Content uploaded by Ravindra Chitturi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ravindra Chitturi on Jun 15, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.ijdesign.org 7 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
Introduction
The ultimate measure of an effective design is the overall
consumption experience it provides for the consumers by offering
different types of benets. An effective design generates desirable
consumption experience and favorably inuences subsequent
consumer behavior (Chitturi, Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2007;
Desmet & Hekkert, 2007). This article adopts a two dimensional
(hedonic and utilitarian) product benets framework prevalent in
marketing literature to explore the relationship between product
design, consumption experience, negative emotions, and customer
loyalty1. (Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Chitturi et al., 2007). The overall
consumption experience is a function of a mix of different types
of positive and negative emotions. Therefore, it is important for
the designers to understand the relationship between the benets
they design into a product and the nature of the consumption
experience as determined by its emotional content (Chitturi et
al., 2008). After all, one of the main objectives of designers is
to offer a unique experience to consumers to motivate them to
indulge in positive word-of-mouth and improve the likelihood of
repurchasing the product.
In a society that offers abundant choices among products,
the ability of the consumer to make the right tradeoffs is critical
to accomplishing the short-term objectives of satisfactory task
performance. The ability to make the right tradeoffs is also
critical to the long-term goals of fullling overall consumption
experience. Here, satisfaction with the completed task depends
on the tradeoff that maximizes the probability of fullling your
task related objective. Further, fullling emotional experience
depends on the overall emotional content of the consumption
experience. However, it has been shown that the emotional
content of the consumption experience is determined not only
by the consumption of the product but also by the knowledge
about the forgone product alternative (Chitturi et al., 2007, 2008;
Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). This is especially the case when
consumption of the chosen product does not fulll customers’
goals resulting in a set of negative post-consumption emotions—a
key component of this paper.
In this paper, we demonstrate that consumption of
hedonic and utilitarian design benets evokes different types
and intensities of negative and positive emotions. Specically,
we theorize and validate the presence of four new negative post-
Received March 16, 2009; Accepted July 13, 2009; Published August 31, 2009
Copyright: © 2009 Chitturi. Copyright for this article is retained by the authors,
with rst publication rights granted to the International Journal of Design. All
journal content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivs 2.5 License. By virtue of
their appearance in this open-access journal, articles are free to use, with proper
attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
Corresponding Author: rac2@lehigh.edu.
Emotions by Design: A Consumer Perspective
Ravindra Chitturi
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
What is the relationship between attribute tradeoff decisions at the time of purchase and emotional content of the consumption experience?
This article offers a comprehensive overview and an enhanced model of the possible forms of this relationship. It sets forth new insights
into negative post-consumption emotions in an integrated manner with prior work on attribute tradeoffs and positive emotions. The
primary insights this research provides are as follows: (1) a negative experience with the choice of a product with superior utilitarian and
inferior hedonic benets (e.g., a highly functional cell phone with poor attractiveness) over a product with superior hedonic and inferior
utilitarian benets evokes feelings of sadness, disappointment, and anger, (2) a negative experience with the choice of a product with
superior hedonic and inferior utilitarian benets (e.g., a highly attractive cell phone with poor functionality) over a product with superior
utilitarian and inferior hedonic benets evokes feelings of guilt and anxiety. Further, an enhanced model is presented that integrates
the results for four new negative post-consumption emotions with the results from replication of prior work on positive emotions and
consumer behavior. Finally, the research shows that positive and negative emotions impact customer loyalty. The article discusses the
theoretical contribution and strategic insights the research provides for product designers and marketers.
Keywords – Hedonic Design, Utilitarian Design, Prevention Emotions, Promotion Emotions, Customer Loyalty.
Relevance to Design Practice – The paper clearly demonstrates that different design benets lead to different types and intensities of both
positive and negative consumption experiences. It makes a case for strategic approach to designing products that evoke desirable positive
emotions and minimize negative emotions to enhance customer loyalty.
Citation: Chitturi, R. (2009). Emotions by design: A consumer perspective. International Journal of Design, 3(2), 7-17.
“Chicago Diners weren’t really choosing between lousy food and good food but between good food in an
appealing environment and better food in an unappealing environment.”
— Virginia Postrel, Source: The Substance of Style.
SPECIAL ISSUE ON DESIGN & EMOTION
www.ijdesign.org 8 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
Emotions by Design: A Consumer Perspective
consumption emotions to enhance the model proposed by Chitturi
et al. (2008 p. 49). This article builds on the idea that attributes
that offer hedonic benets and fail to fulll expected consumption
experience evoke a variety of negative emotions when compared
with attributes that offer utilitarian benets and have the same
consumption experience. The prior work has focused primarily on
post-consumption positive emotions whereas this paper explores
negative post-consumption emotions in more detail.
This article progresses through a discussion of the
conceptual framework with a review of the relevant literature
to derive our main predictions about the negative emotions. The
article then provides empirical tests of these predictions, and
replicates prior work on positive emotions with the help of a
second study.
An Enhanced Model of Tradeoffs, Design
Benets and Consumption Emotions
This article improves the model proposed by Chitturi et al. (2008)
by testing and integrating the four new negative emotions of
guilt, anxiety, sadness, and disappointment with their model.
The enhanced model offers a more complete picture of tradeoffs
involving hedonic and utilitarian design benets, and both
negative and positive post-consumption emotions.
What are Utilitarian and Hedonic Benets?
Here, the denitions of hedonic and utilitarian benets used
are consistent with prior work by Chitturi et al. (2007), Dhar
and Wertenbroch (2000), and Okada (2005)2. In the literature,
hedonic benets are dened as those pertaining to aesthetic and
experiential benets that are often labeled as luxuries. Utilitarian
benets are dened as those pertaining to instrumental and
functional benets that are closer to necessities than luxuries
(Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Chitturi et al. 2007; Dhar & Wertenbroch,
2000; Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998). In the context of cell phones,
for example, the phone’s battery life and network coverage are
utilitarian benets, whereas aesthetic appeal from its shape and
color are hedonic benets.
