, including affect measures, was
similar to that used in Studies 2A and 2B. Affect items led to the creation of a gratitude index (α
= .99), pride index (α = .99), and happiness index (α = .96). Overall satisfaction was measured
with a similar question to the one used in Studies 1, 2A, and 2B (Overall, how was your
experience at the restaurant?) with three anchors (1 = very bad, 9 = very good; 1 = very
negative, 9 = very positive; 1= very dissatisfying, 9 = very satisfying). The mean of these three
items was computed to form a satisfaction index (α = .94). Participants’ likelihood of holding a
grudge against the firm was measured by the following item: Do you hold a grudge against the
restaurant for giving you food that was worse than expected? (1 = definitely not; 9 = definitely).
39
Lastly, demographic measures (e.g., age and gender) were included. These did not affect the
results and so are ignored in the following analyses.
Results
Open-Ended Recall of Product Failures at Restaurants. Participants readily recalled
product failure experiences at a restaurant from the previous six months, with answers ranging
from “The food was just cold and unappealing. I went for breakfast with some friends and it felt
very processed” to “I didn't really like the dessert I ordered; it could've been tastier and it wasn't
at all what I expected. I was hoping for something more indulgent but I got tiny little dessert
dish”.
Open-Ended Recall of Affective Incidents. Participants recalled instances when they felt
grateful for others or proud of themself, similar to those recalled in Studies 2A and 2C.
Manipulation Check. The manipulation check suggests that the manipulation of three
distinct affective states was successful. A factor analysis with Varimax rotation and three factors
explains 97.78% of variance in scores, and the items loaded on each factor as expected.
Participants in the incidental gratitude condition felt more gratitude (M
gratitude
= 8.19 vs. M
pride
=
6.35, F (1, 99) = 34.85, p < .001), and participants in the incidental pride condition felt more
pride (M
gratitude
= 6.00 vs. M
pride
= 7.80, F (1, 99) = 25.70, p < .001). Importantly, participants felt
similar levels of happiness across conditions (M
gratitude
= 7.63 vs. M
pride
= 7.85, F (1, 99) = .682, p
= .41), ruling out the possibility that general happiness drives boosted satisfaction following
product failure.
Satisfaction. Supporting H1, participants in the incidental gratitude condition reported
being more satisfied with their experience involving product failure (M = 4.60, SD = 1.74) than
those in the pride condition (M = 3.64, SD = 1.65), F (1, 99) = 8.02, p = .006 (see Figure 4).
40
Moreover, when the three affect indices (gratitude, pride, and happiness) were entered into a
regression to predict satisfaction, only gratitude was a significant predictor (B
gratitude
= .348, p =
.001; B
pride
= .034, p = .748; B
happiness
= -.103, p = .531).
Figure 5. Incidental gratitude leads to relatively high satisfaction following product
failure compared to incidental pride.
Grudge-Holding. Supporting H3, incidental gratitude (condition = 1; else = 0) mitigates
participants’ likelihood of holding a grudge against the firm responsible for product failure (i.e.,
the restaurant) by increasing consumers’ post-purchase satisfaction. Incidental gratitude
positively predicts satisfaction (a = 0.96), which is negatively related to grudge-holding (b = -
0.87). A bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect (ab = -0.84) was
below zero (-1.49 to -0.29).
41
Discussion
Study 3A provides additional support for H1, as well as support for H3. Relative to other
incidental positive emotions (pride, happiness), incidental gratitude leads consumers to report
more satisfaction with an experience involving product failure, which reduces their likelihood of
holding a grudge against the firm. Building on this, Study 3B continues to examine the
robustness of incidental gratitude’s positive effect on consumers’ satisfaction. It once again
considers experiences involving product failure, but this time compares the effect of incidental
gratitude to that of less emotionally charged incidents involving others. Is it possible that the
merely thinking about other people is enough to elicit positive thoughts about others and boost
satisfaction, and that eliciting emotion (feelings of gratitude) is not essential?
42
Study 3B: Incidental Gratitude Increases Satisfaction with Restaurant Experiences
Involving Product Failure, Reduces Negative Word-of-Mouth About the Restaurant
Study 3B examines whether incidental gratitude enhances consumers’ satisfaction
judgments compared to a more neutral affective state that is socially oriented (H1). Study 3B
involves similar methods and measures as those used in Study 3A. Whereas Study 3A examined
whether incidental gratitude influenced grudge-holding, Study 3B examines another downstream
consequence: intended negative word-of-mouth (WOM) following product failure. Study 3B
considers whether incidental gratitude mitigates intended negative WOM due to increased
satisfaction (H3).
