Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

VOLUME 11 NUMBER 3 1994

Conceptualizing Guilt in the Consumer Decision-making Process


Melissa S. Burnett and Dale A. Lunsford

Introduction
Recent emphasis has been placed on studying emotions and their relation to affect and cognitions (Aaker et al., 1986). The evidence suggests that even mild affective states can substantially influence cognitive processing and social behavior (Aaker et al., 1986). A number of emotional responses exist, such as love, anger, fear, guilt and worry. This paper proposes to investigate one type of emotion that has been virtually ignored by marketers. Specifically, the construct of guilt will be examined as it relates to the consumer decision-making process. Evidence is emerging that guilt is a motivator of consumer behavior in purchasing situations (Butler, 1993; Steenhuysen, 1990). Foods are positioned as full of pleasure with no guilt. Social issues are marketed using guilt appeals. Yet, the concept of guilt and its role in consumer behavior is poorly understood. This article reports the findings of initial research to define a construct of consumer guilt and explore its managerial implications.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, 1994, pp. 33-43 MCB University Press, 0736-3761

Previous studies in the areas of clinical psychology, social psychology and sociology have found guilt is playing a vital role in behavioral tendencies (Bozinoff and Ghingold, 1983; Darlington and Macker, 1966; Freedman et al., 1967; Ghingold, 1980; Konoske et al., 1979). Defined as a violation (or an anticipated violation) of ones internal standards, guilt provides explanations for compliant and altruistic behavior. A preliminary definition of consumer guilt defines the term as a negative emotion which results from a consumer decision that violates ones values or norms. Consequently, the consumer will experience a lowering of self esteem as a result of his decision. In the context of this definition, consumer guilt is related specifically to consumption decision situations. Consider the following consumption decision situations which are influenced by guilt feelings. As public acceptance of recycled and recyclable products increases, purchasing products which are detrimental to the environment may cause post-purchase guilt feelings for the consumer. Guilt may also influence behavior from parents who work away from home and may make extra or special purchases for their children as a

33

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING

substitute for the time which they are away. In this scenario, feelings of guilt precede the purchase decision. Consequently, it is important to note that guilt could serve as a major factor affecting initial, as well as repeat purchase decisions. Marketers are using implied and explicit guilt feelings to persuade consumers to purchase their products. Most of the advertising which uses guilt as a persuasion technique tries to motivate consumers to buy a product in order to avoid having guilt feelings. The Countrys Best Yogurt store chain publishes a take-out menu which is titled All of the Pleasure. None of the Guilt. The menu implies that consuming yogurt is a pleasurable experience that will not make you feel guilty, but consuming alternative fattening products such as ice cream will create feelings of guilt. A more subtle example of using guilt to persuade consumers is found in a television advertisement for Quaker Oats hot breakfast cereal. The spokesperson, Wilford Brumly, explains that families should be taking better care of their health and that unless they purchase Quaker Oats for their breakfast food, they are failing to do so. The last scene of the advertisement ends with Brumly stating, Quaker Oats is the right thing to do. It can be argued that the goal of the advertisement is to cause people to anticipate feelings of guilt if they fail to purchase Quaker Oats. The investment in such guilt arousing advertisements suggests that some marketers believe that guilt may be an effective type of persuasion technique. While marketers may not frequently use guilt appeal advertisements, individuals do experience feelings of guilt in the consumer decision-making process. The consumer guilt construct combined with individual differences among consumers may have important implications for marketers. Consumers buying intentions and attitudes may be influenced by guilt, and if so, may be manipulable by marketing techniques. The

consumer guilt construct may have potential as a new market segmentation tool. New segments may be developed based on differences between individual guilt levels. Public policy objectives may be achieved through the use of guilt techniques for discouraging unwanted behaviors. An example of social issue marketing using guilt techniques is recent advertising which emphasizes the importance of proper prenatal care, specifically not smoking while pregnant. The advertisements offer rational facts that correlate low birth rates and learning deficiencies to the babies of mothers who smoke during pregnancy. The ad goes on to show an emotional side as well. Specifically, it depicts the guilt-ridden emotional consequences that endure long after the birth of the baby. From focus group research, we derive a preliminary consumer guilt definition as well as accompanying dimensions of the construct. Finally, proposed classifications of how guilt influences behavior and the accompanying managerial implications are presented.