Understanding the tradeoffs involving these two benet
dimensions has been an area of active research in recent years
(e.g., Chitturi et al. 2007, 2008; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000;
Kivetz & Simonson, 2002b; Okada, 2005; Voss, Spangenberg,
& Grohmann 2003). Prior research has focused primarily on
assessing the relative weight that consumers attach to these
two dimensions in purchase decisions. For example, Chitturi et
al. (2007) document that consumers attach greater importance
to the hedonic (versus utilitarian) dimension, but only after a
“necessary” level of functionality is satised. Similarly, Kivetz,
and Simonson (2002a) document that consumers attach greater
weight to the utilitarian (versus hedonic) dimension, unless they
believe that they have “earned the right to indulge.” In contrast,
this research focuses on the tradeoffs between these two design
benet dimensions within a chosen product, as well as between
the chosen and the foregone product alternatives. Further, it
studies the inuence of tradeoff decisions on post-consumption
negative and positive emotional and behavioral consequences.
What are Prevention and Promotion Goals?
The regulatory focus theory describes promotion goals to
include aspirations of pleasurable consumption experience
(Higgins, 1997, 2001). For example, “looking cool” or “being
sophisticated” are promotion goals. Conversely, prevention
goals are those that ought to be met such as “behaving in a safe
and secure manner” and “being responsible” to avoid a painful
consumption experience. What is the relative importance of
hedonic and utilitarian design benets for a consumer? Chitturi
et al. (2007) shows there are two principles that determine the
relative consumer preference involving tradeoffs between
hedonic and utilitarian design benets. They are, (1) the principle
of precedence, and (2) the principle of hedonic dominance. The
principle of precedence motivates consumers to assign greater
importance to utilitarian benets over hedonic benets until a
minimum threshold of functionality for fulllment of prevention
goals. However, beyond this minimum threshold of functionality,
the principle of hedonic dominance motivates customers to assign
greater weight to hedonic benets over utilitarian benets for
fulllment of promotion goals.
Tradeoffs, Consumption Experience, and
Consumer Behavior
This paper adapts the conceptual framework developed by
Chitturi et al. (2008) to include four new negative emotions
of guilt, anxiety, sadness, and disappointment. The model is
based on the expectancy-disconrmation theory (Oliver, 1997),
regulatory-focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 2001), and appraisal
theory of emotions (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1991). The
improved conceptual model is shown in Figure 1. The main
hypotheses developed later in this paper are shown in the diagram
to capture the relationships among design, emotions, word-
of-mouth, and repurchase intentions. This hedonic-utilitarian
benets consumption framework helps us understand the
differences in hedonic and utilitarian benets in evoking various
types of negative and positive post-consumption emotions.
Chitturi et al. (2008) dene positive emotions experienced by
the consumers when their promotion goals are fullled during
product consumption as positive promotion emotions. Positive
emotions experienced by consumers when their prevention goals
are fullled during product consumption are dened as positive
prevention emotions.
Consistent with the conceptual framework for positive
promotion and prevention emotions developed by Chitturi et
al. (2008), this paper enhances it to dene the role of negative
Ravindra Chitturi is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the College of
Business & Economics at Lehigh University. He holds an Executive MBA
and a PhD in Marketing from the University of Texas at Austin, and an MS
in Computer Science from Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. He also
holds a BS in Electrical Engineering from National Institute of Technology at
Trichy, India. Professor Chitturi’s primary research interests are in the areas
of innovation with emphasis on Design Theory and Emotions. He has been a
computer design engineer, manager, and an executive with rms such as Intel
and IBM.
www.ijdesign.org 9 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
R. Chitturi
promotion and prevention emotions as well. Therefore, we ask the
following question: What is the emotional content of the negative
consumption experience in the context of the tradeoffs made by
the consumer between hedonic and utilitarian design benets?
The conceptual framework posits that the negative consumption
experience with a product choice that offers superior utilitarian
and inferior hedonic benets compared to the foregone alternative
evokes emotions of sadness, disappointment, and anger; whereas,
the negative consumption experience with a product choice that
offers superior hedonic and inferior utilitarian benets compared
to the foregone alternative evokes emotions of guilt and anxiety.
Further, these post-consumption negative and positive emotions
determine the customer loyalty behavior as measured by word of
mouth and repurchase intentions (Jacoby & Chestnut 1978). This
research empirically validates the proposed relationships in the
model shown in Figure 1.
Expectancy Disconrmation and Emotions
The type and intensity of post-consumption negative emotions
are a function of the degree of expectancy disconrmation and
the source (i.e., hedonic versus utilitarian design benets) of
expectancy disconrmation (Oliver, 1997). The model proposed
and tested by Chitturi et al. (2008) comprehensively studies the
mixed set of positive emotions that result from such expectancy
conrmation along the hedonic and utilitarian benet dimensions.
However, it is relatively silent on the negative set of mixed
emotions resulting from such expectancy disconrmation. This
paper develops theoretical bases for a set of four new negative
emotions resulting from expectancy disconrmation with hedonic
and utilitarian design benets. As shown in Figure 1, the enhanced
model’s new set of negative emotions are guilt, anxiety, sadness,
and disappointment.
Prevention Goals, Promotion Goals, and
Negative Emotions
It is known that consumers experience negative emotions when
products fail to meet expectations (Mano & Oliver, 1993;
Westbrook, 1987). This research adds the following qualication
to this general rule: The failure to meet a utilitarian expectation
leads to negative prevention emotions of anxiety and anger,
whereas the failure to meet a hedonic expectation merely leads
to negative promotion emotions of sadness and disappointment.
