Social Comparisons of Possessions: When It Feels Good and When It Feels Bad
David Ackerman, California State University, Northridge
Deborah Macinnis, University of Southern California
Valerie Folkes, University of Southern California
ABSTRACT
This study examines social comparisons of possessions-what
happens when a consumer discovers that someone has a better
product or brand. We focus especially on the feelings generated by
such comparisons. The feelings of consumers toward social
comparisons of possessions could be a potent source of social
influence on product purchases. Using remembered incidents of
product comparisons, this study investigates the emotions and
consequences of these comparisons as well as appraisals. The
results shed light on how consumers can become dissatisfied with
their possessions and desire to repurchase products they already
own.
INTRODUCTION
Consumer behavior theories often focus on internal processes
influencing choice. Yet, consumption is very much a social
phenomenon. How people think and feel about products is influenced
by those around them.
One approach that captures the interpersonal aspect of
consumption is social comparison theory. Social comparison theory
maintains that individuals compare themselves to others to evaluate
the ability level and the suitability of their opinions (Festinger
1954). Hence, consumers will compare their possessions with
relevant others to help determine whether their evaluations of
products are correct (for a review, see Folkes and Kiesler 1991).
Whereas research on social comparison theory has focused on
its consequences for attitudes, comparisons can also give rise to
emotions, feelings of satisfaction with the owned product and
desire for the unowned product. People experience such emotions
as envy, jealousy and anger when they compare their abilities to
others with superior talents (Salovey and Rodin 1991; Bers and
Rodin 1984). The research presented here breaks new ground by
examining the emotions people experience when they compare
their possessions to others. In particular, it identifies specific
emotions that underlie contexts in which a social comparison of
possessions stimulates negative emotions and those that stimulate
positive emotions. Further, it investigates the relationship between
specific emotions, consumers' satisfaction with possessions and
their desire for the product owned by the comparison other. Finally,
it sheds light on why some social comparisons of possessions make
consumers feel good while others make them feel bad. Specifically,
the way in which consumers appraise their situation vis a vis the
comparison other may affect their feelings, satisfactions and desires.
Social comparisons and response valence
In general, social comparison in which one compares
unfavorably to a comparison other is thought to evoke negative
feelings (e.g., Tesser et al. 1988). For example, idealized images of
women in advertising often invite unfavorable comparisons with
the self, presenting a threat to self-esteem (Richins 1991). Given the
relationship between unfavorable social comparisons and negative
feelings, one might anticipate that social comparisons engender
dissatisfaction with owned products when a better product is
discovered to be owned by a significant other. Although this link
has not been tested empirically, it is consistent with research that
finds greater dissatisfaction when one's own product performs
worse than product norms (Woodruff et al. 1983; Yi 1993). Also,
Krishnamurthi and Macinnis (1995) suggest that market introduction
of new products can lead to consumer dissatisfaction with existing
products.
Nevertheless, social comparisons need not always elicit
negative responses. Obviously, positive responses may be evoked
when a relevant other's ability is inferior (a downward comparison;
Taylor 1983). More interestingly, though, is that people sometimes
respond positively when a relevant comparison other has superior
abilities. People bask in reflected glory when that ability is not
relevant to one's self-concept (Tesser 1990). Self-evaluation can be
reinforced by the outstanding performance or ability of a close
friend (Cialdini et al. 1976). That reflection process can lead to
basking in reflected glory (Cialdini 1976)-positive feelings from a
pride in another (Tesser 1990). It seems likely that knowing that
another has a superior possession could also evoke positive responses
when the product is not relevant to the self-concept.
In sum, when people compare themselves to others with
superior possessions, responses can be either positive or negative.
Negative responses are likely to lead to product dissatisfaction,
elicited when the comparison product is highly relevant to the self­
concept. Positive responses to comparisons are likely to be associated
with more product satisfaction than are negative responses, and are
likely to arise only when the product under comparison is not
relevant to the self-concept.