Method
Participants. Participants (N = 139) were undergraduate business school students
completing the study for partial course credit. They were ages 18 – 30 (M = 20.04), and nearly
two-thirds were female (64.0% female; 36.0% male).
Procedures. Like in Study 3A, this study was described as a “life events” study, during
which participants would be asked to report on different types of life events they had
experienced in the past six months. All participants were asked to report on an incident of
product failure in a restaurant context (i.e., food that was worse than expected).
Next, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: incidental gratitude
or thoughts about others (control). Participants were asked to report on a different type of
incident, which varied depending on condition. In the incidental gratitude condition, participants
were asked to recall times when they were grateful to another person (like in previous studies).
43
In the control condition, participants were asked to recall times when they did ordinary activities
with someone else (to minimize the likelihood of eliciting incidental gratitude or other intense
positive emotions). The prompt was as follows:
There are times when you might have done ordinary activities with another person. This
could be something like going to the grocery store or watching TV. Please recall
occasions from the past six months when you did an ordinary activity with someone else.
They were then asked to describe times they did ordinary activities with someone else during the
previous six months.
Lastly, all participants were told they would be further evaluating the various incidents
they recalled (although they would not actually evaluate the incidents involving gratitude or
ordinary experiences). They were asked to think back to their restaurant experience, and report
their satisfaction with their restaurant experience and intended WOM about the restaurant.
Measures. Participants were asked to describe a time at a restaurant when their food did
not meet their expectations (open-ended). Satisfaction was measured with the question Overall,
how was your experience at the restaurant (1= very dissatisfying; 9 = very satisfying). Word-of-
mouth about the restaurant was measured using an open-ended response format, prompted by the
following question: If some friends asked you about the restaurant, what would you tell them
about it? These responses were then coded for negative valence (i.e., if the participant explicitly
recommended friends to not go to the restaurant or go somewhere else = 1; else = 0).
Demographic measures (e.g., age and gender) were also included.
44
Results
Open-Ended Recall of Product Failures at Restaurants. Like in Study 3A, all participants
recalled incidents of product failure at a restaurant from the previous six months. Examples of
participants’ responses included, “It was bland, soggy, and unsatisfying,” and “It tasted old and
gave me a stomach ache.”
Open-Ended Recall of Affective Incidents. Participants in the incidental gratitude
condition described times they were grateful to someone else like in previous studies.
Participants in the control condition described times they did ordinary activities with someone
else. Example responses include, “I watched a movie with my friend” and “I went to Ralph's
with my roommate to buy groceries for our apartment.”
Satisfaction. Providing further support for H1, participants in the grateful condition
reported being more satisfied with their experiences involving product failure (M = 3.80, SD =
1.79) than those in the other-oriented, no-affect condition (M = 3.23, SD = 1.44), F (1, 137) =
4.25, p = .041 (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. Incidental gratitude leads to relatively high satisfaction following product
failure compared to neutral affective state.
45
Negative WOM. Providing support for H3, the incidental gratitude condition (gratitude
condition = 1; else = 0) mitigates negative WOM about the firm (restaurant) through increased
satisfaction with the failure experience. Exposure to the incidental gratitude manipulation
positively predicts satisfaction (a = 0.57), which is negatively related to negative WOM (b = -
0.39). A bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect (ab = -0.22) was
below zero (-0.58 to -0.003).
Discussion
Study 3B provides additional support for H1 and H3. Relative to mere thoughts about
others, incidental gratitude—which is associated with positive thoughts about others—leads
consumers to report more satisfaction with a consumption experience involving product failure,
which reduces their intended negative WOM about the firm responsible for failure. Study 4 was
designed to test whether a similar positive effect of incidental gratitude on judgments generalizes
to a context of service failure.
46
Study 4: Incidental Gratitude Increases Positivity Toward Ridesharing Company
Following Service Failure by Fostering Positive Other-Oriented Thoughts
The purpose of Study 4 is to further test the robustness of the effect of incidental
gratitude on consumers’ judgments about marketplace experiences and the companies that
provide these experiences. Study 4 considers situations in which a service provider fails to meet
customer expectations, and elicits anger as a result. Anger typically reduces satisfaction
significantly and can motivate anti-firm behaviors (Bougie, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2003). Once
anger has been evoked, does incidental gratitude provide a buffer against consumers’ negative
reactions? Study 4 tests whether incidental gratitude improves judgments about a deficient
service provider by activating positive other-oriented thoughts.
Methods
Participants. Participants (N = 218) were Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Workers between
the ages of 19 and 60 who were completing the study for $1.00 (M
age
= 30.54; 47.7% male and
52.3% female). This study involves participants evaluating a ridesharing (e.g., Uber or Lyft)
experience they had, so participants were screened for use of at least one ridesharing service in
the 12 months prior to the study.
Procedures. Like in Studies 3A and 3B, this study was described as a “life events” study,
during which participants would be asked to report on different types of life events they had
experienced. All participants were asked to report on an incident of failure while using a
ridesharing service (i.e., a time when their ride was worse than expected). The prompt read as
follows:
47
We would like to know about a time when you were a customer of a ridesharing service
(e.g., Uber or Lyft), and your experience was not up to your expectations. Please tell us
about a ridesharing (e.g., Uber or Lyft) experience from the past year that did not meet
your expectations.
After they reported details about the incident, they were asked how angry the incident made
them.
Next, participants were then asked to recall a “different type of life event,” as they were
asked in previous studies. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two incidental affect
conditions: gratitude or pride (like in Study 3A). They completed the writing task and measures
of emotions as they did in Study 3A.
Finally, all participants were told they would be further evaluating the various incidents
they recalled (although they would only be evaluating their ridesharing experience). They were
then asked to think back to the ridesharing incident and answer a series of questions about it.
Measures. Participants were asked to describe a time when a ridesharing service did not
meet their expectations (open-ended). Anger about the incident was assessed with two items: To
what extent did your experience with the ridesharing service make you feel angry? and To what
extent did your experience with the ridesharing service make you feel irritated? (1 = not at all; 9
= very much). A post-failure anger index (α = .75) was created. Affect items were included with
the writing task as they were in previous studies, leading to the creation of gratitude index (α =
.72), pride index (α = .90), and happiness index (α = .78). Rather than measuring satisfaction,
which might be interpreted as an affective state, this study assessed consumers’ attitude toward a
company that provides an experience. Attitude toward the company was measured with the
question Given this experience, how positively do you view the ridesharing service? (1 = not at
48
all; 9 = extremely). Positive other-oriented thoughts (α = .85) was measured with the same three
items from Study 2C. Finally, demographic measures (e.g., age and gender) were included.
Results
Open-Ended Recall of Service Failures with Ridesharing Companies. Participants
recalled various incidents when a ridesharing service failed to meet expectations. For example,
one participant wrote the following:
I went out on a date and called an Uber to pick us up. It was about a 10 min drive. The
vehicle that showed up was a rusty minivan that squealed all the way down the street. We
were dressed up nicely. When we got in, the car reeked of cigarette smoke and it was
almost unbearable. The driver never said a word to us, and when we got out at the
restaurant, my date complained that she couldn’t get the stink out of her nose. Terrible
experience- ruined my date!
Anger from Service Failure. By chance, participants in the incidental gratitude condition
were marginally more angry following their ridesharing experiences (M = 7.34, SD = 1.56) than
participants in the incidental pride condition (M = 6.94, SD = 1.73), F (1, 216) = 3.18, p = .076.
Open-Ended Recall of Affective Incidents. Incidents were very similar to those recalled in
Studies 2A, 2B, and 3A.
Manipulation Check. Similar to the pattern observed in Studies 2A and 2C, incidental
gratitude was a distinct positive emotional experience from pride and happiness. A factor
analysis with Varimax rotation and two factors explains 89.22% of variance in scores, with
gratitude items loading on one factor and pride/happiness items loading on the other. Participants
in the incidental gratitude condition felt more gratitude (M
gratitude
= 8.19 vs. M
pride
= 6.11, F (1,
49
216) = 83.57, p < .001), and participants in the incidental pride condition felt more pride
(M
gratitude
= 5.57 vs. M
pride
= 7.96, F (1, 216) = 98.08, p < .001). In this study, participants across
conditions felt equal levels of happiness (M
gratitude
= 7.63 vs. M
pride
= 7.68, F (1, 216) = .067, p =
.796)
Positive Other-Oriented Thoughts. As expected, participants in the incidental gratitude
condition reported more positive other-oriented thoughts than participants in the incidental pride
condition (M
gratitude
= 7.01 vs. M
pride
= 6.52, F (1, 216) = 5.86, p = .016).