Prior work has shown that prevention goals are considered more
important than promotion goals (Chitturi et al., 2007; see also
Favoring Hedonic
Benefits over
Utilitarian Benefits
Guilt,
Anxiety
or
Excitement,
Cheerfulness,
Delight
Negative
or
Positive
Word-of-Mouth
Favoring Utilitarian
Benefits over
Hedonic Benefits
Post-consumption
Negative and Positive
Emotions
H1/H2/H3
H1/H2/H3
H4/H5
H4/H5
Customer
Loyalty
Sadness,
Disappointment,
Anger
or
Confidence,
Security
Negative
or
Positive
Repurchase
Intentions
Product Choice
Involving Tradeoffs in
Design Benefits
Negative or Positive
Consumption
Experience
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of choice involving tradeoffs between hedonic and utilitarian design benets and
post-consumption negative and positive emotions.
www.ijdesign.org 10 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
Emotions by Design: A Consumer Perspective
Kivetz & Simonson, 2002b). As such, when a product fails to
fulll a relatively more important prevention goal from utilitarian
design features such as anti-lock brakes or safety airbags in a car,
consumers are likely to experience intense negative emotions that
are high in arousal (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1991). It is expected
that this emotion would be related to anger and anxiety for two
reasons. First, according to the principle of precedence, consumers
expect to fulll their prevention goals based on the promises of
superior utilitarian benets by the manufacturer (Chitturi et al.,
2007). Any failure on the part of the product to meet prevention
goals due to disconrming experience with utilitarian benets is
more likely to be attributed to others (e.g., the manufacturer or
retailer) than to the consumers themselves. The appraisal theory
of emotions suggests that negative outcomes attributed to others
are likely to lead to anger (Roseman, 1991). Second, if consumers
choose a product that offers superior utilitarian benets and
inferior hedonic benets over a foregone alternative with superior
hedonics, there is a sense of sadness and disappointment due to
an anticipated loss of pleasure as a result of this tradeoff (Chitturi
et al., 2007). This discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
♦H1: Choosing a product that offers superior utilitarian and
inferior hedonic design benets over a foregone product
alternative with superior hedonic and inferior utilitarian
benets, and having a negative consumption experience with
the chosen product evokes,
• negative promotion emotions of sadness and
disappointment due to a feeling of loss of pleasure from
forgone hedonics
• negative prevention emotion of anger due to non-
fulllment of prevention goals from disconrmation of
promised superior utilitarian benets by the manufacturer
In contrast to the anger evoked by the failure to meet
prevention goals from utilitarian design benets, when consumers
tradeoff utilitarian design benets in favor of hedonic design
benets, does it evoke a different set of negative emotions?
Choosing a product that offers superior hedonic and inferior
utilitarian design benets over the foregone alternative also
evokes a combination of negative promotion and prevention
emotions of guilt and anxiety respectively. Consumers have a
sense of guilt when they compromise on utilitarian design benets
and choose a product with superior hedonic and inferior utilitarian
design benets (Kivetz & Simonson, 2002b). This feeling of guilt
is magnied when consumption experience is disconrming on
the hedonic dimension and promotion goals are not fullled, and
when consumption experience is disconrming on the utilitarian
dimension as well. Okada (2005) has shown that the ability to
justify hedonic consumption reduces guilt associated with it. In
this case, a conrming consumption experience with the utilitarian
design benets would have offered a justication for choosing
a hedonically superior product. However, a disconrming
consumption experience on the utilitarian dimension eliminates
this possibility—leading to greater intensity of guilt. Further,
customers feel anxious about non-fulllment of minimum
prevention goals due to disconrming consumption experience
with utilitarian design benets. This discussion leads to the
following hypothesis:
♦H2: Choosing a product that offers superior hedonic and
inferior utilitarian design benets over a foregone product
alternative with superior utilitarian and inferior hedonic
design benets, and having a negative consumption
experience with the chosen product evokes,
• negative promotion emotion of guilt due to a sense of
“yielding to temptation” for superior hedonic benets at
the expense of utilitarian benets
• negative prevention emotion of anxiety from inadequate
utilitarian benets
Utilitarian Design Benets and Positive
Prevention Emotions, and Hedonic Design
Benets and Positive Promotion Emotions
Thus far, the literature review has generated predictions about the
types of negative emotions that are likely to be evoked by the
non-fulllment of prevention and promotion goals from utilitarian
and hedonic benets, respectively. A question that naturally
follows is, what types of positive emotions are evoked in post-
consumption contexts when the consumption experience meets or
exceeds expectations? To offer a comprehensive overview of the
enhanced model, this paper discusses hypotheses development
and replicates the research study done by Chitturi et al. (2008) on
the set of post-consumption positive emotions.
What are the positive emotions that result from the fulllment
of prevention and promotion goals? This research proposes that
the type of positive emotion experienced depends on whether a
utilitarian or a hedonic expectation of product performance is met.
To understand why this is so, consider the differences in the basic
characteristics of the goals associated with the utilitarian and
hedonic dimensions of product design benets that was reviewed
earlier. The “must-meet” nature of prevention goals increases
customers’ focus on the utilitarian benets of a product because
it has been shown that utilitarian benets are perceived as being
closer to necessities or needs that help fulll prevention goals
(Chernev, 2004; Higgins, 1997; Kivetz & Simonson, 2002b).
However, when prevention goals are not fullled, customers
experience increased pain in the form of negative feelings. For
example, customer awareness that the absence of air bags and
seat belts in a car could lead to severe injury in the event of a
car accident is likely to evoke anxiety whenever the customer
is in a fast-moving car. The presence of safety features, such as
air bags, antilock brakes, and vehicle stability assist, reduces the
pain of anxiety and increases feelings of security and condence.
Conversely, the “aspire-to-meet” nature of the promotion goals
increases customers’ focus on the hedonic benets of a product
(Chernev, 2004). However, unlike the case of prevention goals,
the non-fulllment of promotion goals is perceived as a loss of
pleasure rather than an increase in pain. It is because hedonic
benets are perceived as being closer to luxuries or wants that
help fulll promotion goals (Chernev, 2004; Chitturi et al., 2007;
Higgins, 1997; Kivetz & Simonson, 2002b). A loss of pleasure
is likely to evoke sadness and disappointment, but an increase in
pain is likely to cause anger. For example, driving a convertible
along the beautiful Hawaiian coast on a sunny day is likely to be
www.ijdesign.org 11 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
R. Chitturi
cheerful, exciting, and delightful leading to enhanced pleasure.