Derivation of Previous Consumer Guilt Definition


The term guilt has been used and defined in a multitude of ways. Individuals often describe their emotional states in an active way such as being guilt ridden. Others in search of an appropriate emotional description profess to be on a guilt trip. Some individuals build a career on the ability to determine others state of innocence or guilt. Although the term guilt is used frequently, its meaning is seldom the same. Our purpose here is to present the derivation and definition of the term consumer guilt. The definition of this term is derived largely from previous works which seek to define the term guilt.

34

VOLUME 11 NUMBER 3 1994

Prior definitions of the term guilt which were used to derive the definition of consumer guilt range over approximately a 20-year time span, and carry common threads of thought. Freedman et al. (1967) state that guilt is the feeling that results from an individuals knowledge that he acted against his own moral or ethical standards. Steins 1968 definition of guilt is the sense of being accountable for violating internal standards. Several years later, English and Macker (1976) confirm the belief that guilt results from a violation of internal standards. They also suggested that these regretful feelings result in lessened personal worth on that account. Finally, in 1985, Miller defines guilt as the feeling that results from an individuals knowledge that he acted against his own moral or ethical standards. By integrating these definitions it can be said that guilt implies the existence of the following two states: (1) a violation of ones internal standards; and subsequently (2) a lowering of self esteem. These two states will be used throughout the discussion of the consumer guilt construct. Before developing a formal definition of consumer guilt, the term must be examined from a theoretical perspective as well as a concept of fear.

dissonance is the need for an individual to maintain cognitive consistency. As conceived by Festinger (1957), individuals tend to develop opinions and attitudes that represent a cluster of internal consistencies. Inconsistencies are, in Festingers terms, psychological discomforts, which he describes as dissonance. When one experiences feelings of dissonance, the individual:
q

seeks to reduce these negative inconsistencies; or attempts to avoid situations and/or information that might increase the dissonance (Festinger, 1957).

Dissonance as a Theoretical Explanation


As illustrated in the literature, guilt has been found to be an important variable in attitude change as well as behavioral intentions. One of the most plausible theoretical explanations of such events is provided by dissonance theory. As noted by Ghingold (1980), dissonance theory can provide a theoretical structure for understanding guilt-induced behavior. The primary basis underlying the theory of

In essence, dissonance is the existence of non-fitting relations among cognition (Festinger, 1957). Cognition is similar to knowledge, opinion, or beliefs about oneself, the environment or an individuals behavior. Since guilt is defined as a violation of ones norms, values, or internal standards, it is easy to see the linkage between guilt and dissonance. In this context, it could be argued that when an individual experiences feelings of guilt, he/she is experiencing dissonant cognition. Not only do the definitions of dissonance and guilt have strong similarities, but the courses of action suggested to reduce the feelings of both dissonance and guilt are similar as well. The unpleasant internal state of guilt will cause an individual actively to seek a course of action to relieve this negative feeling by:
q q q q

doing good deeds; undoing harm to the injured party; self-criticism; or self-punishment.

The most likely behaviors are compensation, expiation and denial of responsibility. Evidence of the applicability of dissonance theory is illustrated by the effects of guilt on

35

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING

compliant and altruistic behavior. That is, guilty subjects are more prone to engage in compliant behavior to reduce feelings of inconsistency than non-guilty subjects (Darlington and Macker, 1966; Freedman et al., 1967; Regan et al., 1972). The only exception to these results existed when the guilty subjects anticipated having to meet face to face with the injured party for whom the request had been asked (Darlington and Macker, 1966). However, the findings of this study are still consistent with the explanations provided by dissonance theory, as one could argue that the guilt induced subjects were seeking to avoid direct contact with the harmed individual. With a theoretical framework that allows one to understand the effects of guilt, it appears that such a construct could have significant implications for marketers. Guilts proven role in attitude formation and behavioral intention calls for study of the role of guilt specifically to consumer behavior. Before beginning that study with our construct development, guilt is contrasted to the emotion of fear.

in a lowering of self-esteem. Presumably, if one experiences feelings of guilt, one must also feel a decrease in self-esteem. Fear, however, can occur with or without any effect on ones self-esteem.