Positivity Toward Service Provider. In this study, there was no difference between
incidental affect conditions in terms of attitude about the ridesharing service (M
gratitude
= 4.12 vs.
M
pride
= 4.46, F (1, 216) = 1.28, p = .259). However, recall that the pre-manipulated feelings of
anger happened to be greater in the incidental gratitude condition than in the incidental pride
condition. Taking anger into account increased the effect. Controlling for anger, incidental
gratitude (condition = 1; else = 0) positively predicts positive other-oriented thoughts (a = 0.49),
which positively predicts attitude about the service provider (b = 0.20) (see Figure 7). A bias-
corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect (ab = 0.10) was above zero (.0002
to .29), providing support for H2.
Figure 7. Incidental gratitude leads to positivity toward service provider by fostering
positive other-oriented thoughts.
50
Discussion
Study 4 again finds that incidental gratitude enhances consumers’ judgments (H1), now
about a service provider that is responsible for service failure. Building on Study 2B, Study 4
provides additional support for H2 by showing that the relationship between incidental gratitude
and consumers’ positive judgments about a service provider can be explained by their positive
other-oriented thoughts. The results show no support for the effect of incidental gratitude
resulting from an affect-as-information mechanism. According to that explanation, participants’
initial expression of anger should have served to inform them about their feelings, which would
counterbalance the information value of the affect manipulation. Yet, their attitudes toward the
firm differed when incidental gratitude elicited positive thoughts about others, consistent with a
content activation account.
Summary of Findings from Empirical Investigation
This series of studies demonstrates that compared to other incidental positive feelings
(incidental pride, incidental happiness) and mere thoughts about other people, incidental
gratitude leads to more positive judgments about various consumption experiences (e.g.,
attending a university course lecture; listening to songs; dining at a restaurant and experiencing
product failure; using a ridesharing service and experiencing service failure). Incidental gratitude
elicits positive thoughts about others in general, which spreads and activates positive thoughts
about people associated with the consumption experience. For example, a consumer who feels
grateful for a friend may evaluate an average restaurant server more favorably, and evaluate their
dining experience as better overall. A consumer who feels grateful for their coach might evaluate
a salesperson at the department store more positively, and evaluate their shopping experience as
51
more satisfying overall. Additionally, these studies provide evidence of incidental gratitude
decreasing grudge-holding and intended negative WOM about a firm when product failure
occurs (see Table 2).
Table 2. Overview of Study Details and Findings.
Study Conditions Key Measures Findings Effect Size (d)
1
Pen Study
Gift
vs.
Control
• Satisfaction with
Principles of
Marketing lecture
Gift (vs. control) leads to higher
satisfaction with a consumption
experience (i.e., Principles of
Marketing lecture) and the person
delivering the experience (i.e., the
professor)
.52
(95% CI: .07 – .97)
2A
Song Study 1
Grateful to
someone else
vs.
Pride in
oneself
• Satisfaction with
listening experience
• Satisfaction with
individual
performances (good,
bad, average)
Incidental gratitude (vs. pride) leads
to higher satisfaction with a
consumption experience (i.e.,
listening to songs); participants in
the incidental gratitude (vs. pride)
condition rate average aspects of the
experience more positively
.32
(95% CI: .03 – .61)
2B Pretest
Thought
Content
Grateful to
someone else
vs.
Pride in
oneself
• Positive Other-
Oriented Thoughts
• Other-Oriented Moral
Reasoning
• State Entitlement
Incidental gratitude (vs. pride) leads
to increased positive other-oriented
thoughts; no difference across
conditions in other-oriented moral
reasoning or state entitlement
.63
(95% CI: .27 – .99)
2B
Song Study 2
Concept
inhibition
vs.
Misattribution
correction
• Satisfaction with
listening experience
• Satisfaction with
individual
performances (good,
bad, average)
Concept inhibition (vs. no
inhibition) predicts lower
satisfaction with a consumption
experience (i.e., listening to songs),
while misattribution correction does
not have an effect; participants
exposed (vs. not exposed) to concept
inhibition rate average aspects of the
experience less positively
-.27
(95% CI: -.56 – .02)
3A
Restaurant
Failure 1
Grateful to
someone else
vs.
Pride in
oneself
• Satisfaction with
restaurant experience
involving failure
• Grudge-holding
against the restaurant
Incidental gratitude (vs. pride) leads
to higher satisfaction with
experiences involving product
failure; Incidental gratitude reduces
grudge-holding by increasing
satisfaction with the experience
.56
(95% CI: .17 – .96)
3B
Restaurant
Failure 2
Grateful to
someone else
vs.
Ordinary
activities with
someone else
• Satisfaction with
restaurant experience
involving failure
• Intended negative
WOM about the
restaurant
Incidental gratitude (vs. thoughts
about others) leads to higher
satisfaction with experiences
involving product failure; incidental
gratitude reduces intended negative
WOM by increasing satisfaction
with the experience
.35
(95% CI: .02 – .69)
4
Ridesharing
Failure
Grateful to
someone else
vs.
Pride in
oneself
• Positivity toward
service provider
responsible for service
failure
• Positive other-oriented
thoughts
Incidental gratitude (vs. pride) leads
to positivity toward the service
provider responsible for failure by
eliciting positive other-oriented
thoughts
Indirect effect = .10
(95% CI: .0038 – .29)
(See Figure 7)
52
Chapter 5: Implications and Future Directions
The studies described in Chapter 4 extend research in social psychology and marketing
that highlights the far-reaching benefits of gratitude. While the relationship between trait
gratitude and life satisfaction and subjective well-being has received considerable attention (e.g.,
Wood, Joseph, & Linley, 2007; Watkins, Grimm, & Kolts, 2004; Watkins et al., 2003; Wood,
Joseph, & Maltby, 2008; Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004), the causal relationship between
more fleeting feelings of gratitude and consumers’ satisfaction judgments has received limited
attention. My studies find that feelings of gratitude can enhance satisfaction with marketplace
experiences, and this may partially explain the positive relationship between trait gratitude (i.e.,
consistently feeling grateful) and satisfaction with life that has been documented previously.
Whereas prior marketing research has shown that consumers who feel grateful for a
firm’s product or service react in ways that are beneficial for the firm (Morales, 2005; Palmatier
et al., 2009; Soscia, 2007), my studies show that consumers who feel grateful for individuals
unaffiliated with a firm also react in ways that are beneficial. Notably, the positive effect of
incidental gratitude on consumers’ judgments I consistently observe may partially explain the
positive effect of integral gratitude on consumer behavior documented in prior research. Hence,
integral gratitude may benefit firms not just because it elicits tit-for-tat, reciprocal actions.
This research provides numerous avenues for future research. Studies 3A, 3B, and 4
(involving product/service failure) raise questions about the boundary condition of the effect of
incidental gratitude on satisfaction, and the types of failures or transgressions for which this
effect is observable. At what point is a consumption experience so negative that incidental
gratitude no longer increases satisfaction? Studies 2A and 2B indicate that incidental gratitude
does not influence judgments about a negative aspect of an experience. One could imagine
53
situations in which a negative aspect of an experience is so bad that it interrupts the spread of
positive other-oriented thoughts, and becomes the primary determinant of overall satisfaction.
Given incidental gratitude elicits positive other-oriented thoughts, might it help mitigate feelings
of betrayal that sometimes emerge in consumer-brand relationships (e.g., Grégoire & Fisher,
2008) or other negative reactions to failure when consumers humanize or anthropomorphizes
firms (e.g., Puzakova, Kwak, & Rocereto, 2013)? It seems plausible that incidental gratitude may
promote forgiveness of product or service failure in consumer-brand relationships, given
previous research finds that gratitude promotes forgiveness in interpersonal relationships (e.g.,
Neto, 2007).
My studies also raise the question: which other positive incidental feelings activate
positive other-oriented thoughts, and do these feelings also have a similar positive effect on
consumers’ judgments? Algoe and Haidt (2009) label gratitude, admiration, and elevation as
“other-praising” emotions, and distinguish between these emotions in the following way:
Elevation is a response to moral excellence that does not benefit the self, gratitude is a
response to generosity, thoughtfulness, or some other moral excellence that does benefit
the self, [and admiration] is the emotional response to non-moral excellence… when
[people] see extraordinary displays of skill, talent, or achievement (pg. 107).
Do all of these “other praising” emotions have similar effects, and would any of these feelings be
similarly helpful for marketers to induce?