However, driving a car without a convertible top is unlikely to
be painful, though it could be sad and disappointing leading to
an overall dissatisfactory experience. Therefore, consistent with
Chernev (2004), Chitturi et al. (2007), and Higgins (1997, 2001),
the fulllment of promotion goals by hedonic benets is likely to
evoke feelings of cheerfulness, excitement, and delight, and the
fulllment of prevention goals by utilitarian benets is likely to
evoke feelings of condence and security.
♦H3: A positive consumption experience with utilitarian
design benets evokes greater positive prevention emotions
of condence and security whereas a positive consumption
experience with hedonic design benets evokes greater
positive promotion emotions of cheerfulness, excitement,
and delight.
Emotional Content of Consumption Experience
and Customer Loyalty
An analysis of the emotional consequences of the fulllment and
non-fulllment of hedonic and utilitarian goals would be benecial
to theory development. It is also managerially relevant because
it helps predict post-consumption customer loyalty. Because our
primary goal is to understand how the promotion-focused and
prevention-focused emotions inuence customer loyalty, we
will examine how they inuence two variables associated with
loyalty: word of mouth and repurchase intentions (Jacoby and
Chestnut 1978).
Positive Promotion/prevention Emotions, Word of
Mouth, and Repurchase Intentions
According to psycho-evolutionary theories of emotion (Frijda,
1987; Lazarus, 1991; Plutchik, 1980), different emotions are
associated with different action tendencies (Frijda, 1987). For
example, the action tendency associated with anger is one of
“boiling inwardly” with a desire to act, whereas that associated
with sadness is one of feeling “helpless” (Frijda, 1986). Building
on previous research (e.g., Mehrabian & Russell, 1974), this paper
argues that the likelihood that an action tendency will be translated
into actual behavior depends on the level of arousal associated
with the emotion in question. The promotion emotions of
cheerfulness, excitement, and delight arising from the fulllment
of promotion goals by hedonic benets are high-arousal feelings
(Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1991). They are also the feelings that
enhance pleasure accompanied by high arousal. Conversely, the
fulllment of prevention goals by utilitarian benets leads to
the low-arousal feelings of condence and security (Higgins,
1997; Lazarus, 1991). They are also the feelings that result from
reduction in pain that is accompanied by lower arousal.
♦H4: Consumers are more likely to indulge in both positive
word of mouth and repeat purchase behavior when they
experience positive promotion emotions from consumption
of hedonic design benets compared to when they experience
positive prevention emotions from consumption of utilitarian
design benets.
Negative Promotion/prevention Emotions,
Repurchase Intentions, and Word of Mouth
Thus far, the article has argued that customers with positive
promotion (versus prevention) emotions are more likely to express
positive word of mouth and indicate intentions of repeat purchase.
What happens when the consumption experience is negative?
Based on prior research in marketing, Chitturi et al. (2007)
argue that there is a conceptual parallel between necessities–
needs–utilitarian benets and luxuries–wants–hedonic benets
(Chernev, 2004; Higgins, 1997; Kivetz & Simonson, 2002b). In
addition, Maslow’s (1970) hierarchy of needs and the precedence
principle both position necessities–needs–utilitarian benets
as greater in importance than luxuries–wants–hedonic benets.
Chitturi et al. (2007) show that consumers are focused more on
the utilitarian benets than on the hedonic benets of a product
until their minimum expectations of fullling prevention goals
are met. Therefore, frustration of prevention goals by utilitarian
design benets evokes anxiety. Furthermore, a utilitarian benet
is a promise of a certain level of functionality by the manufacturer
or the retailer. When this promise is not fullled, customers blame
the retailer and/or the manufacturer. When negative feelings are
attributable to an entity, customers feel angry (Lazarus, 1991;
Roseman, 1991). Therefore, non-fulllment of prevention goals
due to inadequate utilitarian design benets makes consumers feel
greater anger that is accompanied with greater action tendencies.
However, in the case of hedonic benets such as style and visual
appeal, “what you see is what you get.” The customer, not the
manufacturer, determines at the time of purchase whether the
product is stylish and attractive. Under such circumstances,
customers are more likely to blame themselves than the
manufacturer if their friends do not nd the product to be as
“cool” as expected. However, choosing a product with superior
hedonic design over one with superior utilitarian design also
generates feeling of guilt due to violation of precedence principle
(Chitturi et al. 2007; Kivetz & Simonson, 2002b). Therefore, not
meeting minimum utilitarian expectations from a functionally
superior product choice generates much more intense negative
feelings, such as anger, than a less intense feeling such as guilt
that results from the choice and non-performance of a hedonically
superior product. Because negative prevention emotion of anger is
accompanied by higher levels of arousal than negative promotion
emotions of guilt, it is expected that the failure of products to meet
utilitarian (versus hedonic) expectations leads to greater negative
word of mouth and lower repurchase intentions.
♦H5: Consumers are (a) more likely to indulge in negative
word of mouth and (b) less likely to engage in repeat purchase
when the utilitarian design benets do not fulll prevention
goals evoking negative prevention emotions compared to
when the hedonic design benets do not fulll promotion
goals evoking negative promotion emotions.
Overview of Studies and Results
Through two studies using the consumer products of cell phones
and cars, this research shows that the hedonic and utilitarian
benets of a product differ in their ability to evoke positive and
www.ijdesign.org 12 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
Emotions by Design: A Consumer Perspective
negative promotion and prevention emotions. The products were
selected to ensure that participants would be familiar with their
attributes and benets, and could imagine the set of products in
various usage scenarios. At the same time, it was important that
the chosen products be both visible and useful to enhance the
relevance of both the hedonic and the utilitarian benets. The rst
study with imagined cell phone consumption scenarios involved
student participants at a North American university for extra credit.
The second study was conducted with student automobile owners
to tap into real feelings based on real consumption experience.
Study 1
Design and Task
We used a 2 (product design benets2: hedonic versus utilitarian) x
4 (consumption experience: conrm/conrm, conrm/disconrm,
disconrm/conrm, disconrm/disconrm) between-subjects
design. A total of 240 undergraduate students participated for
extra credit. The participants were randomly assigned to each
of the eight cell phones. Participants were given a booklet titled
“Consumer Decision Making Questionnaire,” with the following
starting instructions on the rst page:
In this questionnaire, we are interested in nding how you feel
about a product after its purchase and consumption. In the following
pages, you will read about two scenarios that describe your needs,
attributes of a chosen product, and subsequent consumption
experience. Please read the two scenarios carefully and respond to
the questions that follow.
On the following page, participants read information about
the two cell phone choices. Each cell phone was described as a
combination of the three hedonic and three utilitarian attributes.
One of the cell phones offered a “high” level of three hedonic
attributes and a “medium” level of three utilitarian attributes.
The other cell phone in the choice set offered a “medium” level
of three hedonic attributes and a “high” level of three utilitarian
attributes. These three hedonic and three utilitarian attributes
were presented with a picture of the cell phone. Each of the six
attributes and the cell phone picture had two levels and associated
consumption benets—high and medium. The group of attributes
offering benets—hedonic or utilitarian—labeled as “high” was
given a Consumer Reports rating of 4.5 out of 5, and the group
labeled as “medium” was given a Consumer Reports rating of
3.0 out of 5. After reviewing the information and the picture of
each cell phone, participants were asked to read two product
choice and consumption scenarios. The rst scenario described
the purchase and subsequent consumption experience with one of
the cell phones, and the second scenario described the purchase
and subsequent consumption experience with the other cell
phone. The consumption experience within a group condition was
the same across the two scenarios. Only the cell phone choice
(hedonic versus utilitarian) changed between the two scenarios.
The participants were then told to imagine themselves in the rst
scenario, and they answered questions about how they would
feel in that situation. They reported their level of feelings on a
total of 14 anchor measures of discrete positive and negative
emotions. They rated 14 emotions (i.e., guilt, anxiety, sadness,
dissatisfaction, regret, anger, disappointment, surprise, security,
condence, excitement, satisfaction, cheerfulness, and delight)
with the following instructions: “Based on the overall experience
of using my current product, I feel …” (seven-point scale
anchored by 1 = “not at all” and 7 = “extremely”; for sample
measures, see Appendix). This was followed by a four-item scale
that measured arousal (Mehrabian and Russell 1974). The four-
item scale included measures comprising stimulated/relaxed,
excited/calm, aroused/unaroused, and jittery/dull. Participants
then answered questions about positive word of mouth, negative
word of mouth, and repurchase intentions (for sample measures,
see Appendix). These measures of emotions, word of mouth, and
repurchase intentions served as dependent variables across the
treatment conditions. Finally, participants completed the section
containing manipulation checks and demographic variables.
Stimuli Construction
The objective was to construct more realistic stimuli while
retaining the level of control that is needed to test the hypotheses.
To accomplish this objective, we conducted two pretests. For
Pretest 1, a comprehensive list of attributes was developed based
on real product manuals of some of the most popular cell phones
in the market (e.g., Nokia, Samsung, and Motorola). This led to
a list of more than 50 attributes. For practical reasons, the goal
was to identify the top three most inuential attributes that offer
hedonic benets and the top three most inuential attributes that
offer utilitarian benets to construct the stimuli for the experiment.
To accomplish this, more than 100 participants were asked to rate
all the attributes in terms of importance and impact on purchase
decision3. On the basis of the Pretest 1 responses, the top 15 most
inuential attributes on purchase decision were selected. To test
our theory, product stimuli were constructed that had either a
group of attributes that was primarily hedonic, or a group that was
primarily utilitarian in terms of the benets offered.
Stimuli Description
The utilitarian benets dimension of each cell phone comprised
the level of network coverage (98% versus 95%), battery capacity
(three days versus two days), and sound clarity (high versus
medium). The hedonic benets dimension comprised the oyster
ip phone feature (yes/no), the option to change phone colors
(yes/no), and the ability to program new ring tones (yes/no). These
attribute descriptions and levels were combined with pictures of
the two cell phones. One picture showed a highly stylish and
attractive oyster ip phone, and the other showed a medium-rated
non-ip feature cell phone.
Manipulation Checks
On a seven-point scale, participants indicated the extent to which
the consumption experience met their expectations on the hedonic
dimension (1 = “better than expected,” and 7 = “worse than
expected”). The same question was repeated for the utilitarian
dimension. The measures were reverse coded for data analysis.
www.ijdesign.org 13 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
R. Chitturi
The t-tests showed that the manipulation was successful. The
means for the four experience conditions for the product with
superior hedonic benets were (1) conrm/conrm = 5.84/4.96,
(2) disconrm/disconrm = 2.8/2.32, (3) conrm/disconrm =
5.18/2.43, and (4) disconrm/conrm = 3.1/4.61. Similarly, the
means for the four experience conditions for the product with
superior utilitarian benets were (1) conrm/conrm = 5.27/5.56,
(2) disconrm/disconrm = 2.73/2.51, (3) conrm/disconrm =
4.98/2.77, and (4) disconrm/conrm = 2.4/5.11.
Results and Discussion
To test H1 and H2, we ran a MANOVA across two product types
for the emotions of guilt, anxiety, sadness, disappointment, and
anger. The results for the two product-type groups were signicant
(Wilks’ l = .903, F = 12.518, p < .01), and the univariate tests
for guilt, anxiety, sadness, disappointment, and anger were also
signicant (tguilt = 3.3, p < .01; tanxiety = 2.9, p < .01; tsadness = 2.6,
p < .01; tdisappointment = 2.4, p < .05; tanger = 5.2, p < .01). The cell
means and standard deviations for all the negative emotions as
a result of negative consumption experience with a cell phone
with superior hedonic benets versus superior utilitarian benets
appear in Table 1. To test H3, we ran a multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) across four experience conditions and two
product types (superior hedonic benets versus superior utilitarian
benets) for prevention emotions of condence and security and
promotion emotions of excitement, cheerfulness, and delight.
The results from the MANOVA were signicant for product type
(Wilks’ l = .605, F = 37.389, p < .01) and experience (Wilks’ l =
.510, F = 14.69, p < .01), and the univariate tests for cheerfulness,
excitement, delight, condence, and security were signicant as
well (p < .05). The cell means and standard deviations for all the
positive emotions as a result of positive consumption experience
with a cell phone with superior hedonic benets versus superior
utilitarian benets appear in Table 2. A two-sample t-test found
that in the case of a positive consumption experience, consumers
feel greater intensity of excitement, cheerfulness, and delight
with a more hedonic cell phone than with a more utilitarian cell
phone (texcitement = 6.2, p < .01; tcheerfulness = 3.6, p < .01; tdelight =
4.2, p < .01). Conversely, a positive experience with a utilitarian
cell phone leads to greater security and condence (tsecurity = 5.6,
p < .01; tcondence = 5.1, p < .01). The result with cell phones is
consistent with our predictions in H3. The ndings about customer
emotions show that the results are signicant and in the right
direction; hedonic cell phones are better at fullling promotion-
focused emotional goals, and utilitarian cell phones are better at
fullling prevention-focused emotional goals (Chernev, 2004;
Higgins, 2001).
Next, in terms of H4 and H5, we need to determine whether
differences in hedonic versus utilitarian product benets and
the emotions elicited in the positive or negative consumption
experience are also accompanied by signicantly different levels
of arousal, positive word of mouth, negative word of mouth, and
repurchase intentions. The two-sample t-test shows that customers
experience greater arousal with the hedonic cell phone than with
the utilitarian cell phone (tarousal = 4.10, p < .01). The two-sample
t-test shows that customers are more likely to indulge in positive
word-of-mouth behavior and have greater repurchase intentions
in the case of positive consumption experience with a hedonic cell
phone than with a utilitarian cell phone (tWOM = 5.19, p < .01; tRPI =
4.73, p < .01). Conversely, consumers experience greater arousal
with a utilitarian cell phone than with a hedonic one in the case of
Table 1. Post-consumption emotional responses for negative experience with hedonic versus utilitarian product benets
(cell phone study 1)
Post-consumption
Customer Emotions
Product with
Superior Hedonic Benets
Mean (SD)
Product with
Superior Utilitarian Benets
Mean (SD)
Estimate of Difference
t value
Guilt 3.6 (1.5) 2.5 (1.5) 3.3**
Anxiety 3.9 (1.7) 2.9 (1.6) 2.9**
Sadness 3.1 (1.4) 4.1 (1.5) 2.6**
Disappointment 4.2 (1.6) 5.1 (1.4) 2.4*
Anger 3.9 (1.7) 5.7 (1.2) 5.2**
Note: * Signicant at p< .05; ** Signicant at p< .01
Table 2. Post-consumption emotional responses for positive experience with hedonic versus utilitarian product benets
(cell phone study 1)
Post-consumption Customer
Emotions
Product with
Superior Hedonic Benets
Mean (SD)
Product with
Superior Utilitarian Benets
Mean (SD)
Estimate of Difference
t value
Excitement 5.9 (1.2) 3.4 (1.4) 6.2**
Cheerfulness 5.5 (1.2) 4.4 (1.6) 3.6**
Delight 5.7 (1.4) 4.1 (1.7) 4.2**
Security 3.6 (1.7) 5.7 (1.4) 5.6**
Condence 3.2 (1.6) 5.2 (1.2) 5.1**
Note: * Signicant at p< .05; ** Signicant at p< .01
www.ijdesign.org 14 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
Emotions by Design: A Consumer Perspective
negative consumption experience (tarousal = 3.54, p < .01). Therefore,
as we expected, consumers are more likely to indulge in negative
word-of-mouth behavior and have less repurchase intentions with
a utilitarian cell phone than with a hedonic cell phone (tNWOM =
4.90, p < .01; tLRPI = 3.70, p < .01). This demonstrates that the
consumption of hedonic versus utilitarian benets offered by a
product indeed generates signicantly different intensities of
post-consumption emotions and is accompanied by higher levels
of positive (or negative) word of mouth and repurchase intentions
when the experience is positive (or negative).
Study 2
We conducted Study 1 and measured consumption emotions and
loyalty based on imagined experience scenarios rather than real
experiences. To address this issue and to improve the external
validity, we conducted Study 2 with undergraduate students who
are car owners with real experiences. We measured the same set
of 14 dependent measures of post-consumption emotions and
customer loyalty on the basis of their real experience with their
car. The results are consistent with the ndings in Study 1, and
they provide additional insights into our research question.
Design and Task
We designed the questionnaire to collect information about student
car owners’ feelings about their car based on their consumption
experience. A total of 112 student car owners participated in
the study. They rated 14 emotions (i.e., guilt, anxiety, sadness,
dissatisfaction, regret, anger, disappointment, surprise, security,
condence, excitement, satisfaction, cheerfulness, and delight) in
response to the statement, “Based on the overall experience of
using my current car, I feel,…” on a seven-point scale ranging
from 1 = “not at all” to 7 = “extremely” (for sample measures,
see Appendix). After the emotion measures, the participants rated
how likely they would be to recommend their car to others (as
a measure of the positive word of mouth) and how likely they
would be to repurchase this car if they were to do it all over
again. We measured word of mouth and repurchase intentions
on a seven point scale ranging from 1 = “not at all likely” to 7
= “extremely likely.” This was followed by participants’ overall
impression of the product on the hedonic dimension of “style and
attractiveness” and the utilitarian dimension of “functionality” on
a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = “not at all impressive” to 7
= “extremely impressive,” as well as by a four-item measure of
arousal (Mehrabian & Russell 1974). Participants then answered
questions about whether the product met their expectations on the
“style and attractiveness” and “functionality” dimensions. Finally,
participants provided demographic information.
Results and Discussion
On the basis of the median split of participants’ responses on the
overall rating of “style and attractiveness” and “functionality” of
their cars, we created four groups (i.e., 1 = high/high, 2 = low/
low, 3 = high/low, and 4 = low/high). The results for emotions
from a MANOVA were signicant for the four group conditions
(Wilks’ l = .521, F = 2.11, p < .01), and the univariate tests for
all emotions except guilt, anxiety, and surprise were signicant as
well (p < .05). Our primary focus in this study is to identify the
differences in the antecedents of positive promotion and positive
prevention emotions resulting from the respective consumption
of products with superior hedonic benets and superior utilitarian
benets. Adapting the approach taken by Higgins (1997, 2001)
and Chitturi et al. (2008), we grouped the emotions of condence
and security by averaging them to form a measure of positive
prevention emotions and by averaging the emotions of excitement,
cheerfulness, and delight to form a measure of positive promotion
emotions.
We replicated and tested a full model of positive promotion
and prevention emotions that was proposed and tested by Chitturi
et al. (2008). The model studies the relationship between hedonic
and utilitarian benets with loyalty, as measured by word of
mouth and repurchase intentions. Although positive promotion
and positive prevention emotions are positively correlated (a =
.57), we also found evidence that there are signicant differences
between them. The discussion of the results of our analysis
follows.
A full model tests the proposed relationships among
promotion emotions and loyalty, as measured by word of mouth
and repurchase intentions, using mediation analysis (Baron &
Kenny, 1986). A full model also tests the proposed relationships
among prevention emotions, word of mouth, and repurchase
intentions. The results show that both promotion and prevention
emotions directly inuence word of mouth (βpromotion = .180, p <
.05; βprevention = .492, p < .000; adjusted R2 = .276), and promotion
emotions signicantly improve word of mouth in addition to
prevention emotions. Similarly, both promotion and prevention
emotions directly inuence repurchase intentions (βpromotion =
.287, p < .029; βprevention = .632, p < .000; adjusted R2 = .364), and
promotion emotions signicantly improve repurchase intentions
in addition to prevention emotions. The results demonstrate that
promotion emotions improve customer loyalty by improving word
of mouth and repurchase intentions. However, what about the role
of hedonic versus utilitarian design benets in evoking promotion
versus prevention customer emotions? Further analysis of the
relationship among design benets, promotion emotions, and
prevention emotions reveals that only hedonic benets inuence
promotion emotions (βutilitarian = .054, n.s.; βhedonic = .372, p < .000;
adjusted R2 = .189), whereas both hedonic and utilitarian benets
inuence prevention emotions. As we predicted, utilitarian
benets have a greater inuence on prevention emotions than
hedonic benets (βutilitarian = .422, p < .000; βhedonic = .201, p <
.023; adjusted R2 = .231). As we discussed previously, the results
show a stronger association of hedonic benets with promotion
emotions, and a stronger association of utilitarian benets with
prevention emotions.
General Discussion
Design is a planned organization of elements in a domain,
interconnected with a specic purpose. The purpose of a design
could be to create a right mix of positive and/or negative
www.ijdesign.org 15 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
R. Chitturi
emotional experiences for the consumers. Further, based on our
own experiences with physical products, we know that product
designs can be emotional (Norman, 2004). However, designers
would like to know if different designs elicit different types and
intensities of emotions (Chitturi et al., 2007, 2008). On the other
hand, customers purchase products to either minimize pain or
maximize pleasure, or both. Between enhancing pleasure and
reducing pain there are many different mixes of the types and
intensities of positive and negative emotions that are a part of
the consumption experience. Developing a marketing driven
design benets framework would improve our understanding
of the consumption motivations of customers. This is critical to
improving the effectiveness of a designed product. To this end,
this article adapts the conceptual framework of hedonic/utilitarian
design benets and consumption experience proposed by Chitturi
et al. (2008) to include the negative as well as positive emotional
content of the consumption experience.
In this article, we studied and found evidence for the
research model proposed by Chitturi et al. (2008) where the type
and the intensity of the emotional experience arising from the
consumption of hedonic benets are qualitatively different from
those of utilitarian benets. This paper enhances the model by
including results for the four new negative emotions of guilt,
anxiety, sadness, and disappointment with the original model by
Chitturi et al. (2008). The differences in the emotional content of
the consumption experience result in different levels of negative
promotion emotions, negative prevention emotions, negative
word of mouth, and lower repurchase intentions. The article
explored this question with studies involving cell phones and
automobiles. Study 1 involved students in North America with
imagined scenarios. Study 2 involved student automobile owners
and tapped into their real consumption experiences. The results
across the two studies are consistent and support the fundamental
research proposition and the proposed enhanced model (see
Figure 1).
Hedonic and Utilitarian Design Benets and
Emotions
Building on the work of Higgins (1997, 2001), Chernev (2004),
and Chitturi et al. (2007), we proposed that the goals of a
prevention focus served by utilitarian benets are primarily to
avoid pain, whereas the goals of a promotion focus served by
hedonic benets are primarily to seek pleasure. Consistent with
the predictions, the results show that the type and the intensity
of consumption emotions differ between hedonic and utilitarian
benets because they help fulll different goals of seeking
pleasure and avoiding pain. The result from the rst study proves
a correspondence that links utilitarian design benets with the
negative prevention emotions of anxiety and anger. Likewise, the
results show correspondence that links hedonic design benets
with the negative promotion emotions of guilt, sadness and
disappointment, leading to lower customer loyalty. Furthermore,
in the case of a positive consumption experience, the results
from the second study point to a correspondence that links
hedonic design benets with the positive promotion emotions
of cheerfulness, excitement, and delight, and a correspondence
that links utilitarian design benets with the positive prevention
emotions of condence and security, both leading to greater word-
of-mouth and repurchase intentions.
The research ndings in this article could have signicant
implications for decision makers in product design and marketing
organizations. Because of budget and time constraints, designers
and managers are often compelled to choose among various
attributes. If there is no budget or time constraints, perhaps the best
solution is to maximize both hedonic and utilitarian dimensions
of benet. What are the economic constraints and customer
preference patterns based on tradeoffs involving hedonic and
utilitarian design benets? Does it lead to signicant differences
in the diffusion of innovations? These are potential topics for
further research. These unknowns make the tradeoff process
between various attributes and benets difcult and non-optimal
(Chitturi et al., 2007). However, more often than not, product
designers and managers are forced to tradeoff between selecting
one attribute or another for various reasons. In such situations, we
believe that the designers and marketing managers would be able
to make better decisions if they considered both the negative and
the positive emotional consequences of tradeoffs.