Guilt Construct Distinguished from Fear Construct


The constructs of guilt and fear are closely related. Fear is a negative emotion, an anxiety caused by anticipated consequences of some particular negative outcome (Ghingold, 1980). Guilt may also be a negative anticipatory emotion. Thus, a distinction between the two constructs lies not in their prior definitions, but in analyzing the two constructs in relation to self-esteem and control. Self-esteem The emotions of guilt and fear hold different relationships with feelings of self-esteem. By definition, guilt is a violation or anticipated violation of internal standards, which results

Control Whether or not an individual possesses some degree of control over the outcome of a situation determines whether or not feelings of guilt may be present. Guilt feelings are more likely when an individual has some degree of control over the outcome. The more control one has over a situation, the higher the expected level of guilt feelings will be over a negative outcome. If one has no control over the outcome, then no guilt feelings should be experienced. Feelings of fear will result even in situations where one has little, if any, control over the outcome of the situation. Support for this linkage between guilt and control can be drawn from the literature investigating causal attributions of success and failure. As shown in Figure 1, Weiner (1985) identifies four explanations using high and low conditions of control and stability. In this context, control refers to the ability of the individual to influence the outcome while

Control Low Low Stability High Fear (task difficulty) Social fear (ability-linked) or Humiliation Luck or Chance High Guilt (effort-linked)

Figure 1. Attributions of Guilt and Fear

36

VOLUME 11 NUMBER 3 1994

stability refers to the variability or temporal state of the outcome. For example, if an individual has low control over the outcome and the outcome stability is low, the individuals success or failure is attributed to luck or chance. Conversely, if the individual has a high degree of control over the outcome and the outcome stability is high, the outcome is attributed to the individuals ability. To continue with these attributions of outcome, if an individual has low control over the outcome and the outcome stability is high, the outcome is attributed to the difficulty of the task. In this situation, no matter what the individual tries, the outcomes are consistent. Finally, if the individual has high control over the outcome and the outcome stability is low, the performance is attributed to the effort given to the task. Individual performance was further investigated by examining its relationship to self-worth in a study conducted by Corington and Omelich (1987). Self-worth was investigated in relation to the amount of effort exerted among failure-avoiding and failureaccepting students. Self-worth in this context was measured in terms of shame. Used for this purpose, the concept of shame consisted of two dimensions. One dimension of shame was an ability linked dimension called humiliation. The second dimension of shame was an effort linked variable defined as guilt. Results of the study indicated that high effort is found to increase feelings of humiliation and decrease feelings of guilt. Drawing from the works of Weiner (1985) and Covington and Omelich (1985), the concepts of guilt and humiliation can be extended to the concepts of control and stability. Guilt, the effort linked dimension, is characterized by low stability and high control over the outcome. Fear is

characterized by high stability, regardless of the individuals control over the outcome.

Dimensions of Consumer Guilt


Conceptualization of the consumer guilt construct was further defined by way of a focus group/pilot study. Four focus groups were held at a major midwest university. Two independent moderators led the sessions, while the authors viewed a monitor from an adjoining room. Groups of eight to 12 were videotaped to provide a closer examination at a later date. Subjects included a wide range of ages (18-60), religious affiliations, occupations and income levels ranged in ages from 21 to 56. The script included a brief introduction with the moderators explaining the concept of focus groups. In addition, the participants were informed that the session was taped. The first part of the script was designed to help define guilt. The next section provided an opportunity to discuss purchase situations in which the participants believed their purchases to be influenced by guilt. Nominal techniques were used to help prevent bias responses. The next part involved showing the subjects advertisements that related to four appropriate dimensions of guilt appeals. After viewing the ads, subjects were asked to comment on the emotions that the ads elicited, attitudes toward the messages, and potential behavioral influences. The groups concluded by completing a demographic profile. After completing the task, the members were then thanked for their participation and debriefed with regards to the specific details of the study. Two last methods of sampling the domain were used. As suggested by Churchill (1979), experience surveying and insight examples were also conducted and gathered. Experience surveying involved personal interviews with a clinical psychologist, social