Across my studies, incidental gratitude for other people was evoked, which activates
positive other-oriented thoughts. Is it possible that presenting a more general concept of
gratitude, and not explicitly evoking gratitude for people, would produce similar effects?
Evolutionarily speaking, gratitude arises from social interaction (Bonnie & de Waal, 2004).
54
However, many societies facilitate gratitude for non-human entities, such as belongings, nature,
and abstract concepts (e.g., health). Perhaps evoking a much broader construct of gratitude, or
priming the concept of gratitude without explicitly mentioning other individuals, would lead to a
weaker effect.
Future studies might also compare the effects of incidental gratitude and integral
gratitude on consumers’ judgments, and explore the effects of incidental and integral gratitude
combined. When a service provider elicits gratitude for its customer service, how do judgments
about the service provider (integral gratitude) compare to judgments about other service
providers (incidental gratitude)? Would emphasizing that the service provider’s customer service
is exceptional and rare (similar to method used in Study 2B) undermine spreading activation, so
only judgments about that specific service provider are enhanced by gratitude? If a firm were to
create an environment in which customers were encouraged to be civil and helpful to each other,
how might the firm benefit from that incidental gratitude? Given that prior research in marketing
focuses on integral gratitude, it would also be useful to know if a combination of integral and
incidental gratitude leads to greater satisfaction than just integral or incidental gratitude in
isolation.
Lastly, most of my studies involved a writing task to elicit incidental gratitude, and this is
unlikely to be adopted by businesses. Study 1 involves giving people a small gift, which is
similar to a giveaway that might happen in the marketplace. Future studies could incorporate
other managerially practical stimuli (e.g., social media posts from influencers; advertisements
that elicit gratitude for people unrelated to the firm). A more ecologically valid test of incidental
gratitude’s effect on satisfaction would help to inform recommendations to firms.
55
Managerial Implications
Given that incidental gratitude enhances positive judgments about consumption
experiences and the firms providing those experiences, marketers might consider different
strategies for eliciting incidental gratitude. Companies like Proctor & Gamble and Farmer’s
Insurance have launched campaigns that aim to heighten consumers’ gratitude for something
other than products/services (see Figure 8), but this strategy has not yet been widely adopted.
This research suggests that this strategy to enhance customer satisfaction would be preferable to
launching a campaign that elicits some other positive affective states (e.g., incidental pride or
incidental happiness). Furthermore, influencers (e.g., Tony Robbins; Ellen Degeneres) who often
elicit gratitude for various people and experiences could be valuable partners for firms to
promote.
Figure 8. “Thank America’s Teachers” campaign by Farmer’s Insurance
56
Conclusion
To conclude, this research expands the current conceptualization of gratitude in the
marketing literature, and adds to a broader multi-disciplinary body of research on gratitude’s
positive effects on individuals’ psychological well-being and social relationships. This research
provides a foundation for future research on gratitude in the context of consumer-firm
interactions, and calls for a more comprehensive understanding of how integral and incidental
gratitude might differentially influence judgments’ and behaviors.
57
References
Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The ‘other-praising’emotions
of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 105-
127.
Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity: gratitude and relationships in
everyday life. Emotion, 8(3), 425-429.
Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service
Research, 1(1), 5-17.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share,
and profitability: Findings from Sweden. The Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 53-66.
Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M, & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive
affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529-550.
Bambauer-Sachse, S., & Mangold, S. (2011). Brand equity dilution through negative online
word-of-mouth communication. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(1), 38-
45.
Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior helping when it costs
you. Psychological Science, 17(4), 319-325.
Bodenhausen, G. V. (1993). Emotions, arousal, and stereotypic judgments: A heuristic model of
affect and stereotyping. In D. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, Cognition, and
Stereotyping: Interactive Processes in Group Perception (pp. 13-37). San Diego,
California, USA: Academic Press.
Bolton, R. N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customer's relationship with a
continuous service provider: The role of satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17(1), 45-65.
58
Bonnie, K. E., & de Waal, F. B. (2004). Primate social reciprocity and the origin of gratitude. In
R. A. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The Psychology of Gratitude (pp. 213-229).
New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Bosmans, A., & Baumgartner, H. (2005). When feelings influence product evaluations (and
when they do not): Discrete-affect-validation and the role of consumption
motives. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 102.
Bougie, R., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). Angry customers don't come back, they get
back: The experience and behavioral implications of anger and dissatisfaction in
services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 377-393.
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), 129.
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Self-esteem and emotion: Some thoughts about
feelings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 575-584.
Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004).
Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report
measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29-45.
Clark, D. M., & Teasdale, J. D. (1982). Diurnal variation in clinical depression and accessibility
of memories of positive and negative experiences. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 91(2), 87-95.
Clore, G. L. (1992). Cognitive phenomenology: Feelings and the construction of judgment. In L.
L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The Construction of Social Judgments (pp. 133-163).
Hillsdale, New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
59
DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Baumann, J., Williams, L. A., & Dickens, L. (2010). Gratitude as
moral sentiment: emotion-guided cooperation in economic exchange. Emotion, 10(2),
289-293.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., Oishi, S., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Looking up and looking down:
Weighting good and bad information in life satisfaction judgments. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), 437-445.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: an
experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377-389.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2004). The Psychology of Gratitude. New York, New
York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Emmons, R. A., & Mishra, A. (2011). Why gratitude enhances well-being: What we know, what
we need to know. In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing
Positive Psychology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward (pp. 248-262). New York, New
York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Emmons, R. A., & Shelton, C. M. (2002). Gratitude and the science of positive psychology. In C.
R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 459-471). New
York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological
Bulletin, 117(1), 39-66.
Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 53-60.
60
Forgas, J. P., & Moylan, S. (1987). After the movies: Transient mood and social
judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(4), 467-477.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-353.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions?. Review of General
Psychology, 2(3), 300-319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and builds. In R. A.
Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The Psychology of Gratitude (pp. 145-166). New
York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing effect
of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24(4), 237-258.
Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing
Science Review, 2000(1), 1-24.
Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: when your best
customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 36(2), 247-261.
Greifeneder, R., Bless, H., & Pham, M. T. (2011). When do people rely on affective and
cognitive feelings in judgment? A review. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 15(2), 107-141.
Gustaffsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of customer satisfaction,
relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. Journal of
Marketing, 69(4), 210-218.
61
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith
(Eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp. 852-870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haistead, D., Hartman, D., & Schmidt, S. L. (1994). Multisource effects on the satisfaction
formation process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 114-129.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative
problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1122-1131.
Isen, A. M., & Shalker, T. E. (1982). The effect of feeling state on evaluation of positive, neutral,
and negative stimuli: When you" accentuate the positive," do you" eliminate the
negative"?. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58-63.
Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in
memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop?. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36(1), 1-12.
Kim, H., Park, K., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Will this trip really be exciting? The role of incidental
emotions in product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 983-991.
Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and Reason: Making Sense of Our Emotions.
New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific
influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 473-493.
Lin, C. C. (2015). Self-esteem mediates the relationship between dispositional gratitude and
well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 145-148.
McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a
moral affect?. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 249-266.
62
McCullough, M. E., Kimeldorf, M. B., & Cohen, A. D. (2008). An adaptation for altruism: The
social causes, social effects, and social evolution of gratitude. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 17(4), 281-285.
McCullough, M. E., Tsang, J. A., & Emmons, R. A. (2004). Gratitude in intermediate affective
terrain: links of grateful moods to individual differences and daily emotional
experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 295-309.
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior:
Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(1), 131-142.
Morales, A. C. (2005). Giving firms an “E” for effort: Consumer responses to high-effort
firms. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 806-812.
Neto, F. (2007). Forgiveness, personality and gratitude. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43(8), 2313-2323.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction
response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 418-430.
Oliver, R. L. (2014). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on The Consumer. New York, New
York, USA: Routledge.
Palmatier, R. W., Jarvis, C. B., Bechkoff, J. R., & Kardes, F. R. (2009). The role of customer
gratitude in relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 1-18.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619.
63
Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995). Measuring the prosocial
personality. In J. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in Personality
Assessment, 10 (pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA.
Pham, M. T. (2008). The lexicon and grammar of affect-as-information in consumer decision
making: the GAIM. In M. Wänke (Ed.), Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior (pp.
159-192). New York, New York, USA: Psychology Press.
Polak, E. L., & McCullough, M. E. (2006). Is gratitude an alternative to materialism?. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 7(3), 343-360.
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: the
detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of
Marketing, 77(3), 81-100.
Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot
study. Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68-78.
Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision
making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332-348.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being:
Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45(3), 513-523.