Design Strategy, Emotions, and Loyalty
How can designers, engineers, and marketers benet from the
enhanced model presented in this paper? The presence of a variety
of post-consumption negative emotions resulting from a tradeoff
decision and negative experience suggests the following. First,
the effectiveness of a design strategy in inuencing customer
behavior is as much a function of the forgone product alternative
as it is of the design of the product itself. Additionally, expectancy
disconrmation from hedonic and utilitarian benets consumption
evokes different types and intensities of negative emotions (i.e.,
guilt, anxiety, sadness, disappointment, and anger). Based on the
enhanced model in the paper, the process of product development
and testing can be made much more benets–experience–emotion
centric than purely attribute-centric by including the following
steps: (1) Rate every attribute being considered for inclusion in
the design specication on its ability and likelihood of fullling
target customers’ promotion and prevention emotional wants and
needs; (2) use conjoint analysis to identify the most desirable
combination of the promotion and prevention emotions and their
relative inuence on customer loyalty; (3) calibrate and match the
attributes on the basis of their contribution rating on promotion
and prevention emotions from Step 1 with the ideal combination
of promotion and prevention emotions for the target customer
segment from Step 2; and (4) iteratively calibrate concept testing,
product use testing, and market testing with the ideal prole of
promotion and prevention emotions developed in Steps 1, 2, and 3
until an optimal product and marketing plan is achieved. It is more
benecial to base design decisions on consumer emotions because
emotions are a better predictor of consumer behavior than attribute
levels designed into the product. The same level of attributes can
evoke different intensities of specic emotions, therefore bringing
about error when mapping attribute levels directly to predict
consumer behavior without incorporating the effect of emotional
www.ijdesign.org 16 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
Emotions by Design: A Consumer Perspective
intensities on consumer behavior. The incorporation of these
steps into the new product design and development process will
improve the probability of success for a new product.
Conclusion
On the basis of the results from our studies, we recommend that
designers and marketers understand the full breadth and depth of
the positive and negative promotion and prevention emotions of
consumers. Designers should also be aware that these emotions
come from the consumption of hedonic and utilitarian design
benets offered by a product, as well as from the knowledge of the
forgone product alternative. Application of the insights developed
in this research could potentially help rms in formulating their
design strategy to improve customer loyalty and consequent
return on investment.
Endnotes
1 Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003, p. 310, emphasis
added) state, “Investigation of the hedonic and utilitarian
components of attitude has been suggested in such diverse
disciplines as sociology, psychology, and economics. This
multidisciplinary recognition of the hedonic and utilitarian
elements of consumption mirrors parallel theoretical
development in marketing, mainly from a series of articles
(e.g., Batra & Ahtola 1990; Chitturi et al. 2007; Dhar &
Wertenbroch 2000; Okada 2005).”
2 The benets offered by the attributes of a product
can be broadly categorized along two dimensions:
hedonic and utilitarian. These benets can be high or
low, depending on the product (Crowley, Spangenberg,
and Hughes 1992). Consistent with the work of Dhar
and Wertenbroch (2000) and Okada (2005), this
research conceptualizes hedonic (or utilitarian) product
alternatives as ones that offer relatively superior
hedonic (or superior utilitarian) benets compared to
the foregone alternative(s) in the choice set.
3 Single-item discrete emotion measures are prevalent in
emotion literature. For a more detailed discussion, see Larsen
and Fredrickson (1999, pp. 40-60). For a more detailed
discussion on the effectiveness of single-item versus multi-
item measures, see Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007).
Reference
1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
2. Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1990). Measuring the hedonic
and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing
Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
3. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. (2007). The predictive validity
of the multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175-184.
4. Chernev, A. (2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer
choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1-2), 141-150.
5. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2007). Form
versus function: How the intensities of specic emotions
evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate
product preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4),
702-714.
6. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight
by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benets.
Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48-63.
7. Crowley, A. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Hughes, K. R. (1992).
Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of attitudes
toward product category. Marketing Letters, 3(3), 239-249.
8. Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of
product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1),
57-66.
9. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice
between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing
Research, 37(1), 60-71.
10. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
11. Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure, and action
tendency. Cognition and Emotion, 1(2), 115-143.
12. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American
Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
13. Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention experiences:
Relating emotions to nonemotional motivational states. In J.
P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp.
186-211). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand loyalty:
Measurement and management. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
15. Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002a). Earning the right to
indulge: Effort as a determinant of customer preferences
toward frequency program rewards. Journal of Marketing
Research, 39(2), 155-170.
16. Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002b). Self-control for the
righteous: Toward a theory of precommitment to indulgence.
Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 199-217.
17. Larsen, R, J., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1999). Measurement
issues in emotion research. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, &
N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundation of hedonic
psychology (pp. 40-60). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
18. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
19. Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the
dimensionality and structure of consumption experience:
Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20(3), 451-466.
20. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.).
New York: Harper and Row.
21. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. (1974). An approach to
environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
www.ijdesign.org 17 International Journal of Design Vol.3 No.2 2009
R. Chitturi
22. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or
hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
23. Okada, E. M. (2005). Justication effects on consumer
choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing
Research, 42(1), 43-53.
24. Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on
the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25. Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary
synthesis. New York: Harper and Row.
26. Postrel, V. (2003). The substance of style. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers.
27. Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete
emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 5(3), 161-200.
28. Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity
as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on
what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research,
24(4), 434-446.
29. Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohman, B. (2003).
Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of
consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3),
310-320.
30. Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based
affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of
Marketing Research, 24(3), 258-270.
Appendix — Sample Items From Study Measures
Post-consumption Emotion Measures
Based on the overall experience of using my car, I feel …
Not at all Extremely
Angry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disappointed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Condent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Delighted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Word of Mouth
Given the experience with your car, how likely are you to recommend your car to others?
Not at all Extremely
Likely Likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Repurchase Intentions
Given the experience with your car, would you repurchase the same car, if you had to do it all over again?
Not at all Extremely
Likely Likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