37

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING

psychologist, sociologist, and and advertising executive. These interviews allowed the authors to incorporate a multidisciplinary and managerial perspective into the development of the construct. Personal interviews lasted approximately one hour. The last step that was used in identifying the construct was insight examples which involved collecting and identifying advertisements that utilized guilt appeals. Fifty-six undergraduates were used to complete the task. They assigned the ads to one of the four a priori dimensions or if they believed that these dimensions did not work, they were asked to identify separate categories. A total of 168 print advertisements were gathered. All ads were placed into one of the four dimensions. With the information learned from the focus groups, the experience surveys, and the insight examples, a total of 31 survey items were generated and tested. The items consisted of seven-point Likert statements that were worded to reflect the purchase decision situations and experiences which elicited feelings of guilt described by the participants and implied in the ads. Results from the factor analysis study suggest that four dimensions of consumer guilt were identified: (1) financial guilt; (2) health guilt; (3) moral guilt; and (4) social responsibility guilt. Explanations and examples of each of the consumer guilt dimensions follow. Financial guilt is characterized by feelings of guilt that result from making purchases that are not easily justified. Unneeded or extravagant expenditures are examples of purchases which could stimulate financial guilt. Impulse shopping, or a lack of bargain shopping may also generate financial guilt feelings.

Ads that often use financial guilt appeals attempt to convince the target market that they have earned or deserve to splurge a little on themselves. One example of such an ad can be seen in the advertisement for Zales Diamonds. In the print advertisement, the headline asks the soon-to-be-groom isnt she worth two months of his salary? The copy continues to persuade the reader that while that amount may seem like a lot of money, surely the lady with whom he has chosen to live the rest of his life is worth a minimal amount equivalent to a two-month paycheck to signify his love. In this context, the message implies if he is not willing to conform to this average price level, well then he must be either cheap and/or not really care about his bride. A seven-point Likert statement scale was developed to assess individuals levels of financial consumer guilt. Examples of two of the nine items read as follows: (1) I do not regret making purchases that I am unable to logically justify. (2) I feel guilty when I make impulse purchases. Health guilt occurs if an individual believes that he is not taking care of his physical welfare. This dimension includes purchasing decisions that are not beneficial to ones health, such as consuming foods high in fat or smoking cigarettes. Advertisers of food products and exercise equipment often use guilt appeals. Weight Watchers new campaign suggests that with their products the consumer can enjoy Total Indulgence. Zero Guilt. Likewise, spokesperson Sandy Duncan tells viewers that Wheat Thins is the only snackfood that leaves her guilt free. Five items were created to assess individual levels of consumer health guilt. One example asks respondents to indicate their level of agreement with I feel disappointed in myself when I eat junk food.

38

VOLUME 11 NUMBER 3 1994

The third dimension of consumer guilt is guilt that results due to ones moral beliefs. This dimension attempts to capture guilt that occurs when a purchase decision (or anticipated purchase decision) violates ones moral values. For example, various religious groups believe that smoking, drinking, gambling and other behaviors are immoral. Thus when a purchase or potential purchase is influenced by learned moral values, he or she is experiencing moral guilt. One example of this type of appeal can been seen in advertisements for condoms which stress that one is responsible for the life of your partner. From a moral viewpoint, this relates to learned values such as respect and care for all living things. Six items were used in assessing consumer moral guilt. Statements such as I will not buy a product if it is against my religious beliefs and moral issues do not influence my purchase decisions are examples of these items. The final dimension of consumer guilt identified is labeled social responsibility guilt. Social responsibility guilt occurs when one violates ones perceived social obligations as a result of a purchase decision. Situations which have the potential of generating social responsibility guilt include purchase/no purchase decisions involving charity contributions, environmental issues, family obligations, and gift-buying behavior. A couple of examples of items used to assess individual levels of social responsibility guilt read as follows: q I would not feel guilty if someone gave me a Christmas present and I did not give them one in return.
q

Save the Children Foundation make it clear that without public support lives will be lost. Other examples include ads for recycling and environmental concerns which remind viewers that it is up to everyone to insure a clean and safe world for future generations. Clearly marketers should be concerned with the types of consumer guilt that exists. However, other factors must be considered when explaining the effect that such guilt has on buyer behavior. The next section examines a classification system that provides such insight.

Classifying Consumer Guilt Managerial Implications


As shown in Table I consumer guilt can be generally classified across the four dimensions of the construct by three categories: (1) state of the guilt; (2) purchase decision; and (3) focus of the guilt. The following sections will discuss each classification of guilt and its importance for understanding consumer guilts impact on buyer decisions. State of the Guilt State of the guilt refers to the time period in which the guilt feelings occurred. Specifically, the two possible time periods in which guilt can occur are: (1) after one has violated a value or norm (reactive guilt); or (2) prior to a transgression (anticipatory guilt). The distinction between anticipatory and reactive guilt is particularly important to marketers because this difference implies that feelings of guilt can occur before and after purchase decisions. Advertising messages could therefore use two types of persuasion

If I did not buy insurance to provide financial support for my family, I would feel guilty.

A number of ads utilize this type of persuasion technique. For example, ads for St Judes Childrens Hospital and messages given by spokesperson Sally Struthers for

39

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING

Classification State of guilt: Pre-decision guilt (anticipatory guilt)

Financial guilt

Types of consumer guilt Health guilt Moral guilt

Social responsibility guilt Non-American made products (e.g. foreign cars) Charities Non-American made products (e.g. union-worker)

Purchase decision

Purchase product Not purchase product

Fully loaded compact disc player Zales diamond Purchasing a compact disc but feeling that you should have purchased a coat

Candy

Sexually explicit material Church offerings Drinking (belief that immoral)

Low calorie foods Smoking and concerned for own health

Post-decision guilt (reactive guilt)

Focus of guilt

Oneself

Others

Purchasing a Smoking and compact disc but feeling guilt for feeling that you harm to others should have saved for childrens education

Drinking Charities (concerned for family)

Table I. Classifying Consumer Guilt

tactics, depending on the specific product and target consumer. Anticipatory guilt feelings might be evoked by advertising which explores the feelings of guilt the consumer may have if he does not purchase the advertisers product. Reactive guilt is also important for marketers to understand. If guilt is experienced by the purchaser of the companys product, then advertising messages may be effective in trying to help modify the consumers internal purchasing standards which are causing the guilt feelings. Repeat purchases could be significantly affected by this approach. Purchase Decision In this context, purchase decision refers to the premiss that consumer guilt can result from either having made a purchase or from not having made a purchase. Consumers may experience guilt from purchasing a particular product, which is directly related to the

reactive state of guilt classification. Conversely, consumers may also experience guilt from either not purchasing a product, or purchasing a competing product. The following discussion presents examples of consumer guilt occurring as a result of an individuals purchase decisions for each of the four dimensions of consumer guilt (financial, health, moral and social responsibility). If an individual on a tight budget impulsively decides to purchase a compact disc player, complete with all the extra features, he may experience financial guilt. This form of post-purchase financial guilt could result if the buyer believes that the purchase was too extravagant or unnecessary given his financial obligations. Financial guilt can also occur as a result of not having made a purchase. The example of the Zales diamond ad typifies such a persuasion technique. Again, if the groom does not buy a diamond that meets a certain price guide level

40

VOLUME 11 NUMBER 3 1994

from Zales but rather opts to purchase a less expensive engagement ring then he may experience post-purchase financial guilt that results from failure to purchase a product. Purchase decisions which could evoke feelings of health guilt include buying consumable items that are generally viewed as unhealthy (e.g. cigarettes or alcohol). Unpurchased products which could induce a feeling of health guilt might include lowcalorie foods, the decision not to join a health club, or the decision not to have annual check-ups by a physician. Moral guilt refers to the feelings that one experiences when one has engaged (or is tempted to engage) in some type of behavior that is generally considered wrong by society. In a consumer context, moral guilt may be experienced by some individuals who buy products such as sexually explicit material or non-prescription drugs. Moral guilt could also result as a consequence of not engaging in certain consumer decisions such as giving to charities or a church. The fourth type of consumer guilt, social responsibility, alludes to the belief that consumer guilt may result from not living up to ones social obligations. For example, if an individual purchases a foreign car, and feels that his purchase is adding to the hardship of the American auto workers, social responsibility guilt may arise. An example of social guilt occurring as a result of not having made a purchase can be seen in gift buying behavior. Gift buying is a common ritual and, as such, carries with it certain social expectations. Thus, if one forgets to purchase a gift for an appropriate occasion, one may experience social responsibility guilt.

individuals purchase decision may have adverse effects either on that individual or on others. It is important to understand toward whom the guilt is directed, because the focus of the guilt may affect the salience of the emotion. For example, some individuals may hold little concern for the consequences of their actions on others while some individuals may care deeply how their actions affect others. The four dimensions of consumer guilt will be examined in this context as follows.