Schwartz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1988). How do I feel about it? The informative functions of
affective states. In K. Fiedler & J. P. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, Cognition, and Social
Behavior (pp. 44-62). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Hogrefe.
64
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In A. W. Kruglanski
& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2 (pp. 385-
407). New York, New York, USA: Guilford Press.
Sharif, M. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). The Effect of Relative Encoding on Memory-
Based Judgments. Psychological Science, 27(8), 1136-1145.
Singh, J. (1990). Voice, exit, and negative word-of-mouth behaviors: An investigation across
three service categories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 1-15.
Soscia, I. (2007). Gratitude, delight, or guilt: The role of consumers' emotions in predicting
postconsumption behaviors. Psychology & Marketing, 24(10), 871-894.
Spreng, R. A., MacKenzie, S. B., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1996). A reexamination of the
determinants of consumer satisfaction. The Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 15-32.
Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the
empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 16-35.
Watkins, P. C., Cruz, L., Holben, H., & Kolts, R. L. (2008). Taking care of business? Grateful
processing of unpleasant memories. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 87-99.
Watkins, P. C., Grimm, D. L., & Kolts, R. (2004). Counting your blessings: Positive memories
among grateful persons. Current Psychology, 23(1), 52-67.
Watkins, P. C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R. L. (2003). Gratitude and happiness:
Development of a measure of gratitude, and relationships with subjective well-
being. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(5), 431-451.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase
processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 258-270.
65
Westbrook, R. A., & Reilly, M. D. (1983). Value-percept disparity: an alternative to the
disconfirmation of expectations theory of consumer satisfaction. Advances in Consumer
Research, 10(1), 256-261.
Wirtz, J. (2000). An examination of the presence, magnitude and impact of halo on consumer
satisfaction measures. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 7(2), 89-99.
Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2007). Coping style as a psychological resource of
grateful people. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(9), 1076-1093.
Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., & Maltby, J. (2008). Gratitude uniquely predicts satisfaction with life:
Incremental validity above the domains and facets of the five factor model. Personality
and Individual Differences, 45(1), 49-54.
Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2008). A social-cognitive
model of trait and state levels of gratitude. Emotion, 8(2), 281.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Prior research suggests that consumers who are grateful for a firm’s product or service are motivated to reward the firm in a reciprocal fashion, and do so by repeat purchasing and spreading positive word-of-mouth about the firm (e.g., Morales, 2005
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Savoring future experiences: antecedents and effects on evaluations of consumption experiences
PDF
How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions
PDF
Consumers' subjective knowledge influences evaluative extremity and product differentiation
PDF
Powerful brand influentials: conceptualization, measurement, and distinctiveness of a brand’s influential consumers
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
The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers
PDF
How sequels seduce: consumers' affective expectations for entertainment experiences
PDF
Forgiveness: elucidating the underlying psychological processes that foster brand forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness
PDF
The effects of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment
PDF
Scale construction and effects of brand authenticity
PDF
Slashing liquidity through asset purchases: evidence from collective bargaining
PDF
Understanding virality of YouTube video ads: dynamics, drivers, and effects
PDF
Marketing strategies with superior information on consumer preferences
PDF
Social class determines which purchases bring happiness
PDF
Shareholder litigation as a disciplining device: evidence from firms' financial policies
PDF
How do consumers use brands for identity signaling: Impact of brand prominence on consumers' choice and social interaction
PDF
The term structure of CAPM alphas and betas
PDF
Essays on consumer returns in online retail and sustainable operations
PDF
Green strategies: producers' competition and cooperation in sustainability
Asset Metadata
Creator
Uhalde, Arianna R.
(author)
Core Title
Why firms should be thankful for thankful customers: incidental gratitude enhances judgments about consumption experiences
School
Marshall School of Business
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Business Administration
Publication Date
06/01/2017
Defense Date
05/09/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
consumer,Gratitude,incidental emotion,OAI-PMH Harvest,product failure,Satisfaction
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Folkes, Valerie (
committee chair
), Graham, Jesse (
committee member
), MacInnis, Deborah (
committee member
), Priester, Joseph (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ariannauhalde@gmail.com,uhalde@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-373527
Unique identifier
UC11255863
Identifier
etd-UhaldeAria-5349.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-373527 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-UhaldeAria-5349.pdf
Dmrecord
373527
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Uhalde, Arianna R.
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
Tags
consumer
incidental emotion
product failure