Types of emotions arising from social comparisons
Although it is clear that responses to social comparisons can be
either positive or negative, the emotion literature suggests that a
better of understanding of a phenomenon is attained by going
beyond such gross distinctions, and instead identifying specific
types of feelings evoked by the comparison. An emotion is an
affective state generated in response to one's perception of a
situation (Cohen and Areni 1991; Smith and Ellsworth 1987). The
consumer satisfaction literature (Oliver 1993; Westbrook and Oliver
1991) and the consumption experience literature (e.g., Richins
1997; Amould and Price 1993; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982)
provide evidence that people experience a variety of specific
emotions when they think about products rather than simply feeling
just "good" or "bad".
Comparison of one's possessions with those of others is also
likely to elicit some emotions more than others. When people
compare themselves with others who have superior outcomes, they
often feel envy or jealousy and anger (e.g., Crosby 1976; Walker
and Pettigrew 1984). Envy and jealousy have obvious applicability
to possessions. The appraisal literature provides specific theory­
based insight into what emotions might be evoked by the social
comparison of possessions and why these emotions might be
elicited.
Appraisals and emotions
Appraisals are cognitions that involve an assessment of what
is happening and what it implies for personal well being (Lazarus
1991; Smith et al. 1993). A given outcome can lead to a number of
appraisals (e.g., is the outcome fair, is it controllable, who is to
blame). As well as being a condition for the experience of emotion,
173
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 27, © 2000
174 I Social Comparisons ofPossessions: When It Feels Good and When It Feels Bad
certain appraisals influence specific patterns of emotions (Smith et
a!; 1993; Smith and Ellsworth 1987). A basic appraisal component
for emotion is caring about an outcome. If one does not care about
outcomes, one will feel neither positive nor negative emotions.
Negative emotions arise from appraisals that something undesirable
or goal incongruent has happened (Lazarus 1991).
Appraisals that a negative social comparison is unfair give rise
to anger (e.g., Martin 1981; Sweeney et al. 1990). Since another's
possession of a superior product to one's own might be attributed
to that person's unfairly acquiring it, anger seems a logical response
to social comparison of possessions also. Attributions that the
undesirable event is controllable or intentional by the other person
also elicit anger (e.g., Folkes 1984). It may well be that anger is also
evoked in response to a person perceived as intentionally flaunting
ownership of a superior product.
Envy, jealousy, embarrassment, shame and humiliation are
esteem-related emotions that seem relevant to social comparison of
possessions. The self-evaluation maintenance literature emphasizes
the esteem-enhancing and esteem- threatening aspects of
comparisons (e.g., (Tesser et al. 1988; Pleban and Tesser 1981;
Tesser and Campbell 1980). The appraisal literature indicates that
embarrassment is elicited when individuals believe themselves to
be responsible for an unfavorable outcome (Roseman et al. 1996).
Similarly, feelings of shame are related to attributions that one
could control one's failures (e.g., Weiner 1986). Hence, beliefs that
one could control and is responsible for possessing an inferior
product could lead to feelings of shame, embarrassment and
humiliation.
On the other hand, positive emotions arise from appraisals that
something desirable or motive consistent has happened (Roseman
et al. 1996). Research suggests that happiness is a general outcome
related positive emotion (Lazarus 1991). It may best reflect the kind
of generalized good feelings from basking in reflected glory. Such
basking is experienced even though one lacks control or is responsible
for another's superior ability or, in the case at hand, another's
ownership of a superior product.
In sum, appraisals are linked to the types of emotions people
experience. In the rather exploratory study presented here, a limited
set of emotions and appraisals are examined as potentially relevant
to understanding the social comparison of possessions. Our study
contrasted the feelings, appraisals, and product satisfaction reported
by respondents who had experienced either good or bad feelings in
response to a social comparison in which the comparison other
owned a superior product.
METHOD
The research necessitated a method that would allow us to
explore and compare emotions, appraisals, and feelings of product
satisfactions when the comparison made them feel good vs. when
it made them feel bad. To facilitate the comparison and to control
for individual differences in emotionality, appraisal biases, and
optimistic vs. pessimistic tendencies, we used a within-subjects
design. Forty-two undergraduate business students served as re­
spondents. All who agreed to participate completed the task.
Procedure
Subjects were asked to remember and describe in detail two
experiences involving the social comparison of possessions (cf.
Roseman et al. 1990; Smith and Ellsworth 1987). One week
separated the two reports. In both cases, subjects described a
situation in which someone they knew purchased a product much
better than one they owned and for which they were previously
satisfied. In one case, subjects were asked to report on a situation in
which the social comparison made them feel good. In the other case,
they were asked to report on a situation in which the social
comparison made them feel bad. The order in which the reports was
generated was randomized.
The type of products subjects did not differ much across the
negative and positive emotion conditions. Cars were most fre­
quently mentioned by subjects in both conditions (Mbad=13,
Mgood=13). Computers (Mbad=9, Mgood=9) and clothing
(Mbad=7, Mgood=6) were the next most frequently mentioned.
Measures
Social Comparison Emotions. A modified version of the
emotion inventories of Burke and Edell (1989) and Richins (1997)
was used to measure emotions elicited by a social comparison of
products. Eleven emotions, eight negative and three positive, were
measured. Correlation and factor analyses revealed three groups of
negative emotions and one group of positive emotions. Humiliation,
shame and embarrassment loaded on one factor (M=2.39, a=.95),
jealousy and envy loaded on second factor (M=4.13, a=.84), and
anger and frustration loaded on a third (M=2.95, a=.95). Happiness
and gladness loaded on the fourth factor (M=3.25, a=.97). Anxiety
and empathy did not load on any of the factors so we did not include
them in the measures.
Appraisals. Twenty-one items, each using a seven-point agree­
disagree Likert scale, were used to indicate the various appraisal
dimensions. The scale was derived from Lazarus' (1991) appraisal
components and modified by a review of the social comparison
(Tesser 1990; Tesser et al. 1988) and relative deprivation (Sweeney
et al. 1991; Martin 1981) literatures.
Seven subscales were identified through factor analysis. The
first measures how much subjects cared about what happened
(M=4.23, a=.96), while the second assesses desirability of the
outcome for the subject (M=3.10, a=.90). The third component,
assesses perceived fairness of the situation (M=2.83, a=.96). The
fourth component, assesses the degree to which the situation
affected self-esteem (M=2.48, a=.95).
The fifth component measures the degree of responsibility
subjects felt for the outcome of the situation (M=2.25, a=.91). A
higher number indicates higher self-blame. The sixth component
measures how well subjects coped (M=5.72, a=.98). The seventh
assesses the degree of control subjects felt they had over the
outcome of the situation (M=4.24, a=.92). A higher number on this
scale indicates high control over the situation (e.g., by purchasing
the desired product).
Change in satisfaction for the owned product (M=3.21, a=.97)
was measured using a three-item, seven-point, bipolar scale (became
very dissatisfied/became very satisfied).A lower number indicates
lower possession satisfaction. Desire for the product owned by the
comparison other (M=5.60, a=.83) was also measured using a
three-item, seven-point bipolar scale (very desirable/very
undesirable, appealing/not appealing, not want/really want).
Checks
Three items, each measured on a 7-point agreement scale
(a=.72), confirmed that subjects described a situation in which
another person's possession was better than their own. Questions
asked whether subjects perceived the other's product to be "not as
good as," "better" or "higher in quality" than their own. In both the
"feel good" and "feel bad" conditions, subjects perceived that the
other person owned a better product. However, those reporting
situations which made them feel bad perceived that the comparison
other's product was better (M=5.55) than those that reported on
situations that made them feel good (M=4.67; t=-3.23, p<.OOl).
Manipulation
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 27) I 175
TABLE I
Means for Negative and Positive Emotion Conditions
Scale
Mean for
"Feel Bad"
Mean for
"Feel Good"
t (41)
2.39
4.13
2.95
3.25
1.56
2.85
1.44
4.32
3.12**
3.71**
4.73**
-3.01**
3.21
5.60
5.01
5.17
6.31 ••
-2.09.
4.19
3.03
2.73
2.42
3.34
5.72
4.24
3.65
4.42
1.78
3.26
3.85
6.13
4.62
-1.78
3.92 **
-3.54 ••
2.22*
2.32.
1.56
Emotion Measures:
Embarrassment
Envy
Anger
Happiness
Consequences:
Satisfaction
Desire
Appraisals:
Care about the outcome
Desirability of the outcome
Unfairness of the situation
Situation affected self-esteem
Responsibility felt for outcome
Ability to cope
Control over outcome
•
••
.92
p<.05
p<.01
RESULTS
Comparisons between the emotions, satisfaction, desires for
the unowned product and appraisals for consumers in the positive
and negative emotions conditions were done by t-tests. We ana­
lyzed the relationship of the emotion clusters to satisfaction with the
owned product and desires for the unowned one by regression
analysis. Lastly, we also examined the link between appraisal
components and social comparison emotions.
Table 1 reveals clear differences between the "feel bad" and
"feel good" social comparison of possession conditions (see Table
1). Consumers reported feeling more embarrassed, envious, and
angry in "feel bad" vs. "feel good" social comparison of possession
situations, and reported feeling happier in "feel good" situations.
"Feel bad" social comparisons of possessions were also associated
with less satisfaction with the owned product possession
(Mgood=5.01, M bad=3.21, t=�.31, p<.Ol) and greater desire for the
proouct owned by the companson other (Mbad=5.60, Mgood=5.17,
t=-2.09, p<.05). Within conditions, happiness and envy were the
most intensely experienced emotions. However, happiness was
more intensely experienced emotion in the "feel good" condition
(Mgood= for happiness versus Mgood=2.85 for envy, t=). In the
"feel bad" condition, envy was more intensely experienced emotion
(Mbad=for envy vs. Mbad=for happiness).
Social comparisons of possessions creating bad vs. good
feelings are also different in how these situations were appraised.
Table 1 shows that consumers tended to appraise "feel bad"
situations as more unfair than "feel good" situations, and tended to
appraise the "feel good" situation, as one for which outcomes were
more desirable, and for which self-responsibility was high. "Feel
good" (vs. feel bad) situations were also more likely to be appraised
as involving a situation relevant to the respondent's self-esteem.
The relationship among variables was further examined by
conducting regressions of emotions on consequences. Table 2
shows that more embarrassment, envy and anger consumers felt
about the social comparison situation, the more dissatisfaction they
felt with the product they owned. More interestingly, only envy was
related to desire for the unowned product. Since this emotion was
high in both the "feel good" and "feel bad" conditions, envy must
have been an important factor behind the generally high levels of
desire. The positive emotions had no effect on either satisfaction or
desire.
Further insight into the relationship between appraisals,
emotions, and satisfaction is gleaned from regressions of appraisals
on emotions (see Table 3). Embarrassment from a social comparison
of possessions is evoked in response to social comparisons about
which subjects care deeply and which are relevant to their self­
esteem. Envy and anger evoked from social comparison of
possessions are driven by situations appraised as unfair. Finally,
feelings of happiness evoked from social comparison of possessions
are driven by situations appraised as having a desirable outcome
and for which the ability to cope is high. The remaining relationships
between appraisals and emotions were insignificant, though some
might gain significance with a larger sample size and greater power.
DISCUSSION
The apparent ease with which subjects generated incidents
involving social comparisons of possessions suggest that they may
be a common phenomenon. Further, not all of the comparisons are
associated with negative feelings-some are associated with posi­
tive feelings. Unfavorable social comparisons of products produce
a complex set of emotions, the strongest of which are envy and
jealousy. Surprisingly in light of previous literature on social
comparison of abilities, the within condition means reported in
Table 1 suggest that in the "feel bad" condition, emotions are not
uniformly negative, but include feelings of happiness. This may
have to do with the entity of comparison. In contrast to deficient
abilities, dissatisfaction with a possession can often be attenuated
by a trip to the store. Around 25 percent of subjects in the "feel bad"
176 I Social Comparisons ofPossessions: When It Feels Good and When It Feels Bad
TABLE2
Emotions Generated from Social Comparisons as Predictors of Satisfaction with the Owned Product and Desires for the
Product Owned by the Comparison Other
Satisfaction with
Desires for Product
Owned Product
Owned by
Comparison Other
Standardized B (t)
Standardized B (t)
.19 (1.89)
.27 (3.26)**
.10 (1.29)
-.04 (-0.27)
-.33 (-2.62)**
-.26 (-2.29)*
-.27 (-2.83)**
.21 (1.33)
Embarrassment
Envy
Anger
Happiness
* p<.05
** p<.01
TABLE3
Appraisals and Emotions Generated from Social Comparisons
Embarrassment
Envy
Anger
Happiness
Beta (t)
Beta (t)
Beta (t)
Beta (t)
Appraisals:
.31 (2.25)*
-.01 (-0.05)
.19 (1.17)
.16 (0.95)
Desirability
of outcome
-.11 (-0.98)
-.01 (-0.05)
.03 (-0.26)
.51 (3.79)**
Perceived
fairness
.14 (1.05)
.40 (2.20)*
.45 (2.85)*
.03 (0.20)
Situation affects
self-esteem
.31 (2.23)*
.20 (1.11)
.04 (0.25)
.18 (1.04)
Responsibility
for outcome
.03 (0.18)
-.14 (-0.75)
.13 (0.84)
-.20 (-1.14)
Ability to cope
with outcome
-.21 (-1.33)
.18 (0.88)
-.27 (-1.50)
.21 (2.61)**
Perceived control
Over outcome
-.15 (-1.66)
-.25 (-1.66)
-.03 (-.025)
.18 (1.34)
Care About
situation
condition reported doingjust that. Hence, the negative feelings may
motivate consumers to take actions leading to positive feelings.
Nevertheless, those subjects were still able to recall their lower
satisfaction for and perhaps embarrassment over the owned posses­
sion, the desire to acquire the possession owned by the comparison
other, and their feelings of anger and envy toward the comparison
other.
Our results regarding the link between negative emotions and
dissatisfaction are particularly noteworthy, as this relationship has
not been previously tested. Notably, we focus here on social
comparisons, not attributes and product experiences as predictors
of satisfaction. Our results highlight the importance of social
comparisons as part of the way consumers can become dissatisfied
with a product that formerly adequately fulfilled needs. That
dissatisfaction arises not from a change in the product' s perfor­
mance, but through knowing that someone else owns something
better. The fact that product owned by the comparison other in the
"feel bad" condition was later purchased by 25 percent of the
respondents in our sample reveals a potential link between social
comparison induced dissatisfaction and problem recognition (and
choice). By contrast, no one in the "feel good" condition purchased
the product.
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 27) I 177
Another important finding is that envy is the only emotion
related to desire for unowned products. Research has previously
focused on the informational aspects of social influence on con­
sumer purchases (Childers and Rao 1992; Folkes and Kiesler 1991)
or compliance with social norms (Fisher and Ackerman 1998;
Fisher and Price 1992) to influence individual behavior. Our results
suggest that envy may also be an important part of social influence.
Consumers can feel envious when they discover that socially close
others own newer and better products, leading to a desire to emulate
them. Thus, a benign form of envy from social comparisons of
possessions may lead to the spread of innovations or fashions.
Nevertheless, our study is admittedly exploratory. We placed
no restrictions on the context under which the social comparison of
possessions took place, yet the emotions elicited by these types of
comparisons could vary widely depending on where they took place
and what type of product was involved. Further, memory biases
may have influenced the sort of experiences that subjects recalled.
IMPUCATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH
An examination of social comparisons of products may help
explain the dynamics of any context within which product repurchase
takes place, such as new product adoption the spread of fashions or
fads, and problem recognition. Consumers frequently repurchase
products, even though they still own usable alternatives. Perhaps a
consumer who already owns a need-satisfying product can become
dissatisfied with that product, becoming needy again.
Much consumer adoption of new products, fashions or brands
may be driven by the feelings that result from comparisons of one
individual with another. In fact, social comparisons of products
may help explain the coefficient of imitation that is used to explain
the diffusion of innovations. The diffusion literature has focused on
several dimensions of social influence on imitation in the adoption
of new products. These include communication of information
(Gatignon and Robertson 1991), conformity leading to imitation
(Mahajan and Muller 1979) and more recently peer approval
(Fisher and Price 1992). The negative feelings resulting from
seeing other consumers possess the desired product or brand rnay be
another potent source of desire to imitate.
Finally, while the problem recognition literature implies that
needs for products and the stimulation of a search and choice
process are driven by product dissatisfaction or novel acquisition
needs, our results suggest the possibility that the problem recognition
process is stimulated by social as opposed to product, need or
product performance sources. Further study of the role of social
comparisons in the problem recognition process is warranted.
REFERENCES
Alain, Michel (1985), "An Empirical Validation of Relative
Deprivation," Human Relations, 38 (August), 739-749.
Amould, Eric and Linda L. Price (1993), "River Magic:
Extraordinary Experience and the Extended Service
Encounter," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 2445.
Barnes, Jonathan, Ed. (1984), The Complete Works of Aristotle,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bers, Susan A. and Judith Rodin (1984), "Social-Comparison
Jealousy: A Developmental and Motivational Study,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (October),
766-779.
Burke, Marian Chapman and Julie A. Edell (1989), "The Impact
of Feelings on Ad-Based Affect and Cognition," Journal of
Marketing Research, 36 (February), 69-83.
Childers, Terry L. and Akshay R. Rao (1992), "The Influence of
Familial and Peer-based Reference Groups on Consumer
Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September),
198-211.
Cialdini, Robert B. (1993), "Influence: Science and Practice,"
New York: Harper Collins College Publishers: New York.
Cohen, Joel B. and Charles S. Areni (1991), "Affect and
Consumer Behavior," in Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H.
Kassarjian (eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 188-241.
Crosby, Faye (1976), "A Model of Egoistical Relative Depriva­
tion," Psychological Review, 83 (March), 85-113.
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. and Craig A. Smith (1988), "From
Appraisal to Emotion: Differences Among Unpleasant
Feelings,'' Motivation and Emotion, 12 (September), 271302.
Fisher, Robert and David Ackerman (1998), "The Effects of
Recognition and Group Need on Volunteer Participation: A
Social Norm Perspective,'' Journal of Consumer Research,
25 (December), 262-275.
Fisher, Robert and Linda Price (1992), "An Investigation into the
Social Context of Early Adoption Behavior,'' Journal of
Consumer Research, 19 (December), 477-487.
Folkes, Valerie S. and Tina Kiesler (1991), "Social Cognition:
Consumers' Inferences about the Self and Others," in
Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian (eds.),
Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 188-241.
(1984), "Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An
Attributional Approach,'' Journal of Consumer Research, 10
(March), 398-409.
Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson (1985), "A
Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research,''
Journal of Consumer Research, 849-868.
Holbrook, Morris B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), "The
Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies,
Feelings, and Fun", Journal of Consumer Research, 9
(September), 132-140.
Kenrick, Douglas T., Sara E. Gutierres and Laurie L. Goldberg
(1989), "Influence of Popular Erotica on Judgements of
Strangers and Mates,'' Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 25 (March) 159-167.
and Sara E. Gutierres (1980), "Contrast Effects in
Judgements of Attractiveness: When Beauty Becomes a
Social Problem," Journal of Personality and Social Psychol­
ogy, 38 (January), 131-140.
Krishnamurthy, Sandeep and Deborah Macinnis (1995), "A
Contingency Framework of Want Formation: The Role of
Felt Deprivation Construct," Working Paper.
Lazarus, Richard S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, New York:
Oxford University Press.
and Craig A. Smith (1988), "Knowledge and Appraisal
in the Cognition Emotion Relationship,'' Cognition and
Emotion, 2 (December), 281-300.
Mahajan, Vijay and Eitan Muller (1979), "Innovation Diffusion
and New Product Growth Models in Marketing,'' Journal of
Marketing, 43 (Fall), 55-68.
Martin, Judith. (1981), "Relative Deprivation: A Theory of
Distributive Injustice for an Era of Shrinking Resources," in
Barry M. Shaw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior, vol. 3: 53-107. Greenwich, CN.:
JAI Press.
___
___
__
178 I Social Comparisons ofPossessions: When It Feels Good and When It Feels Bad
Neu, Joyce (1980), "Jealous Thoughts," in Amelie Osenberg
Rorty (Ed.), Explaining Emotions, Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Oliver, Richard L. (1993), "Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute
Bases of the Satisfaction Response," Journal of Consumer
Research, 20 (December), 418-430.
(1980), "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and
Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions," Journal of
Marketing Research, 18 (November), 460-469.
Parrott, W. Gerrod (1991), "The Emotional Experiences of Envy
and Jealousy," in Peter Salovey (Ed.) The Psychology of
Envy and Jealousy, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Pleban, Robert J. and Abraham Tesser (1981), "The Effects fo
Relevance and Quality and Another's Performance on
Interpersonal Closeness," Social Psychology Quarterly, 44
(September), 278-285.
Richins, Marsha L. (1997), "Measuring Emotions in the
Consumption Experience," Journal of Consumer Research,
24 (September), 127-146.
(1995), "Social Comparison, Advertising, and Consumer
Discontent," American Behavioral Scientist, 4 (February),
593-607.
(1991), "Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of
Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 7183.
Roseman, Ira J., Ann Aliki Antoniou and Paul E. Jose (1996),
"Appraisal Determinants of Emotions: Constructing a More
Accurate and Comprehensive Theory," Cognition and
Emotion, 10 (May), 241-277.
Runciman, W.G. (1966), Relative Deprivation and Social
Justice, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Salovey, Peter and Judith Rodin (1991), "Provoking Jealousy
and Envy: Domain Relevance and Self-Esteem Threat,"
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10 (Winter), 395413.
Sandell, Rolf (1993), "Envy and Admiration," International
Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 74 (Part 6), 1213-1221.
Scholl, Richard W., Elizabeth A. Cooper and Jack F. McKenna
(1987), "Referent Selection in Determining Equity Percep­
tions: Differential Effects on Behavioral and Attitudinal
Outcomes," Personnel Psychology, 40 (Spring), 113-124.
Smith, Craig A., Kelly N. Haynes, Richard S. Lazarus, and Lois
K. Pope (1993), "In Search of "Hot" Cognitions: Attribu­
tions, Appraisals, and Their Relation to Emotion," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (November), 916-929.
and Phoebe. C. Ellsworth (1987), "Patterns of Appraisal
and Emotion Related to Taking an Exam," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (March), 475-488.
Sweeney, Paul D., Dean B. McFarlin and Edward J.
lnderridieden (1990), "Using Relative Deprivation Theory to
Explain Satisfaction With Income and Pay Level: A Multi­
study Examination," Academy of Management Journal, 33
(June), 423-436.
Taylor, Shelley E., Wood, Joanne V., Lichtman, Rosemary R.
(1983), "It Could Be Worse: Selective Evaluation as a
Response to Victimization," Journal of Social Issues, 39
(Summer), 19-40.
Tesser, Abraham (1990), "Smith and Ellsworth's Appraisal
Model of Emotion: A Replication, Extension and Test,"
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16 (June), 210233.
__
___
___
__
Murray Millar and Janet Moore (1988), "Some
Affective Consequences of Social Comparison and Reflec­
tion Processes: The Pain and Pleasure of Being Close,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (January),
49-61.
and Jennifer Campbell (1980), "Self-Definition: The
Impact of Relative Performance and Similarity of Others,"
Social Psychology Quarterly, 43 (September), 341-347.
Walker, lain, and Thomas Pettigrew (1984), "Relative Depriva­
tion Theory: An Overview and Conceptual Critique," British
Journal of Social Psychology, 23 (November), 301-310.
Weiner, Bernard (1986), "Attribution, Emotion, and Action," in
Richard M. Sorrentino and E. Tory Higgins (eds.), Handbook
of Motivation and Cognition, New York, NY: Guilford Press,
281-312.
Westbrook, Robert A. and Richard L. Oliver (1991), "The
Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Patterns and
Consumer Satisfaction," Journal of Consumer Research, 18
(June), 84-91.
Woodruff, Robert B., Ernest R. Cadotte and Roger L. Jenkins
(1983), "Modeling Consumer Satisfaction Processes Using
Experience-Based Norms," Journal of Marketing Research,
20 (August), 296-304.
Yi, Youjae (1993), "The Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction:
The Moderating Role of Ambiguity," Advances in Consumer
Research, 20, 502-506.
_,
__