Financial guilt will be determined on the basis of the foregone opportunity


n
The focus of financial guilt will be determined on the basis of the foregone opportunity. Relating to the example of purchasing a compact disc player, if the individual believes the money spent on the compact disc player may have been better spent on his childrens education, then the focus of the guilt is related to someone other than the consumer. However, if the decision maker believes that the money would have been better used to purchase a winter coat, then the focus of the guilt is directed toward oneself. Health guilt will be examined through an example of an individual who smokes. The individual may feel health guilt because of the adverse effects of smoking on his own health. He may also feel health guilt because of the harmful effects of secondary smoke which is imposed on the health of others who may be around him while he smokes. Some product examples used for health guilt can also be used for moral guilt. That is, not only is smoking, drinking and drug use

Focus of Guilt The final classification of consumer guilt describes it in terms of whom is affected by the actions of the decision maker. An

41

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING

generally viewed as unhealthy, but it is also thought by some individuals to be morally wrong. Thus, engaging in these purchase decisions may generate health guilt/moral guilt for the consumer. The consumer may take moral guilt one step further and relate the adverse effects of his consumption activity on his family, thereby directing the focus of guilt on others.

Consumer guilt may help to explain consumer purchase behaviour


n
Social responsibility guilt also contains a continuum whereby the decisions of an individual will affect him to various degrees. For example, one may feel guilty for not contributing to the world hunger problem. In this context, the focus of the guilt is exclusively directed at the negative consequences of ones actions on others. However, social responsibility guilt may result from a decision which relates to ones personal welfare. For example, if an auto union member decides to purchase a foreign car, he may experience social responsibility guilt. In this case, he may feel that his decision could contribute to the problems experienced by American automakers, and thus the individual auto worker as well.

persuasion tactics to influence consumers to buy their products. Not only can it be used as a valuable persuasion tool for private industry, but it also serves as an important method of presentation from a public policy perspective as well. For example, guilt appeal might serve as a successful type of motivational appeal in the demarketing of unwanted behaviors such as abusive alcohol consumption, smoking, drug usage, etc. Hopefully this article has prompted interest in this unexamined motivator and has contributed to that awareness and knowledge.

References and Further Reading


Aaker, D.A., Stayman, D.M. and Hagerty, M.R. (1986), Warmth in Advertising: Measurement, Impact, and Sequence Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, March. Bozinoff, L. and Ghingold, M. (1983), Evaluating Guilt Arousing Marketing Communications, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 11, June, pp. 243-55. Butler, D. (1993), Fat and Happy?, American Demographics, January, pp. 52-7. Churchill, G.A. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, February, pp. 64-73. Covington, M.V. and Omelich, C.L. (1985), Ability and Effort Valuation among FailureAvoiding and Failure-Accepting Students, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 446-59. Darlington, R.B. and Macker, C.E. (1966), Displacement of Guilt-produced Altruistic Behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 442-3.

Conclusion
Guilt is an emotion which can have a significant impact on the behavior of consumers. As a new construct in the field of marketing, consumer guilt may help to explain consumer purchase behavior and provide opportunities for marketers to use

42

VOLUME 11 NUMBER 3 1994

English, H.B. and Macker, A.C. (1976), A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychology and Psychoanalytical Terms, David McKay Company, New York, NY. Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Standford. Freedman, J.L. Wallington, S.A. and Bless, E. (1967), Compliance without Pressure: The Effects of Guilt, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 117-24. Ghingold, M. (1980), Guilt Arousing Marketing Communications: An Unexplored Variable, in Monroe, K.B. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 442-8. Konokse, P ., Staple, S. and Graft, R.G. (1979), Complaint Reactions to Guilt: Self-esteem or Self-Punishment, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 108, pp. 207-11. Rawlings, E.I. (1970), Reactive Guilt and Anticipating Guilt in Altruistic Behavior, in

Macaulay, J.R. and Berkowitz, L. (Eds), Altruism and Helping Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY. Regan, D.T., Williams, M. and Sparling, S. (1972), Voluntary Expiation of Guilt: A Field Experiment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 42-5. Steenhuysen, J. (1990), Nostalgia Hooks a New Generation, Advertising Age, Vol. 61 No. 3, 30 July, p. 26. Stein, E.V. (1968), Guilt: Theory and Therapy, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA. Weiner, B. (1985), An Attributional Theory of Achievement, Motivation and Emotion, Psychological Review, Vol. 92 No. 4, December, pp. 548-73

Melissa S. Burnett is Associate Professor of Marketing at Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri and Dale A. Lunsford is Associate Professor of Marketing at the University of Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.

43

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi