Abstract: Consumers often feel schadenfreude, an emotion reflecting an experience of pleasure over misfortunes of another. Schadenfreude has found wide use in advertising, but its actual consequences for consumers have not been thoroughly documented. The present research investigates the effect of schadenfreude on consumers' satisfaction with choices they have made. Building on the feelings‐as‐information theory, the authors posit that consumers take their positive feelings of schadenfreude over another's unrelated bad purchase as positive information about their own choices, and through such misattribution become more satisfied with their own choices. Three experiments show that feeling schadenfreude over another consumer's bad purchase makes consumers more satisfied with their own choices (Study 1), regardless of whether the other's bad purchase is in the same or in a different product category as one's own choice (Study 2), but only so long as consumers are not aware that they are engaging in misattribution (Study 3). The present research contributes to the literature on schadenfreude and feelings‐as‐information theory. Its findings may be used by marketers aiming to exert an unconscious influence on consumer satisfaction.
6 GENERAL DISCUSSION
6.1 Theoretical contributions
Social norms often demand a sympathetic response to another's misfortune. Schadenfreude however runs counter to this expectation, being a feeling of pleasure over another's misfortune. In that sense, it is a peculiar and complex emotion and some may even view it as socially reprehensible (Kramer et al., 2011).
At an abstract level, our research contributes to the literature on the consequences of complex emotions (Kramer, Lau‐Gesk, & Chiu, 2009; Williams & Aaker, 2002). More specifically, it extends the emerging scholarship on some of the outcomes of consumer schadenfreude (Kramer et al., 2011; Loebnitz & Grunert, 2019; Yucel‐Aybat & Kramer, 2017). Informed by the feelings‐as‐information theory (Schwarz, 2012; Schwarz & Clore, 2007), the current work reveals a surprising finding across three empirical studies—that witnessing another's failed purchase can make consumers feel better about their own choice, even though another's failure should rationally not impact the evaluation of one's own choice. Although consumers should be expected to recognize the source of their positive feelings (i.e., another's failure) and separate it from unrelated judgments, they seem to not be very adept at doing so.
Kramer et al. (2011) show that schadenfreude felt before a choice makes consumers more conservative in their choice. We show that after making a choice, schadenfreude might actually make consumers less conservative in evaluating their choice. These findings in aggregate may not be as contrasting as they appear. Kramer et al. (2011) examined the effect of schadenfreude before making a choice while we investigate its effect after making a choice. The dependent variables in the studies are also different: Kramer et al. (2011) are interested in risky versus safe choices while we are interested in choice satisfaction. In aggregate, these two inquiries enrich our understanding of the consequences of schadenfreude before and after choice by looking at different outcome variables.
Furthermore, this study extends the findings of Yucel‐Aybat and Kramer (2017, 2018), namely that schadenfreude stemming from comparative advertising may increase liking for an advertised brand. Our research shows that direct comparison between brands or choice options is not necessary to trigger schadenfreude, nor does the actual performance of the chosen option need to be known to increase the evaluation of one's choice. Therefore, consumers will mistake positive feelings of schadenfreude as information about their own choice when they have no reason to believe that their chosen product is superior than someone else's failed product. This effect is also not driven by feelings of envy or jealousy toward another (Study 1). Study 2 shows that such misattribution is robust across categories, even where the unsatisfactory performance of another's purchased product cannot be compared to the performance of one's chosen item.
This study also adds to the literature on appraisal of emotions (Lazarus, 1991; Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Li et al., 2019; Morales, Wu, & Fitzsimons, 2012; Roseman & Smith, 2001; van Dijk et al., 2011). Schadenfreude occurs when people are concerned with the goal of maintaining self‐ and social‐esteem (Li et al., 2019; van Dijk et al., 2011). However, as the target of schadenfreude is another person, it can be appraised in terms of a specific appraisal dimension (theme) of certainty/uncertainty (Lerner & Keltner, 2000), leading to avoidance of uncertainty in choices (Kramer et al., 2011). This study, however, shows that overall pleasantness (positivity) of schadenfreude, another appraisal dimension, is used in judgments of one's own unrelated previous choices. Thus, drawing on the effect of the valence of the emotions, the present research contributes to the feelings‐as‐information theory (Schwarz, 2012) by identifying the specific, other‐caused emotion of schadenfreude that may be misconstrued as information about one's own (not the other's) unrelated choices. Study 3 underscores the automaticity of such misattribution (the effect disappears when consumers become aware of possible misattribution) and Study 2 indicates that temporal precedence is necessary for this misattribution to occur.
6.2 Managerial implications
Marketing communications practitioners and brand managers, in particular, may find our investigation to be of interest. Schadenfreude has found extensive use in advertising (Garfield, 2009; Luckerson, 2014; Nudd, 2011), and the present research explains why schadenfreude can enhance consumers' satisfaction with their already‐made purchases. For example, a consumer watching one of “Get a Mac” ads on their newly purchased Mac may become more satisfied with their Mac purchase. In a similar vein, a social media brand marketer might make available reviews or content (such as webcomics) about competing brands and capable of eliciting schadenfreude, thus increasing consumers' satisfaction with purchases of the promoted brand. Given that decision (choice) satisfaction is a strong predictor of consumer loyalty (Heitmann et al., 2007), which in turn contributes to a firm's financial performance (Ittner & Larcker, 1998), the findings of the present research should bear significance for practitioners.
Importantly, we also find that the effect of schadenfreude on choice satisfaction is not restricted to suggested failures involving comparable brands or products. An implication is that situations that do not involve comparable options may elicit schadenfreude leading to increased consumer choice satisfaction. To cite an example, Jet Blue's “Welcome Big Wigs” campaign makes fun of senior business executives (high in social status) flying on a budget. Such messaging could trigger schadenfreude among some consumers without resorting to direct comparisons with other brands (Garfield, 2009). Further, such non‐comparative advertising may be effective in increasing consumer choice satisfaction by means of evoking schadenfreude, so long as consumers are not aware that they may misattribute their feelings of schadenfreude to their own choices. In an online environment, viral prankvertising using acceptable targets (Luckerson, 2014) or other content featuring the downfall of high‐status individuals (e.g., news about politicians' criminal convictions) may be a tool used to elicit schadenfreude and reinforce consumer choice satisfaction. For example, an online store might feature a news piece about a famous person's tribulations after shopping checkout, prompting consumers to feel schadenfreude and unconsciously become more satisfied with the online purchase they just made.
6.3 Limitations and future research
The present research is not without limitations. First, it relies on the manipulation of schadenfreude toward a specific other (another consumer). Previous studies on schadenfreude have shown that it can be felt not only toward specific others (e.g., users of a competing brand) but also toward nonindividual entities, including competing brands themselves (Phillips‐Melancon & Dalakas, 2014) or rival sports teams (Leach et al., 2003). While the authors believe that there is no reason to expect that the effects observed in Studies 1, 2, and 3 should be different, replication of these studies by using nonindividual entities will enable scholars to examine the extent to which the current findings generalize.
Second, the present research adopted a previously successful manipulation of schadenfreude toward another consumer: their status purchase signaled higher social status and subsequent product failure elicited schadenfreude (Sundie et al., 2009). The authors believe this manipulation to be theoretically sound as it requires prior upward comparison with another consumer who is higher in social status and subsequent downward comparison when that consumer's purchase fails. Future research should test other manipulations of schadenfreude, for example, asking consumers to recall the instances when they felt schadenfreude toward someone (Kramer et al., 2011). Alternatively, to mimic some real‐life instances of schadenfreude, consumers may be shown a comparative ad featuring Caroline's tribulations with a competitor brand (cf., Yucel‐Aybat & Kramer, 2017), although the manipulations in Studies 1–3 are more general as they do not involve a direct comparison of choice options.
Further research may also study for how long the observed effects will persist. Will they live on until a consumer needs to repurchase a product (and thus choose their current product or a competitor product one more time) or will they dissipate by then? The answer to this question is likely to depend on the accessibility of feelings of schadenfreude at a particular point in time (Schwarz, 2012).
There may be a number of situational variables inherent in consumer purchases that may further moderate our observed effects. For example, a high degree of choice conflict (Chernev, Böckenholt, & Goodman, 2015) or of product involvement (Korgaonkar & Moschis, 1982; Olsen, 2007) should increase the observed effects, making consumers more likely to attend to positive information in their evaluations of their choices.
Individual differences may regulate how likely consumers are to apply feelings of schadenfreude to their judgments. For instance, need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982; Haddock, Maio, Arnold, & Huskinson, 2008), need for affect (Maio & Esses, 2001), and consumer preference for intuitive–experiential or analytical–rational thinking styles (Epstein, Pacini, Denes‐Raj, & Heier, 1996) may also moderate the observed effects, as less affect‐driven consumers may scrutinize the source of their feelings and not incorporate them into their judgments. Finally, consumer high in the Dark Triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and especially psychopathy) are more inclined to feel schadenfreude (James, Kavanagh, Jonason, Chonody, & Scrutton, 2014) and thus may be more likely to feel more satisfied with their purchases when those of others fail.
Still, schadenfreude may be a complex emotion, but it need not sound grim. Schadenfreude is not always a sign of a dark personality. It is a commonly experienced emotion and it is often used in marketing. The authors thus invite further research into how consumers' satisfaction, judgment, and behavior may rest on their feeling happy for someone else's loss.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment